Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment of the debate last night I was discussing the negative, misleading conduct of the hon. member for Orange Grove. I now wish to leave the hon. member at that.

I wish to repeat that the budget as tabled by the hon. the Minister reflects the achievements of the Railways Administration over the past year. As I have already said I wish to confine myself for a few minutes to the S.A. Airways. One of the aspects not touched on by a single hon. member of the Opposition is the S.A. Airways. Up to now I have not been able to ascertain the reason, although I should very much like to know why they have evaded discussion of this aspect of the S.A. Railways and Harbours, although the fact is that the S.A. Airways has shown a profit.

On 7 March this year the hon. the Minister said that the finances of the S.A. Airways, to which he referred last year, had recovered during the first nine months of the present financial year and that this recovery had been maintained throughout. What is the effect of this? This is a question we would be justified in asking ourselves. The effect is that the surplus amounts to R31,9 million as against an expected surplus of R1,1 million. Now we would be justified in asking what this success is ascribable to. There are various factors which could be taken into account in assessing the success achieved here. However, I want to elucidate only a few of them.

In doing so I wish to request the official Opposition please to listen. They are, after all, the people who have always tried in the past and are still trying to disparage the hon. the Minister in all kinds of ways. In speeches in this House they always say that there is no farsightedness, no planning and no efficiency. I wish to ascribe this success achieved to the far-sightedness, the planning and the efficiency of the hon. the Minister, the General Manager of the Railways and the able staff of the Railways Administration.

The S.A. Airways undertakes regular flights to all the remote comers of the earth. Aircraft of the S.A. Airways are a well-known sight at all airports throughout the world, throughout the whole of Europe, North and South America, Australia, the Far East and in countries bordering on the Republic. Despite attacks by the Opposition, an efficient fleet of craft is in operation. We will also remember that in the past, when aircraft were purchased, it was always said that the Government was again wasting the money of the country. Here, however, we have proof that we are now reaping the benefits of the purchase of those aircraft. However, no mention is made of that success.

We have noted with appreciation that the services of our fleet of aircraft are to be extended. From 1 April this year the weekly flights to Europe and New York will be increased. From November more flights to London will be undertaken as well. Due to the extension of these services the existing fleet of aircraft as such cannot do the work expected of them. They are not capable of carrying those tremendous loads. Once again the future was considered. Once again a decision was taken to purchase two additional Boeing 747 jets in order to meet the needs. During the 1977-’78 financial year the number of passengers increased by 1,6%. The revenue for the year increased by 22,8%. That is why I make the statement that we are dealing here with an administration that looks ahead. Indeed, up to now we have had evidence of phenomenal expansion and improvement. With the purchase of these two extra aircraft the number of aircraft in our fleet is being increased to 40. This at once ensures the Railways Administration of a higher income.

Now, however, there is a question to be asked. In the short time at my disposal I should like to deal with it here. Why is the S.A. Airways so popular? No one can deny that.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Durban Central would do well to listen since he too travels by air. If he open his ears he will also hear people from overseas saying that our air service is among the best in the world. Hon. members cannot deny it, however much they may want to. One can ask what the reason for this is. Why is the service of the S.A. Airways so popular?

I am going to mention a few things briefly. The first is the training of staff. I want to go so far as to say that the training of staff in the S.A. Airways is among the best in the world. Refresher courses are regularly offered and discipline is very good. This means that the S.A. Airways is the safest in the world. It is not only I who say so. Expressions of praise also come from overseas people who make use of the S.A. Airways. What do those people who travel the world say about the staff on our aircraft? They say that the airline staff of the S.A. Airways are among the best ambassadors for our country. In the second place they say that the staff are friendly, helpful and fully informed. I should like to pay tribute to these people. I should like to come back to this aspect again during the Committee Stage to say something further about it and to ask something in regard to these people who man our aircraft.

I conclude by saying that we shall stand by the hon. the Minister as the head of this giant organization at all times and under all circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had a lot to say and he will pardon me if I do not react to everything he said. Unfortunately I was unable to hear half of his speech clearly in any case. He made a point of forward planning by the S.A. Railways and Harbours. We appreciate the extent to which it is indeed being done, but there is still considerable room for improvement with regard to certain aspects.

As far as the transportation of livestock is concerned, mention was made of the introduction of double and even triple decker trucks for the transportation of small stock. During recent years the S.A. Railways has suffered enormous losses as a result of the decrease in the utilization of its services for the transportation of livestock because of enormous tariff increases. Consequently these double and triple decker trucks which are now being made available are obviously a good idea. The question may be asked, however, why they are only being put into operation now. To my mind this is an indication of the type of scientific long-term planning which is needed in every sphere, but which one unfortunately does not find in many spheres of the Railways Administration. Appeals have been made by hon. members on the opposite side of the House for a certain measure of control to be introduced, possibly by legislation, as far as competition with the S.A. Railways is concerned. This applies to competition by the private sector. I want to say at once that great care should be taken before any control of such a nature is introduced. I shall probably be unable to support such control. The S.A. Railways must simply come forward and regain the initiative in the sphere of transport, especially where it has lost the initiative to the private sector. The way in which this can happen is obvious. If the Railways provides the best service there is no question of the private sector ousting the Railways from its leading role in the transport industry in South Africa.

Another aspect to which I should like to refer briefly at this stage concerns the planning of railway lines and the infrastructure of South Africa in general. In this regard one cannot hold it solely against the Railways that its planning is sometimes not what it ought to be, but it should also be regarded as the Government’s fault generally. In this regard I specifically want to mention the Sishen/Saldanha railway line. To my mind it is a tragedy for the people of the North-west Cape that a railway line of more than 1 000 km runs right across the Northwest Cape without being of any use at all to that area. Some time ago I put a question to the hon. the Minister with regard to loading points, stations and sidings on that railway line. There is only one loading point between Sishen and Saldanha, and that over a distance of 1 000 km. It is obvious that that line, as part of the complete railway infrastructure in South Africa, means very little to the local area. At this stage the railway line is still worth a great deal as an ore transport line, but should the mine be worked out or the demand for our iron ore decrease at some stage or another, that line will become a “ghost line”—if such a thing exists.

I should like to refer to the important aspect, i.e. passenger services. By their nature passenger services are, quite rightly, termed socio-economic. The hon. the Minister indicated in his report that these services are of a socio-economic nature, that they cause the Railways heavy losses and that they therefore deserve the serious consideration of everyone involved in them. At this stage this matter deserves, more specifically, the consideration of a special committee appointed for this purpose. In this regard, however, I should like to give a warning: We must be careful that the passenger services of the Railways do not become a so-called whipping boy to such an extent that it is unfair. In this regard I refer to two aspects which in my opinion deserve attention. The first is the question of the issuing of free passes to Railway staff, and the use of those free passes. The position is quite simply that the issuing of those free passes to Railway staff is to the benefit of the whole Railways Administration, wherever those members of staff are employed. It may be regarded as an additional payment to those people for the services they render. On the other hand we must bear in mind that these free passes are simply debited against the passenger services division. It is a loss suffered by passenger services, but a benefit donated to the whole Railways Administration.

Another aspect we have to bear in mind and which might be relevant in this regard is the question of advertisements. The Railways earns a considerable income from advertisements put up along our railway lines. We should seriously bear in mind that should we reduce our passenger services, that income from advertisements will be forfeited. Advertisements along our railway lines will then become absolutely absurd. All these aspects depend on the continued existence and maintenance of the standard of our passenger services as they are at this stage.

An aspect of our passenger services of which we should take note—the hon. the Minister also referred to this—is that there is a tendency for the more expensive passenger services to become less popular and that the demand for them is decreasing while the demand for the cheaper third-class passenger services, especially suburban passenger services, is increasing. This tendency is clearly a tendency which will harm certain sections of the Railways, but there is also an enormous potential advantage in this tendency. This tendency is quite understandable though because transport has become an expensive item in the domestic budget of every individual or organization in South Africa. This potential advantage for the Administration as a whole lies in the fact that if the public is going to rationalize its utilization of transport, the Railways as the provider of the cheapest form of passenger transport, will benefit enormously from that in the sense that the Administration simply has to gain the best part of the market, and increasingly so. This is, however, a potential advantage and the Railways Administration will have to ensure that it uses this potential to the full.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to appeal to the public of South Africa once again to consider making better use of the Railways and other public transport services. There is little doubt that we in South Africa have been in a privileged position until now because we could afford the more comfortable but far more expensive forms of transport. That time is passing quickly. We are simply being forced to make increased use of public transport and to give up our old ways.

Only a little while ago the price of petrol went up by 20%. The prices of motor-cars, of spares and repairs to motor-cars have escalated to such an extent that a large section of the public who used to take ownership of a motor-car for granted, are no longer able to run a motor-car. There is a huge question mark against the whole question of the future availability of petrol. Parking costs and parking problems are getting out of hand. All these factors force us into the direction of a greater rationalization with regard to transport requirements and this will undoubtedly lead to greater use of Railway transport.

Therefore the time has now arrived for the Railways Administration to make its service as attractive as possible and I ask that consideration be given to a publicity and promotion campaign to encourage increased utilization of public transport in the present climate. Such a campaign could be based on the hard facts and figures, the convincing statistics which exist to prove why it would be more advantageous for the travelling public to turn to the Railways. Such a campaign should not only mention the mainline luxury services, but especially the cheaper services, and more particularly the suburban transport services. Everyone has already seen to what extent our mainline luxury services, e.g. the Blue Train, the Drakensberg and other first-class services, are being advertised and promoted. In my opinion very little is being done to promote our suburban services. Very little is being done to explain to the public how economically meaningful it is to use public transport. In view of what I have said, the Administration should at this juncture exercise care with regard to the cancellation or even the reduction of passenger services. If ever there was a time when the vicious circle of a trend away from public transport can be broken, it is now. There should be a return trend in the direction of public transport. All the factors which could contribute to this, are present. The pressure is there from all quarters to encourage the public to make greater use of public transport. Cancellation of passenger services at this stage might result in an inability to use this opportunity. I believe that our passenger services may in time even become completely profitable if the services as they are now, are maintained; if a continuous effort is made to improve them and if the opportunities we are now being afforded are utilized.

Another aspect which I want to warn against, is a rates increase especially passenger service rates. This would be fatal. The whole climate for greater increased utilization of our rail passenger services is favourable at the moment and it would be regrettable if any negative factor is created which could make the public decide that they would rather use their own private transport again.

Now I come to the socio-economic aspect of passenger services. I believe that it is inevitable that there will always be a socio-economic factor in the provision of passenger services by an organization such as the Railways in South Africa. There is, however, little doubt that a considerable part of these socio-economic services can be avoided.

†A very large number of the socio-economic services are, in fact, wasted, and unnecessarily so. However, let us first look at those aspects that are inevitable. A very large section of the South African population is poor. In fact, some of those people are desperately poor, and in order to integrate them effectively into our economy, and to expose them to better opportunities for self-improvement and for rendering service to their communities and their country, we have to provide transport services at a price those people can afford.

A second factor that deserves attention is that many parts of our country are poor in the sense that there is very little industrial activity, that there is a very low level of overall economic activity, that the areas are sparsely populated, that there is a lack of natural resources, that they are far removed from industrial centres, etc. If, however, the S.A. Railways were to apply purely economic standards to those areas, the Railways would have to withdraw certain services, thus further contributing to the decline of the outlying districts. It is sometimes necessary for a service institution like the Railways initially just to show tolerance towards such areas, in the difficult times they may temporarily be going through, so as to tide them over to a more prosperous period of their development. The sudden withdrawal of services and transport facilities, and everything that goes hand in hand with that, could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in such difficult periods as these.

Now I come to a third and very important aspect of the socio-economic nature of passenger services. I am referring to the kind of service brought into being by ideological influences. To put it very bluntly, apartheid is costing the S.A. Railways a lot of money, as it is costing every other Government department a lot of money. The extra burdens placed on the transport services by apartheid legislation in this country are enormous. Rules of urban and regional planning, applicable all over the world in order to minimize the reliance on transport, have been chucked overboard left, right and centre, thus aggravating our transport dilemma.

Let us take just two examples very close to where we are sitting now. I am referring to the two towns of Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis. Obviously these are very nice residential areas for the Coloured people to live in, and there is much to be admired in the internal planning of these areas. They have, however, been placed in the middle of nowhere, for reasons of apartheid, and transport is a nightmare to every single person living there, and can only become more so in the future. Thank heaven a new railway line to Mitchell’s Plain is under construction! This will alleviate the situation in that area to some extent. In dealing with this budget we have to enter the cost of the railway line to Mitchell’s Plain on the already huge apartheid account, because if there were no such thing as legalized apartheid, those areas would have been right here, close to us, properly integrated, to a very great extent, with the existing infrastructure.

Such problems, I must add, are rife throughout South Africa. If they apply to the Coloured people of the Western Cape, they apply even more so to the Black people in other areas of the country. The degree to which Government members are out of touch with reality, as far as this is concerned, is borne out by what was said a couple of years ago by one of the members on the other side when he mentioned the possibility of using Jumbo jets to transport people from the homelands, over a distance of about 100 km, to Pretoria and Johannesburg on a daily shuttle-service basis.

Where is that being done?

Such is the degree of unreality that prevails amongst those hon. members. Nobody can tell us that these situations come about merely as a result of decentralization because, if that were the case, I would be the first person to back it. I am very much in favour of decentralization, but it has to make economic sense in order to be successful in the long run. As we know so well, apartheid and economic sense never meet.

Not only is the S.A. Railways the victim of apartheid to the extent I have just outlined, but it also practises apartheid itself. In this respect it will suffice just to pose one question: How much lower could rail tariffs not be today and how much more profitably could the Railways Administration not operate if it was not necessary to provide different stations in major centres for different races, to duplicate every facility, to have double-length platforms at small stations and to run half empty White coaches while non-White coaches overflow to the point where people have to be turned away? It is therefore abundantly clear that there are aspects of our socio-economic passenger services that can be overcome in future. I must express the hope that the Franzsen Committee will identify these aspects as such and, moreover, that the Railways Administration and, in fact, the Government will be prepared to eliminate these wasteful practices in the interests not only of economic sense but also of better relations.

You are completely off the rails.

If this is not done, the result of the committee’s work may well be merely to have some other Government department foot the bill and compensate the Railways which, in the final instance, will not make the least bit of difference to the pocket of the South African taxpayer and the pocket of the user of the Railways’ transport services.

*I believe that if consideration is given in a meaningful way to all these problems, if there is an in-depth inquiry into them, if we are prepared to commit ourselves at this stage to what one may describe as an act of faith not to downgrade our passenger services at this stage, but to keep them on a respectable level and even improve them, and if, furthermore, we are prepared to make a special effort to allow the Railways to take its rightful place by giving publicity to the importance of public transport, we might be able to get a budget in the House shortly in which there is no question of a falling off in the demand for transport services, or of tariff increases which will be introduced immediately or shortly afterwards, but which would, in fact, be aimed at a healthy surplus. Only then will the battle have been won and will the Railways be able to maintain itself not through tariff increases, but by regaining the initiative which will once again place it in the forefront of transport services in South Africa, where, indeed, it belongs.

Mr. Speaker, I think the House fully expected to hear what the hon. member for Green Point said towards the end of his speech, because his obsession with race and race issues and his belief in a completely integrated society in South Africa are things we are aware of. I am therefore not going to allow myself to be diverted along those lines. The hon. member well knows where we stand and where I personally stand. I do, however, want to say to the hon. member for Green Point that he did come with a very good suggestion and made a worthwhile appeal to the public. He appealed to the public to make more use of public transport and particularly the Railways in the times in which we find ourselves at present. While I support the hon. member’s appeal, I must at the same time point out to him that the leading Railways spokesman on that side of the House, the hon. member for Orange Grove, was less than interested in what he had to say. His argument was a complete divergence from the line taken by the hon. member for Green Point, who took the line that we should do a major rethink on passenger services. Of course, he did not go on to say what it should be.

I think this debate on the most important and largest single undertaking in our country starkly reveals the complete bankruptcy of the Opposition. Not a single thought, idea or opinion was expressed in regard to transport policy or on the way the transport system should be developed in South Africa, particularly in so far as the Railways are concerned. They are obsessed with race concepts and if it had not been for the activities of the defunct Department of Information, they would sit here completely bankrupt of anything to say this session. I took the trouble to research the speeches of the hon. member for Orange Grove. It was hard work and it took me the whole weekend. The speech the hon. member made here yesterday as the leading speaker in the Opposition benches on Railway matters, was merely a rehash of the speeches he made in the last three years. As a matter of fact, he even abandoned what little positive thinking they attempted to express in the past two years. He completely abandoned the arguments he put to this House at length in 1977 and 1978 that the Railway organization was too big and unwieldy and should be split up into four separate and completely independent departments. That has gone out of the window.

It has not.

After he described this budget as a “good news” budget, he took fright, because all over South Africa people were thinking that he as the chief spokesman of the official Opposition was endorsing the policies of the Government by saying that the hon. the Minister had presented a first-class budget, a budget which was good news to South Africa. So he took fright and then started to call it a “good news, bad news” budget. What arguments did he use to endorse his concept of a “good news, bad news” budget? He said there was uncertainty as to whether there would ba tariff increases in the future or not. I believe that before the hon. member rose to address us in the House yesterday, he had not even bothered to read the General Manager’s report, because if he had done so, he would not have come with the silly arguments he put forward here yesterday. He presented the thesis that road haulage by diesel-powered vehicles was cheaper than rail haulage by diesel locomotives. This was the basis of his argument why it was a “bad news” budget. If the hon. member had done his homework and had bothered to take the trouble to read the report of the General Manager on the latest operating year of the Railways, he would have found the facts on page 11.

Is that as far as you got?

I know that the hon. member has less than any interest in Railway matters. On page 11 of the report it is stated very clearly that—

Yet the hon. member says that this is a “bad news” budget. He argues that in a critical period where there is a shortage of oil as a source of energy, it is obviously in the national interest, particularly with available transport, to restrict road-motor haulage.

I want to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that after the hon. member for Orange Grove had finished addressing the House only four hon. members of the official Opposition remained, and I think the time has arrived that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should seek another chief spokesman on Railway matters.

I should now like to turn to the chief spokesman of the National Republic Party, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

What is keeping your ears apart?

If the hon. member does not like “National”, I substitute “New”. I have researched the hon. member for Amanzimtoti’s profound utterances in regard to matters relating to the Railways over a period of three sessions.

Let us hear what you have to say about it.

Coupled with his what I might term “gambler’s” speech in this debate, I get the impression, and I think other hon. members on this side of the House also got that impression, that he is pruning himself for the job of General Manager or, alternatively, if he cannot attain those heights, he is pruning himself for the job of chief economic adviser to the Railways.

What about the job of Minister?

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has many beliefs. The trend right throughout his speech is that he believes in this, that he believes in that and then in something else. One of his great beliefs is that the Railways is a necessary evil in the economy of South Africa, that it is not a profit centre, but an economic parasite on South Africa, especially on the wealthearning sectors of our economy. Is the hon. member now running away from that belief, which he has stated so often in this House?

No.

Just like the hon. member for Orange Grove, we heard no word from this hon. gentleman either in the interest of the Railwaymen of South Africa.

Did you read the amendment?

I have read and heard his speech. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also claims that there is inefficiency and low productive levels amongst the staff, and that the staff complement of 117 000 Whites and 151 000 non-Whites are underemployed, or if not underemployed, then certainly not productively employed. He makes that claim in the light of the capital expenditures of the past years. I do not want to quote all the percentages with which the hon. member inundated the House in substantiating his argument To prove his figures, he has done some homework with his little pocket calculator. He has quoted figures to us showing the revenue earned per employee and the capital expenditure per employee, and then arrives at the fallacious conclusion of low productivity because of these high percentages. I wonder if the hon. member for Parktown, who we all know is a director of one of the largest and most powerful mining companies in South Africa, would assess the profitability of his company’s gold mines or of the whole mining industry on the basis of capital expenditure per employee. I suggest that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti should have a chat with the hon. member for Parktown. A realistic assessment would be to measure the traffic carried per employee on the Railways. That would be a realistic estimate. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by quoting total staff complements over the years and the total tonnage hauled, except to give a summary, a factual summary. To move 10 million gross tons per kilometre in 1957-’58 took an average of 30 employees of all races. Ten years later, in 1967-’68, to move the same 10 million gross ton kilometres took 17 employees. That means 17 employees per 10 million gross ton kilometres. In 1977-’78 it took 14 employees to perform the same task. Therefore, it is an improvement of over 100% in productivity and in efficiency. Obviously, this could never have been achieved without the required capital expenditure and technological improvements of which we are all aware and which we have so graphically illustrated in the General Manager’s annual report. These are factual figures, not something conjured from a pocket calculator carried in his pocket by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. [Interjections.]

That is all I need. I need nothing more than that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to waste any of my time referring to the publicity seeking and time-bomb-scare type of speech delivered here by the hon. member for Constantia.

What sort of time-bomb? [Interjections.] I have not spoken in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, let me rather refer to the “drunken Indian” ravings of the hon. member for East London North. His time was so limited that he never even had the opportunity of making his point.

If anything, this budget is a confidence budget. The hon. the Minister budgeted for a deficit of some R270 million, including the extra levy on fuel. He decided not to increase tariffs, but to rely instead on South Africa’s economic endeavour in all fields in order to balance the books of the Railway Administration. A national growth figure of 3,5% would actually mean an increase of 4,2% in the volume of high-rated traffic, and 5,1% in low-rated traffic, with a satisfactory growth rate in airways, harbours and passenger services. It is a budget drawn up on a foundation of full confidence in the South African economy.

Where the Railways are the largest commercial and industrial undertaking and the largest employer this way of budgeting by the hon. the Minister inspires us with a degree of confidence which can only lead to industry and commerce in South Africa being stimulated. I say this specifically, and I quote these figures specifically, because my attention was drawn to an article in the Sunday Times, written by their financial soothsayer, Mr. Steven Mulholland. This article appeared under the heading “We are being railroaded by the Government”. Now, we know that this gentleman is probably one of the chief financial advisers to the official Opposition. Mr. Steven Mulholland, an avowed critic of the Government, almost falls, I believe, into the category of a “Boerehater”, particularly if one reads his articles over a period of time. Every week he disperses financial advice to all and sundry. He argues that if tariffs had been increased there would have been thousands of moans and cries, especially from the official Opposition, about the disastrous consequences to the economy and the results thereof on increasing inflation in our country. Now that tariffs have not been increased this gentleman of the Sunday Times this financial soothsayer, writes—

He goes on to say—

The hon. the Minister has already taken steps to curtail the losses on passenger services by equating passenger services supply with demand. This is resulting in the cancellation of certain services. Therefore it is self-evident that if both main line and suburban services are operated at full capacity, revenue would so increase as to reduce losses considerably on these services.

I wonder what this reporter would have said if tariffs had been raised. Does the Sunday Times want that the passenger fares should be so levelled as to cover the costs of these services? I think this was one of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove at a certain stage. Despite tariff increases during the past three years, it is still interesting to look at the cost to the public of these services, both main line and suburban, during the past three years as offered by the S.A. Railways. Travel on South African trains, both main line and suburban, is still the cheapest in the world. There is no comparison. Suburban rail travel on a first-class return ticket costs 1,9 cents a kilometre. We hear a lot from the hon. member for Green Point about the burden allegedly placed on the Railways as a result of the so-called apartheid policies. But suburban travel for third-class passengers costs only a ½ cent per kilometre. It costs the Railways R8 a kilometre to operate an eight-coach suburban train. At peak hours these costs are barely covered by the Railways.

The fact must be faced that the decline during the last book year in both suburban and main line passenger journeys is likely to be reversed, not only because of improved economic conditions, but also because of the high cost of private vehicle travel due to the fuel restrictions and the high cost of fuel.

I am certain that John Citizen will turn more to railway travel in the circumstances of today. One fact is clear, and that is that passenger traffic and adequate services in this regard are essential in a country such as South Africa where long distances are travelled. To supply the travel needs of a multi-national society, the continuation of these services by the S.A. Railways are absolutely essential, particularly in regard to the travel requirements of our non-White citizens. If the non-White too will play an ever greater role in the operation of the S.A. Railways his future is inevitable. What is also inevitable, is that his skills will improve and that his status as a railwayman will be recognized in the future. This is already evident by just taking a glance at the General Manager’s report. The non-White citizen in our country is becoming to recognize himself in many spheres of job satisfaction as a true railwayman of South Africa.

There are three other important aspects, as shown clearly in this budget and also by the speech made by the hon. the Minister. Firstly, the hon. the Minister has emphasized the manpower aspect of Railway efficiency. He referred to the establishment of a manpower department to identify the potential capacity of the workers, to establish management ability and to establish adequate training in all fields, particularly in the professional aspects of personnel management. This shines right through his speech. The second most important aspect is the emphasis on the morale of the work force of the S.A. Railways by granting them salary increases and by supplying adequate housing for them. In the hon. the Minister’s budget speech he also gives recognition to the important role played by non-White workers in that he granted larger wage increases to those workers on the lower income group scales, with a view to closing the wage gap even further. This in itself recognizes the rising of standards of the non-White workers on the Railways.

There is another aspect which I am glad to say is very noticeable. I think an hon. member of the Opposition mentioned it cursorily, i.e. the very important step that the hon. the Minister has taken by assuring our national servicemen who join the South African Railways that they would not be discriminated against because of the two years of service that they have given to their country. I think this is generally welcomed all over. Another aspect relates to the importance of management in such a vast undertaking. The emphasis in this report and in the hon. the Minister’s speech has been placed on scientific management, i.e. management by objective in order to neutralize cost increases, to establish management courses and to hold seminars to motivate personnel correctly. If personnel is not motivated by the management, then efficiency inevitably suffers. In other words, this budget recognizes the fact that in spite of the acquisition of the best equipment and in spite of the development in the latest technology, in the last resort all these developments are dependent on the human factor, the quality and the training of the labour force employed by the Railways. We have come a long way since the days when a job in the Railways, particularly for the lower-paid railworker, was considered as a form of sheltered employment. I remember those days, and the debates that took place here in the House during those days. We have come a long way since then and the railway workers have shown a remarkable degree of responsibility in their demands. Unlike the official Opposition they do recognize the national importance of our transport system. When appeals for restraint in wage claims have been made by the Management and by the hon. the Minister, there has always been a responsible response from the staff associations. This is so simply because of the high degree of trust that exists between railwaymen, the Government and the hon. the Minister. Nowhere in South Africa would the official Opposition, the PFP, find a single railwayman supporting their party. [Interjections.] I invite the hon. member for Orange Grove to come and address a meeting in any railway centre together with me. I doubt whether he would even get a chance to speak. They cannot produce one member who will go to a railway centre to put their point of view and their policy before those people. [Interjections.]

I accept your challenge.

The PFP’s official spokesman on Railway matters, the hon. member for Orange Grove, has not spoken one good word or one word of praise for the railwaymen of South Africa in 1978 or in 1979. He can ask them. All he said was that this organization was losing money because it is inefficient and its workers are inefficient.

When did I say that?

He says the Railways have inadequate productivity levels. In the words of the man in the street he is really saying that railwaymen loaf on the job.

What you are now saying is untrue as I have said nothing of the sort.

I think that nowhere else in the world …

Your speech is a tissue of untruths.

… can such pride be seen in their jobs as one finds with the railwaymen of South Africa in the jobs they do. They have pride in their job, pride in their status and pride in their skills. Without this factor, management at all levels, in spite of the scientific management by objective approaches, would not have been able to achieve the results they have achieved and which have brought the Railways to the position they hold in our national economy today.

I want very briefly to raise two other points. I want to refer, firstly, to the role of rail transportation in Southern Africa. I think the House should be grateful to the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for the outline and the historical background he gave of railway development in Southern Africa. We on these benches believe that with our multi-national policy we will still see the development of an economic community of independent States in Southern Africa. That will be the end result of the multi-national policy of the Government. Railway development in Southern Africa, as history reveals and as was graphically illustrated by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, has always pioneered the development and exploitation of Southern Africa’s natural resources. Mineral resources cannot be exploited without adequate rail transportation. With the increasing exploitation of natural resources in our developing neighbouring States in Africa we have much to offer them as far as knowledge, know-how and expertise are concerned. As has been reported by the hon. the Minister and the General Manager of the S.A. Railways, there is already a great deal of co-operation with certain States on our borders. I believe, however, that the time has arrived that a special study should be made, not only in regard to assistance and help to our neighbours with planning, but, if possible, also in regard to direct aid. In this regard, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not now arrived when a special section under a departmental head in the General Manager’s office should be set up to consider the possibility of direct aid programmes to the developing States on our borders, based on a policy of good neighbourliness, and also to undertake studies of whatever aid and assistance we can render. Transportation in Southern Africa is a vital factor, not only to our neighbours, but also to ourselves on account of the benefits which can be derived from it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give this suggestion some consideration.

Finally, I want to refer very briefly to the electrification policy. The hon. the Minister has stated that in terms of departmental planning approximately 80% of traffic will be hauled by electric power in four to five years’ time. From the strategic point of view, as from all other points of view, continuing electrification is absolutely essential. I do not think anybody will dispute this. On page 11 of the annual report of the S.A. Railways and Harbours for 1977-’78, it is reported that it is estimated, based on 1979-’80 values, that the electrification of an additional 2 600 km will bring about a capital expenditure of R450 million. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, nothing much remains for me to say to the Opposition after the hon. member for Von Brandis steamed in among them like a steam-roller, rode over them and flattened them completely. Since the first railway line of 3,2 km was opened between Durban and Durban Point on 26 June 1860, the S.A. Railways has made its mark on the geographical map of South Africa. From the modest beginnings of the Railways, 120 years ago up to the present, the S.A. Railways has developed into the largest transport organization in Africa and one of the largest transport undertakings in the world. The Railways has developed into an undertaking with a capital investment of R413 000 million, with a total budget of R5 000 million, with a revenue of R2 361 million and a total of approximately 260 000 employees. Measured against any standards this organization, which has come into being during the past 120 years, is one of the biggest of its kind in the world.

Let us look back over those 120 years. When we take that period into account, we can state with a great deal of certainty that South Africa’s successes in the agricultural, economical, mining and industrial spheres is largely attributable to the successes of its silent partner, the S.A. Railways. Seen from a certain angle, I am not far wrong when I say that the S.A. Railways is the life-blood of the South African economy. It is the backbone of industry and mining and in agriculture it is as indispensable as the Land Bank itself. It has developed into a strategic industry in South Africa. In the particular economic climate in which we find ourselves today, there is, to my mind, one question on the lips of everyone sitting in this House, and the hon. member for Von Brandis referred to it. The question is: What is the contribution of this great undertaking to the fight against inflation? What is the S.A. Railways doing to increase productivity? Does it take it seriously?

No.

I am coming to that just now, and then we shall hear what the hon. member has to say. If I speak in Railway language, the hon. member will perhaps be able to understand me,

because apparently he did not understand me before. What is the S.A. Railways doing …

It is pushing up the prices.

… to transport more goods in less time with the same facilities?

In this regard I wish to deal with three examples. Twelve years ago the S.A. Railways transported 96 million tons. Today, according to the latest figures, the S.A. Railways transported 155 million tons, an increase of 64% over the same distance of 22 000 km. The greatest achievement, however, is the fact that this was achieved with a staff increase of only 10%.

Let me give another example. In the agricultural sector there has been a demand for more grain trucks. The S.A. Railways found themselves faced with two alternatives, i.e. to increase the existing fleet of 7 000 wheat trucks by 10% on the one hand, or, on the other hand, to increase the capacity of the wheat trucks. The S.A. Railways then, using their own inventiveness and initiative, managed to increase the load capacity of a grain truck from 39 tons to 43 tons by using better loading methods. This is an achievement of which any undertaking can be proud.

I can quote another example to show that the Railways does not have to be ashamed with regard to its contribution to the fight against inflation and the increase in productivity. The rail gauge of 106,5 cm has its particular limitations and problems. It means that the carrying capacity of this rail gauge is much lower than the carrying capacity of the European rail gauge of 143,5 cm. The average carrying capacity of the conventional rail gauge which we are using today, is a load of approximately 8 000 tons. This is difficult to believe, but the carrying capacity of the conventional rail gauge which we are using today, has been increased to such an extent that, as has been proved in a test between Sishen and Saldanha, the rail was able to carry a train of 2,5 km in length drawn by six diesel locomotives. That one train load earned R250 000 in foreign exchange for South Africa. The examples I have quoted, show that the S.A. Railways has made a not inconsiderable contribution at various levels in the fight against inflation.

Having said all that, and after we have looked at the highlights of the achievements of the Railways in an historical context, we must also admit to the House that certain problems do exist. It is no use running away from reality. We must identify and investigate the problems existing in the S.A. Railways. When I say there are problems, I immediately wish to add that this is by no means a reflection on the hon. the Minister.

Why not?

I think the House has great appreciation for what the hon. the Minister has already achieved in his capacity as Minister of Transport. In this regard we wish him everything of the best for the years ahead. Nor is the fact that problems do exist, a reflection on the management of the S.A. Railways, that has done very good work in difficult circumstances. The problem does not centre around inflation arithmetic, as the hon. member for Orange Grove claimed, nor is it the question of greater competition between the S.A. Railways and road transport. The problem is at another level. It relates to the mandate with which the S.A. Railways has been entrusted. For the sake of argument, I just wish to state once again what that mandate entails. It is a well-known mandate and the hon. member for Bethlehem also referred to it briefly. In terms of section 103 of the Constitution, the S.A. Railways has to operate on business principles, due regard being had to the establishment of agriculture and industry. If we analyse the mandate in accordance with which the S.A. Railways operate, we see that it contains a basic contradiction. This is the price that the S.A. Railways has to pay today. The contradiction is contained in the fact that, on the one hand, it is expected that the S.A. Railways should be administered on business principles, while on the other hand it is expected that the Railways should render certain socio-economic services. This is a basic contradiction in the mandate with which the S.A. Railways has been entrusted. It will not be possible to reconcile these two requirements in the long run.

I think we have reached the stage in the historical development of the S.A. Railways at which this basic contradiction will now, with the appointment of the Franzsen Committee, be channelled in a new direction. I wish to add that when I say that, I by no means wish to say that there was a stage in the South African economy when this mandate was appropriate. This mandate had two very important results. In the first place it gave rise to a tariff structure based on the principle of the value of the service, a principle which, basically, means that certain goods were transported at a tariff below the cost input and that other goods were transported at a tariff higher than the cost input. This is what is meant by the principle of the value of the service.

When the history of the S.A. Railways has to be written, it will be regarded as the greatest achievement of the Railways that they have been able to stay in business since 1910 and that they have shown the results they have under the difficult circumstances caused by tariff structure being fixed according to the principle of the value of the service. I shall return to this matter later.

In the second place, this mandate with which the Railways was entrusted, has resulted in cross-subsidization in the sense that the trade deficit on the account of the S.A. Railways has been compensated and carried by other main services, such as the pipeline services and the harbour services, the profits of which are used to cover the trade deficit I do not wish to assert that there has been no stage in the stabilization process of the South African economy where this tariff policy and these management decisions with regard to this matter were not necessary, but I am seriously of the opinion that we have reached a stage in the operation of the Railways where there has to be a general re-evaluation of the role of the Railways in the South African transport market.

I wish to refer to the mandate once again. The mandate has its socio-economic leg and its management leg. My view as to the socio-economic services rendered by the Railways, is that the Railways has fulfilled its mandate. Agriculture and industry have been established. The S.A. Railways has fulfilled its mandate, subject to certain obligations. I want to explain this by way of an example. The doctor who helps with the birth of a child, is not also expected to bring the child up. The S.A. Railways has now helped with the birth of children, agriculture and industry, and now it cannot be expected of it to help to raise these children as well by way of rendering socio-economic services.

I repeat that there will have to be a re-evaluation of the S.A. Railways function in the total transport set-up in South Africa. When I say this, I want to indicate that certain painful decisions will have to be taken in this regard. These are decisions which will demand adjustments at policy level and also in the execution of the functions of the S.A. Railways.

Let us now come back to the passenger services. The hon. member for Green Point referred to this only in passing, but his facts were not quite correct. He was, in fact, totally wrong, but I cannot elaborate on this now. However, we must take cognizance of the fact that there has been a drop in the use of passenger services, particularly long-distance passenger services. The operating costs work out at a loss and if we insist that the S.A. Railways should be managed on business principles, business principles must also be applied in this sphere. Thus, what we have it basically a question of supply and demand. If there is no demand, there must not be an over-supply of these services either. Therefore, as far as this matter is concerned, it is very clear that there will have to be rationalization in the future and the existing transport will have to be reduced to either, quite possibly, luxury road transport or alternatively the South African Airways.

The whole question of cross subsidization will have to be reconsidered, and as matters stand now, one could ask quite rightly: Is it in South Africa’s interest that the profit on pipelines should be used to subsidize the loss on suburban passenger services?

What do you think?

I am coming to that. I ask whether it is in South Africa’s interest. I say: No.

Why?

My viewpoint is that with the rationalization of the passenger services, the socio-economic burden on the S.A. Railways, should be taken away from it because it is unfair that the travelling passengers should carry such a burden.

My word, now that makes sense!

Precisely! Why are the hon. members then making such a noise? This burden should be shifted to become a national burden, and it should not be a burden on the travelling public only.

The whole question of socio-economic services has already been debated here at length and I do not wish to concern myself with it further. I only wish to say that as far as socio-economic services are concerned, we are at the end of a phase and this side of the House is pleased at the appointment of the Franzsen Committee. We expect that this will introduce a new phase in which the socio-economic burden is not imposed on the travelling public, but is a national responsibility.

We should evaluate the Railways in the light of our economic priorities, in the light of the strategic role which it has to play in South Africa and also in the light of the energy crisis. If we evaluate the S.A. Railways in this light, it is clear to us that we are at the end of a phase and are entering a new phase, particularly because of two important reasons which I wish to mention just briefly and in closing. In the first place we shall have to give due consideration to the role of the S.A. Railways in the South African economy, because the gap between the budget of revenue and expenditure is widening. This is a fact. When we look at what the situation was ten years ago, we see that an operating budget of R37 million was budgeted for. At the moment an operating loss of approximately R200 million is being budgeted for. The price of fuel is not even brought into consideration in that regard. In approximately 1965 the Railways was responsible for 83% of the total revenue account. Today the Railways is responsible for approximately 74% of the total revenue account. A very important factor is, however, the fact that the Railways is systematically being phased out of the profitable section of the transport market. This is a situation which, in the interests of South Africa, cannot be taken too far because, all things being equal, it is true that the steel wheel on the steel rail is the cheapest mode of transport.

The fact that the profitable section of the transport market has been taken away from the S.A. Railways without its enjoying the protection to which it is entitled, is cause for concern. I should think that we shall have to take further clearer measures in this regard in the future. With these few thoughts, whereby to evaluate the role of the Railways in the South African transport set-up, my time has now, unfortunately, expired.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellville made a very good speech and I think that we should congratulate him on it. However, I differ with the hon. member on one point. He said that the Railways had established industries and farming communities, that they were Railway babies, but that they had now reached maturity and were therefore able to stand on their own two feet. However, I do not think it can be left at that. We cannot work on that basis. One cannot help to establish a business far away from a town, supply railway services and then suddenly, when it is able to stand on its own, tell it that it will in future no longer have any railway services.

I did not mean it like that.

Yes, I know the hon. member did not mean it as bluntly as that. However, the prices the Railways forced on those people resulted in their methods and views on farming and the running of business being completely upset Later on in my speech I will comment on and illustrate this further.

†Mr. Speaker, exactly one year ago I began to plan this speech. [Interjections.] I worked out and wrote a very vicious attack on the hon. the Minister commenting on his attitude and on what damage S.A. Railways had done to the livestock farmer in South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon. members will recall that the hon. the Minister was very bitter about the interjections some of us made about “Wat van die boere?”

Anyway, I want to inform the hon. the Minister that I tore that speech up last week. I threw it away and rewrote it. After due consideration, and in the light of the remarkably good overall budget the hon. the Minister has presented, I feel that I should also attempt to offer a positive and constructive contribution.

Be careful; they may kick you out.

The hon. member must not worry. I will get to the point later on. Mr. Speaker, please do not think that this is going to be another “dankie die Minister” speech. There are quite enough capable hon. members of the Nationalist Party who will do just that, as we have witnessed for the last two days.

The hon. the Minister’s budget was good. However, I intend concentrating on the subject of the S.A. Railways and the farmer. This is the area that needs the most attention. First of all I would like to know if the hon. the Minister knows what the meaning of the following chemical compound is: Sodium caseinate, dipotassium phosphate, equal to 1% potassium trioxide emulgent, plus sodium silicone aluminate, artificial colouring, vegetable oil and maize syrup solids. Does the hon. the Minister know what that means? [Interjections.] This compound is Cremora!

I thought so. [Interjections.]

That is the chemical being served every day instead of milk in the coffee served by the S.A. Airways. The S.A. Airways serves it every day in its coffee. I would like to know why the S.A. Airways does not serve wholesome milk instead. There are some who say that Cremora can even be injurious to health. Has the S.A. Airways got something against the dairy industry? I respectfully and seriously suggest that the hon. the Minister instruct air hostesses that when they serve coffee to passengers, they offer them a choice between “cream or chemicals”. The air hostess should also make it very clear that these chemicals are not powdered milk, as is often supposed and thought by the public.

I now wish to move away from the dairy industry and consider the livestock industry. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is aware of the parlous state of affairs in which this industry presently finds itself in. However, I wonder if the hon. the Minister quite realizes how grievously the S.A. Railways, with its tremendous tariff increases in the past six years, has injured the livestock farmers of South Africa. If the hon. the Minister of Agriculture were in the House, he would now have said “Vreet hom!” I would rather look at the positive side first and come back to the “Vreet hom!” later, if I have time left.

Let us look at what the S.A. Railways and the farmer can do for each other. We can also look at how the S.A. Railways can assist in keeping the farmers on the land profitably, thus fulfilling an essential role in the fight against terrorist infiltration and national security. One of my suggestions was that cattle trucks should be modified to serve as triple-deck sheep trucks. However, the hon. the Minister has beaten me to that and now I have to offer him my congratulations instead. I am also glad that as a result of that he has been able to offer most probably a 50% rebate on fares. It will certainly assist sheep farmers in the outlying areas. This type of thinking is so desperately needed during these times. It is a great pity this idea was not introduced years ago. It certainly would have saved farmers and hauliers the millions of rand they had to spend on road trucks during the last few years.

The cattleman also needs all the help they can get right now and when one considers that a train is a nine times more efficient user of our precious diesel stockpile, as outlined by the hon. the Minister, than road motor transport, then it becomes obvious that the Railways and the cattle farmer are just going to have to work together to find a solution to this problem.

Last year I warned the hon. the Minister that livestock tariffs could not be increased any further. It would break the camel’s back. Well, it did break the camel’s back. What happened was that the S.A. Railways priced itself completely out of the business, resulting in a disastrous 45% decrease in livestock carried. In only one year an incredible 45% decrease in haulage of cattle moved in the trains of the S.A. Railways. It seemed obvious to all, except to the S.A. Railways, that this disaster would occur, especially when the S.A. Railways did not increase tariffs for approximately 15 years before 1972. Then, within six years, tariffs increased by an incredible 406%. The result was a catastrophe not only for the farmer, but for the Railways as well. Thousands of redundant cattle trucks are standing at sidings all over South Africa. These redundant trucks are valued at approximately R50 million. Interest losses alone on this capital asset is calculated at R3½ million a year. That is not all, however, because while these cattle trucks were standing idle farmers had to spend millions of rand purchasing road motor trucks. What a waste this was to our country. What should have been done and what can be done now about the situation? I believe that urgent and in-depth consultation with all interested parties is essential at this stage. I call upon the hon. the Minister of Transport together with his counterpart, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, to appoint a committee comprising men from the following organizations or institutions: the S.A.R.; the S.A. Agricultural Union; the Meat Board; livestock agents like Vleissentraal; abattoir representatives and the Department of Agriculture. The purpose and task of this committee should be to investigate and evaluate the entire problem to find out what solution there can be to this problem. The initial task of the committee should be to look into and establish a schedule for special, regular block-load livestock trains. The hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that these block-load trains are very efficient, and we believe that they are. In our opinion this is the answer to one of the problems. These trains should run from the main producing areas to the major abattoirs on a regular and scheduled basis. The benefits and advantages that would flow from such a regular service of block-trains, would be the following: Firstly, it would certainly bring about the much needed reduction in tariffs. We hope that it could be as high as 50%. Secondly, it could bring about better utilization of existing assets, such as the idle trucks and the surplus rail capacity. Thirdly, it would certainly assist the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in a massive diesel fuel saving project. Fourthly, the scheduled trains would arrive at properly scheduled and spaced intervals at abattoirs throughout the country. Fifthly, trains would remain intact and return to their producer areas. Sixthly, these scheduled trains should bring market stability to the abattoir, a factor which would assist the housewives and the farmer as well. Seventhly, road damage which is occurring daily as a result of the use of road motor trucks on our roads, would be decreased. Eighthly—and this to my mind is one of the most important reasons—the decreased tariffs should make cattle farms in outlying districts economically more viable, and this would enable the farmer to stay on the land as the first-line man of defence in our national defence programme. I believe that with real goodwill between all the parties concerned all would gain by useful and careful consideration and co-operation in this regard.

In the limited time I have left, I want to deal with two other items. I am glad the hon. the Minister is not looking now, because I wish to congratulate him on appointing the Franzsen Committee. It is something we have always striven for, and we therefore welcome it. I certainly do not believe that it can be justified that rail users such as farmers and industrialists can be expected to carry the very heavy burden of the estimated R350 million loss incurred by the socio-economic rail passenger services. I believe this is a socio-economic function that has to be carried by the State itself and not by farmers and industrialists. The hon. member for Bellville suggested that this should apply to the pipelines as well.

In the last instance I think the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will join me when I take the hon. the Minister of Transport to task and give him the sound advice that he should never again, as he did last year, try to justify tariff increases on the basis of misleading statistics. I should like to quote him in this regard, and I should like him to look at the agricultural debate during which I raised the question last year, because I am going to raise it again now while he is here. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture suggested that I should raise it here. The hon. the Minister said (Hansard, Vol. 72, col. 2493)—

A little later, after an interjection by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. the Minister said—

Mr. Speaker, the percentages he chose were misleading in the extreme. Those same incorrect comparisons were then propagated over the radio, on television and in the Press, giving the impression to all in South Africa that the S.A. Railways were fully justified in its tariff increase and that the price index for farm produce was in fact even higher.

Fancy the TV service doing a thing like that!

The hon. the Minister stated that he did not begrudge the farmer his increases. However, the facts are that from 1972 to 1978 rail tariffs had gone up by an astronomical 406%—not by 110% as the hon. the Minister suggested. We know what he has done. He has taken the average of all the tariffs combined, including the commuters.

But I specifically said so.

The hon. the Minister was misleading in his use and choice of words. For the Railways he took the overall index, but singled out on the farmer’s side, one single item, viz. that of sheep, the highest, and says it is 165%, while in his Hansard he refers to “cattle-farmers”. I was not the only one that was misled. I want to read a letter which we received from the S.A. Agricultural Union. They also were very upset about the same speech from which I have quoted. The letter says—

The increase from 1 January 1973 to date is therefore 406,88%.

This is what the S.A. Agricultural Union says. [Interjections.]

I now want to look at the other side of the coin. The hon. the Minister says that beef prices to the farmer have gone up 165%. But let us look what has happened to the beef farmer as far as their net prices are concerned. It has increased by 80% over the same period of time, and not by 165%. I want to give the House the correct figures. A farmer who sent cattle to nine controlled areas in the country received the following prices: In 1972 he received R104 per beast; in 1973 the figure was R137; in 1974, R189; in 1975, R178; in 1976, R186; in 1977, R185, and in 1978, R186 per beast. This is a total increase of 80%. For the past five years, however, there were no increases at all. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to those last five figures. He will note that those figures indicate no increase whatsoever, and he should have mentioned that fact in the radio and television interviews he took part in. I believe that the hon. the Minister owes the farming community a grave apology for what he did last year. [Interjections.] When we tried to delete a figure of R1 million from the budget last ear, he was most annoyed, yet we believe that we were very right in having done so, as was proved by the R53 million surplus which would not have been affected at all by the removal of that R1 million. I therefore think the hon. the Minister owes the farming community an apology.

You only want to build your own monument.

I have some other letters I could read … [Interjections.] … but I think I shall wind that argument up now.

I now want to come back to the idea of block trains for service in our cattle areas, and I think there are a number of members here who could benefit by a discussion of this. I am thinking of areas like Kuruman, Vryburg, Zeerust, Klerksdorp, Schweizer-Reneke, Wolmaransstad, Rustenburg, Thabazimbi, Potgietersrus …

Delmas.

I do not know whether Delmas is one of them. I am talking about the cattle areas.

And Howick?

Howick is close enough for us to walk our cattle to the abattoirs. I am also thinking of some mixed cattle and sheep areas, like Standerton and Ermelo, which could help to fill block trains. The livestock from Kimberley and Bloemfontein could also fill block trains.

Go on!

Yes, they certainly could! There are also the well-known sheep areas that need to be serviced by a block train system, and here I am thinking of places like Calvinia, Carnarvon, Victoria West and Beaufort West. I think the abattoir at Cato Ridge in Natal is normally serviced by areas such as Harrismith, Bethlehem, Estcourt, Mooi River, Ladysmith, Ficksburg, Clocolan and Ladybrand. These are the cattle producing areas in our country. It is when someone puts one bull in a box-car, for transportation from point A to point B, that costs go up in our country. If, however, one could fill a whole train with 500 animals, that would be efficiency, and that is what we are trying to get across to the hon. the Minister. He should set about improving the efficiency of the Railways.

I wish to conclude with a sincere request to the hon. the Minister to have further urgent talks, in-depth discussions, with the cattle farmers to see if he cannot turn back the clock on livestock tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, one comes to the conclusion that we are dealing here with an Opposition which, as they say in the boxing world, is punch-drunk. They are people who are dumbfounded by the contents of the budget we are dealing with here. It is, in fact, true that we on this side of the House have the greatest sympathy with our farming population, and with our cattle farmers in particular.

Sympathy is not enough.

However, it is also true that we are dealing here with a noneconomic service, and the rest of the service has had to carry that non-economic portion. Surely it is therefore quite clear that at some time there had to be a stage at which noneconomic services are made more economical. I think that the hon. Minister will enlarge on this matter. It has also been discussed thoroughly in this House in the past. Therefore, I shall leave it at that.

What I really want to add in this regard, is that the Opposition is faced with a dilemma. They deluded themselves into thinking that the Minister would increase railway rates. Their newspapers told them this in advance and now they have to criticize a budget in this House which they are not capable of criticizing, since they do not have any reasonable criticism. How can one criticize a budget in which there is no increase in rates, which offers its staff considerable increases, in which pensions are increased, which gives workers a bonus and in which a number of other concessions are being granted? How can they criticize it? Yesterday we also had the example of the hon. member for Orange Grove who conducted a kind of shadow boxing exhibition here for half an hour. I think he distinguished himself as a champion shadow boxer, because all his blows were in the air and not one of them landed.

He did land one on his benchmate.

Not one preduction made by the Opposition in the past has come true. The hon. member for Orange Grove has now hazarded a new prediction, viz. that the tariffs will still be increased. He also predicted an early election. However, we all know that he is dead scared of an election.

Yes, that is why I was unopposed last time.

The hon. member had better listen now. I want to tell him that, if we all make the maximum use of our transportation services—in this regard we all have a role to play—we shall be able to avert rate increases. I am convinced that every South African should consider this seriously and should ascertain what his or her role in this regard is.

Yesterday the hon. member for East London North mentioned the purchase of an additional aircraft. It is clear that he did not do his homework, because the hon. the Minister explained that matter very clearly in his budget speech. At a later stage, too, I shall return to that topic for a few moments.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister has silenced the Opposition and all his critics with this excellent budget. The Railways Administration has shown that, true to its constitutional mandate, it has succeeded in providing an efficient service at the most economic rates. It improved efficiency and productivity to such an extent that all these things were possible. Thorough planning, imagination and far-sightedness played a very important part in making this budget possible. This is applicable to the S.A. Airways in particular—and this is the aspect I want to single out. It is perhaps just as well that we think at this stage of the fact that the S.A. Airways was established on 1 February 1934 when the S.A. Railways bought the enterprise from Major A. Miller. Consequently the service is 45 years old. It is fitting that we reflect briefly on that event. In the first year of its existence the S.A. Airways conveyed a mere 3 074 passengers; in the past financial year, i.e. in 1977-’78, the S.A. Airways conveyed the record number of 3 024 496 passengers all over the world. In 1934 the fleet consisted of seven small aircraft which completed one return flight per week between Cape Town and Durban and six return flights per week between Johannesburg and Durban.

Today the SAA has a fleet of 36 ultramodern aircraft with scheduled flights to 29 countries. At present there are seven return flights per day between Durban and Johannesburg and five return flights per day between Durban and Cape Town, to mention but a few examples. At present the SAA employs 462 pilots of whom 251 are on duty on the external services and 211 on the internal services.

This is certainly a picture of expansion, a picture one will not easily see again. The introduction of larger and more efficient aircraft—despite criticism expressed in this House at the time—the increase of the seating capacity of our aircraft and the careful maintenance—I want to emphasize this— which made a maximum availability of our aircraft possible, is responsible for our having been able to accomplish these achievements. The computerized seat reservation system now also makes provision for the furnishing of information on selling facilities, which services have been granted to other airways, the arrival and departure times of connecting flights, hotel facilities and even telephone numbers.

Other factors which we can consider are the introduction of the Boeing 747 SP on international routes, the introduction of the Airbus on our inland routes and the increased seating capacity of the Boeing 727 and 737 which now offers 20% additional seating capacity. All these procedures and the advance planning contributed to the profitability of the S.A. Airways. Meticulous maintenance procedures contributed to our planes being available to convey passengers. Great success has been achieved with these procedures, as is proven by the fact that the technical reliability figure of the Airbus is put at 98%.

Phase one of the Maintenance and Engineering Management Information System, the so-called Memis, caters for spares for the Airbus, while the second phase will be implemented for other aircraft. This will effect a saving in stores personel, a reduction in stores and better utilization of the reparable material.

The hon. Minister pointed out in his budget speech the sustained growth over the first nine months of last year which brought about a surplus of R31,9 million as opposed to the anticipated R1,1 million. The external services show the greatest growth. At present the external services provide 64% of our income as opposed to the 36% provided by the internal services. I think this is a remarkable achievement if one considers the competition in that sphere.

A number of very important particulars appear in the annual report. I want to refer to just a few. The Springbok services transported 366 799 passengers in 1977-’78, an increase of 13,6%. On the Australian services the increase was 30,6%; on the American services 24,8%; on services to the Far East 62,5%; and on services to neighbouring territories, 5,8%. Only on the internal services was there a small decrease during that period, but now the position has improved considerably.

As far as the transportation of air freight is concerned, one finds the same phenomenon. In 1977-’78 the Springbok services transported 35% more freight; the American services 25,3%; the Australian services as much as 69,6%; and the services to the Far East 100% more. I am mentioning these particulars in order to indicate the remarkable growth experienced in this regard.

If we look at the financial side, that picture is even better. On the revenue side we had an increase of 22,8% for the year 1977-’78 compared with the previous year. As far as expenditure is concerned, there was of necessity a large increase, but there was nevertheless a surplus of R6 063 405 as opposed to the deficit of R13,9 million for the previous year. This is indeed a remarkable achievement.

I could also have furnished other data in this regard to indicate how the expansion of the S.A. Airways was effected, but time does not permit me to dwell on this matter any longer. I should just like to deal with a few other matters. The question necessarily occurs to one: What are the reasons for this, what is behind these achievements? The question also arises: How did the SAA succeed in achieving these positive operating results?

In the first place we must compliment the SAA on succeeding in keeping its expenditure under control—this is the most important thing—particularly in respect of fuel. It is also true that even our pilots do a great deal in this regard. It is, in fact, possible for a pilot to waste fuel, just as it is possible for him to save fuel. They do this and co-operate well in this regard. In the second place is the particularly good safety record of the SAA which is directly responsible for the hon. Minister being able to compel lower insurance premiums. In the third place the SAA was able to cut down on staff without sacrificing service. There are further aspects, too, such as the reduction of advertisement costs and savings on refreshments and cabin equipment which contributed to this result.

The growth in international services is of such a scope that the Airways has already decided, as we have already heard, that additional flights will be introduced to Europe and New York as from 1 April in order to meet the demand. To cope with this anticipated growth further, the hon. the Minister has already announced the purchase of two new 747B jets. It is a very encouraging phenomenon that the external services have recovered so remarkably. It is a fact that the tourists who for a long time were afraid, as it were, to come to South Africa, are again visiting South Africa, particularly from Europe, but from other countries as well. The volume of external passengers has increased by approximately 15% and together with that the external freight increased by approximately 26%. Therefore, we are today reaping the fruits of the policy of advance planning and far-sightedness which the hon. member now wants to destroy by telling us that it is a mistake to purchase new aircraft in good time. With its fleet of wide fuselage aircraft, the SAA will offer not only a very rapid transport service, but this is also a very important aspect to promote tourism to this country. The fact that our aircraft are seen everywhere, is a good advertisement for South Africa.

There is another aspect to which I just want to refer in passing. Experience teaches that our businessmen, our people who often go overseas, prefer to fly SAA. There is a very large degree of loyalty among our businessmen who prefer to use the SAA when flying overseas. They do this because they know what the quality of this service is. However, it is unfortunately also true that some of our people who, when going overseas, do not show the necessary loyalty to the SAA, but very easily prefer another airline. As I said at the beginning, the task rests on the shoulders of each of us to act in such a way with regard to this budget that it will not be necessary for rates to be increased. Every South African who flies overseas and who does not fly in an aircraft of the S. A. Airways, must ask himself whether he cannot give better proof of his loyalty.

As far as the internal services are concerned, it is true that there was an initial levelling off, but there, too, a very encouraging revival is discernible. Since June 1978 a very positive growth rate has been discernible. This phenomenon, we hope, will continue. The present price of fuel and the further fuel conservation measures which may be introduced could result in the S.A. Airways having to convey even more passengers. In this regard it is very important to indicate how we compare with other countries. I am not going to tire hon. members with a lot of data. I shall quote only a few particulars. An air ticket from Cape Town to Kimberley costs R58. From Sao Paolo to Brazil, a distance of 838 km—as opposed to the 821 km from Cape Town to Kimberley—an air ticket costs R99,96.

Is that what Rhoodie paid?

No, I think Dr. Rhoodie probably got discount. [Interjections.] From Johannesburg to Durban, a distance of 504 km, an air-passenger pays R42 for a one-way ticket, as opposed to the R80,49 which an air-passenger pays from Berlin to Munich, a distance which is slightly shorter than that from Johannesburg to Durban. However, I do not want to tire hon. members further with even more of these details.

However, if we compare these aforementioned tariffs with what rail passengers pay, we also come across a very interesting phenomenon. According to inquiries which I made, a first-class ticket from Johannesburg to Cape Town costs R63,25, whereas a single air ticket costs R75. However, if we add to this one breakfast, one lunch, one dinner and one bed, we get a total of R73,08 as opposed to the R75 that an air ticket costs.

This demonstrates to us the very important role the S.A. Airways will play in future as well. Therefore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider purchasing further Airbus aircraft for operation on our inland routes. The Airbus appears to be one of the most economic aircraft, an aircraft which, as is asserted, can convey 280 passengers with only 12 kg of fuel per nautical mile. This means that less fuel is used per passenger than when four people drive by motor-car from Johannesburg to Durban, according to the article to which I referred. Add to this the four tons of freight which can be conveyed on this flight, and which is also a very sound economic proposition, since it provides an income equal to the fare of a further 30 passengers, and the picture looks far more promising. According to newspaper reports there is a great demand for these aircraft. Therefore, I think that if the Minister has not yet considered this, it is now the time for him to think of purchasing more Airbus aircraft for South Africa, particularly when one bears in mind that there will most certainly be a considerable increase in these prices if inflation is not tamed in future.

A further factor which counts in favour of the S.A. Airways, is the safety aspect. Since we are not prepared to run risks, it has a very reassuring effect on the passengers. In turn this boosts confidence in the S.A. Airways.

With regard to this, I want to conclude by referring finally to a recent report which appeared in the Press in respect of the treatment of our flight staff when they were compelled to land in Ghana. I think that today we can take cognizance of this very important fact with appreciation. In spite of the political situation and all the propaganda which has been made against us here and elsewhere, this remains an important demonstration of the disposition that still exists, even in places where one least expects it.

There is another point which I regard as worth while to bring to the attention of this House. I think we can boast of the pilots that are being trained in this country. The fact that these people have such a good name, make them attractive to other countries as well. That is why they are in such demand and can really pick and choose. However, I want to express my appreciation to our flight staff today. In the foreign offices of the S.A. Airways there are staff members who sometimes have to endure a lot of punishment. They work in offices where demonstrations sometimes take place and there have even been bomb attacks. In spite of these things these people did not flee. They remained at their posts and kept South Africa’s name high. For that reason we owe these people a great debt of gratitude.

The journeys to New York are long and it is true that these people work long hours. Because this is an east/west flight this has a negative effect on one as well. We must express our appreciation to these people for what they are prepared to do for our country. In South Africa the trade union mentality does not exist and I am grateful that we have these people to perform this excellent work. We thank them for doing so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kempton Park and other hon. members kept on emphasizing that the Opposition had allegedly found itself in a dilemma because the rates had not been increased. Everyone who has gone through this session with us so far will concede that the Opposition has had no lack of criticism in respect of the general administration of the Government. However, I cannot understand why the hon. member views this matter in a different light. After all it is not the task of the Opposition to wish disadvantages and faults upon ourselves where none exist.

I have never professed to be an expert on Railway matters. [Interjections.] Not many trains operate in my constituency. But that is not the reason why I have risen to participate in this debate. It is clear that the Railways and our transport system will have to play a very important and ever-increasing role in future in the development of relations with our neighbouring States, old as well as new. I have noted with great satisfaction the role played in recent years by the General Manager, Dr. Loubser, and his staff in promoting good neighbourliness, particularly with Mozambique and Zambia. I know that this also extends further than these two countries. Besides their roles as managers, they have also emerged as skilful diplomats for South Africa. In fact, I should just like to express a word of appreciation and encouragement to them for doing so.

I had hoped that the hon. the Minister would give us a little more detailed information in his budget speech on the foreign policy of the Railways. Perhaps the hon. the Minister is of the opinion that it is better that relationships which have developed in the sphere of inter-State transportation should not be over-publicized. If that is the case, I shall understand it. However, I do want to request the hon. the Minister to give us as much information as possible on his foreign policy as far as the Railways is concerned.

We have seen that we helped Zambia with its import problems in a time of emergency. We placed a number of locomotives at the disposal of Zambia and Rhodesia and it was arranged that full trains should operate across the border. I should like to ascertain from the hon. Minister to what extent we are helping Zambia today to overcome its problems with Tazara. I should also like to ascertain from the hon. the Minister whether everything is still functioning smoothly in regard to our Railway services in neighbouring States such as the Transkei and Bophuthatswana and those neighbouring States which are situated within our borders, as it were. We are aware of the new railway agreement concluded with Mozambique, but we should also like to ascertain whether we are assisting Transkei to any extent with harbour development. The hon. the Minister will concede that we must as far as possible extend a helping hand to our developing and existing neighbouring States in Southern Africa.

One of the cardinal reasons why I am asking this question has to do with the South West African issue. Whatever the immediate outcome of our negotiations with the UN on the independence of South West Africa is going to be, I think we all accept that South West Africa will be completely independent within a year and will therefore be eager to be able to stand on its own feet as soon as possible. We must expect that the people of South West Africa will be extremely sensitive about the question of their independence.

It is too soon to say at this stage what kind of Government will eventually come into power in South West Africa. We can only hope that it will be one that will realize that it will be in its own interests to co-operate very closely with us economically, and in the Railway and other spheres. We shall also have a great interest in the existence of sound relations between the new Government of South West Africa and ourselves, since we are going to remain in control of the Walvis Bay harbour. One of the areas about which the new South West Africans are going to be very sensitive is that of discrimination. Any remaining colour discrimination there could give rise to relations between the Government of South West Africa and ourselves being detrimentally affected. That is why I have to ask the hon. the Minister and his department whether they are mindful of these matters and whether they are taking steps in this regard to eliminate all discriminatory practices as far as the Railways in South West Africa is concerned.

Earlier this session I asked the hon. the Minister whether the Railways Administration had created special training facilities in South West Africa to train staff drawn from all population groups for service in that area. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister was able to reply to this question by saying that since 1st August of last year approximately 700 South West Africans, from all race groups, were being trained in various grades in South West Africa. They included Ovambos, Coloureds, Damaras, Basters, Hereros, Namas, Kavangos, Tswanas and of course Whites. In my opinion this is a good start. I am particularly pleased to see that the stories of a large scale exodus of Railway staff from South West Africa have so far been proved untrue.

I do not wish to go into these questions in any detail now, but as a person who has remained in relatively close contact with the opinion, not only of Whites in South West Africa but also of the Black and Brown leaders in the territory, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the day South West Africa becomes independent, and particularly if any threat on the part of Swapo still exists, any discrimination which still remains relating to salary structures, housing, the staff structure, possibilities of promotion and services on trains will be subjected to a close scrutiny. It is not going to be easy. I think it is going to present the hon. the Minister and his management with a tremendous challenge. I should like to ascertain whether the hon. the Minister can assure us that he and his management are prepared for the coming challenge, or are atleast in the process of preparing themselves for it.

Mr. Speaker, the contribution made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout confirmed what has become increasingly apparent throughout this debate, and that is that it is certainly a very easy task for the hon. the Minister to defend this year’s Railway budget, and to motivate and justify the proposals it contains. It is so easy that it is hardly necessary for hon. members on this side of the House to help the hon. the Minister defend his budget. It is not necessary to defend the budget as such nor to protect the hon. the Minister against any attacks or effective criticism on the part of the Opposition. One even had the strange phenomenon here that quite a few hon. members of the Opposition reacted positively to the budget. Even the main spokesman of the official Opposition spoke of a positive budget, and one can realize what a strain it must have been on the hon. member for Orange Grove in particular to approach so closely to political objectivity.

It is not through sheer luck that the hon. the Minister will find it easy this year to defend his budget. It was not luck, but great skill. It required skill, competence and dedication on the part of the hon. the Minister himself and the General Manager of the Railways and his group of senior officials who assisted him in compiling the budget. There is an old, well-known saying that the harder one works the happier one is and the more success one achieves. I think that is what the hon. the Minister and his staff owe their success to this year.

I think that this Railway budget deserves the same testimonial as the good wine in the well-known Boland wine joke: “Surely it needs no price.” This budget prices itself, defends itself and is indeed unassailable. It is a winning budget. One may really call it a model budget.

It is also a budget of confidence. It testifies to the Government’s confidence in the recuperative power of the economy of this country. It is based on the belief and the prediction that the upward tendency in the economy—of which there are encouraging signs—will not only continue but will gain further momentum in the coming financial year. We know that hon. members on the opposite side of the House saw it in another light and even termed it a gamble on the part of the Government. In this connection I can say that the hon. the Minister relies on faith and that it is not a question of gambling at all.

One must pay tribute to this organization. On the parliamentary level I have not had dealings with the South African Railways as a Government department for very long, but it has been my experience that the longer one’s acquaintance with the Railways and the more one has dealings with that organization, the more one is impressed by it. The Railways is indisputably in world class—in respect of the scope of its activities, the scale on which business is carried on and initiated; the many ramifications and wide spectrum of its operations; the diversity and quality of the services it renders; the efficiency with which it functions; and the sophistication of its planning and functioning. More specifically I want to emphasize the quality of its human material which keeps the wheels of this organization rolling and ensures its continued success. In all these respects, according to every imaginable criterion and according to every possible test which can be applied, the S.A. Railways is an organization in world class. I think it is fitting that we place on record our recognition of that fact on such an occasion as this. In particular I think we should also pay tribute to everyone who has made this success possible and, as other hon. members pointed out, we must not forget the thousands of loyal Railway servants on all levels. However, I should like to express a special word of appreciation to the top men in the organization. Here I am referring of course to the hon. the Minister at the top, and then, too, the General Manager surrounded by his group of senior officials.

Much can be said, and has indeed been said, about the diversity of direct functions and attendant achievements of the S.A. Railways. Today, however, I want to direct the spotlight more specifically on a few of the more indirect functions of the Railways, which it is fulfilling to an increasing extent. It is the earnest endeavour of all of us that South Africa should gain and occupy its rightful place in the comity of nations. As I see it, the Railways plays a very important part in realizing that ideal for South Africa. The S.A. Railways contributes significantly to making South Africa the powerhouse and the guiding light of this subcontinent As a result South Africa can beam its light to neighbouring States in Southern Africa where there is so much less self-generated development and where such a great need consequently exists for such a guiding light.

But before I come to that specific aspect I should first like to point out that the Railways also fulfils important indirect internal functions. If time allows I should like to refer to two of these functions.

In the first place I want to refer to the contribution of the Railways to the stimulation of local industries, a very important indirect function. The S.A. Railways is still associated very closely with progress and expansion in the sphere of almost every industry in South Africa, particularly in view of the rapid industrial development of recent years. The roles which the Railways has played in national affairs have been many and varied. As the national transport undertaking it has to provide the means of conveying persons and goods between remote parts of the country, frequently at uneconomic rates, because this is in the interests of the community. In this way infrastructure is being and was created without which our country would not have been able to develop to the level on which it stands today.

When it comes to the purchase of Railway requirements a course of maximum economizing and efficiency is being pursued, with due consideration for the importance of encouraging industrial and commercial undertakings in the Republic of South Africa. As hon. members know, all purchases by the Railways are regulated by the Railway Tender Board on which there is a representative of the Department of Industries and representatives of the private sector.

The large orders for rolling stock which the Administration has placed in recent years to meet the ever-increasing transport requirements of the country—such orders are expected to earn local industries approximately R262 million during the 1978-’79 financial year—have also led to new industries being established, industries specializing in Railway requirements, the establishment of which would probably not have been possible without the support and technical know-how of the Administration. Local firms began to build wagons in 1944, and although passenger vehicles and electric locomotives still had to be imported until a few years ago, it is very important to note that all wagons, suburban and main-line passenger coaches, as well as electric and diesel locomotives, are at present being manufactured in South Africa.

Railway purchases of locally manufactured goods amounted to the impressive total of approximately R505 million during 1977-’78. These purchases have implications which extend far wider than being a direct stimulus to local commerce and industry. Their effect is cumulative; they affect almost all sectors of the population and provide the vitality necessary for a sound national economy.

By laying down strict specifications for its requirements the S.A. Railways has also contributed a great deal to ensuring a standard of craftmanship which not only redounds to the credit of the producer but also benefits the consumer and the country as a whole.

In addition, where it is of strategic importance to the Administration to establish local industries on a sound economic basis, the Railways has also taken the initiative and agreements have been concluded with various companies manufacturing signalling equipment, as a result of which these companies have been able to increase the local content of their products to approximately 90%.

The local manufacture of concrete sleepers and their fastenings is a further example not only of the establishment of a new extension of the concrete orientated industry but also of the assistance given to local manufacturers through discussions, analyses and tests to improve their product to such an extent that South Africa is one of the leaders in this field today.

Another example is the service provided by the Railways in assisting companies by subjecting their products to metallurgical tests and analyses, and furnishing them with advice. The various research facilities and laboratories of the Railways and the skill of the technical departments are frequently utilized in similar ways to establish or advance local industries. In fact, this support has already enabled various organizations, some of which owe their existence almost entirely to the S.A. Railways, to export their manufactured goods to other African States and to overseas countries. In many of these cases the technical specifications and drawings of the department were used with its consent.

As the country’s largest employer, the Railways ensures thousands of families, Whites and non-Whites, of a livelihood, while the large diversity of occupations in its service affords opportunities to both the person with the highest professional qualifications as well as the humblest manual labourer. The buying power of the Railways’ staff amounted to almost R1 000 million during the past financial year and has become as essential to the financial stability of the large urban manufacturers as it is to that of the smallest country shopkeeper.

The latest operating estimates amount to almost R3 600 million and provision was made for more than R1 400 million for capital and betterment works during the 1979-’80 financial year. Of this large amount large percentages will be channelled to local industries in the country as a whole by way of new projects, the expansion of the infrastructure, etc. The Railways contributes approximately 6% to South Africa’s gross domestic product and that is no mean achievement.

On the basis of all these facts I think that we may justifiably say that the Railways makes a very important contribution to the stimulation of local industries and, through that, to the strengthening and diversification of our country’s economy. And then we have not even mentioned all the great possibilities and opportunities which are created along new sections and around new stations.

Another indirect function to which I just want to refer in passing, because time does not allow me to go into it thoroughly, is the part played by the Railways in promoting sound inter-group relationships in South Africa. In this connection one thinks in particular of the question of the employment of people from the non-White population groups and their promotion in the Railway service. According to available figures—I do not have the latest figures—more than 20 000 posts previously filled by Whites were, according to my information, had already been filled by non-Whites in 1977, 7 200 of these on a temporary basis.

A great deal is also being done—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to this—in regard to the training of non-White staff to enable them to occupy better paid posts of a better status on the Railways. In this connection steps are being taken to narrow the gap between the wages of Coloureds and Indians and the wages of Blacks on the one hand, and between the wages of non-Whites and the wages of Whites on the other. It is the accepted policy that this has to be done. The only limiting factor in this connection still is of course the question of funds. However, that principle and that policy is being implemented as rapidly as possible.

Now I want to refer briefly to the other indirect task of the Railways and that is the contribution it is making, through its outward movement, to South Africa’s efforts to gain a place for itself in the comity of nations, particularly here in Southern Africa. As I see it, South Africa is to an increasing extent playing the role of big neighbour on our subcontinent, the helpful big neighbour to the other countries of Southern Africa. In our farming tradition this is a well-known concept and phenomenon; and not only in our agricultural sector, but in every other sector of the economy too. One can think in this connection of the business sector, of commerce, industry and financing. We have just seen an excellent example of this in financing when Dr. Anton Rupert recently established his small business corporation.

In the sphere of international relations and association South Africa plays essentially the same role towards its lesser-developed neighbouring States. In a variety of ways the welfare, resources, greater wealth of experience and knowledge of the big neighbour is being shares with its neighbours so that they may benefit from these things. It so happens that the Railways, in the field of transport, contributes greatly to the role which South Africa plays as the helpful big neighbour that is moving outwards. The Railways is therefore the pioneer that paves the way for other sectors to follow. This is of very special significance for South Africa. The value and advantage of the role which the Railways is playing is not situated primarily in the business aspect—not so much in the physical scope, the technical achievements which are being rendered or the financial success thus achieved, but in the opportunities which are being created for international traffic and for the furthering of sound diplomatic relations between our neighbouring States and ourselves. The General Manager of the Railways, Dr. Loubser, expressed this very effectively and strikingly on one occasion when he said—

He also expressly added—and this is important—that South Africa is playing this role, not out of charitable considerations or in a spirit of paternalism, but because it admits that it is in its own economic interests to do so.

I do not want to go into details on this matter, because the hon. member for Bloemfontein North discussed it at length yesterday. I just want to say that this role is being played in a very healthy spirit. Our emergent neighbouring States in particular accept the motto: “Politically independent, but economically interdependent.” That is also the spirit in which South Africa is playing this role and fulfilling this function, and the neighbouring States accept it in that spirit.

According to Dr. Loubser assistance is being rendered to neighbouring States that ask for it. As far as the transport infrastructure is concerned, he said that everything that was necessary was being placed at the disposal of our neighbouring States. Since the Railways is taking the lead and setting a good example it has a contagious effect and this example is being followed by other sectors. I cannot go into this fully today, but for the sake of interest I just want to mention in passing some of the other spheres in which efforts are being made along the same lines and work is in progress in the same direction.

There are other spheres in which South Africa is also playing the role of big neighbour towards its neighbours and in that way is trying to gain its rightful place in international association and relationships. There is for example technical co-operation and assistance in respect of a great diversity of matters such as hydro-electric schemes, soil conservation and utilization; the control of foot and mouth disease and red locusts; the production and marketing of wool, mohair, bananas and maize; scientific research, water and power projects; food and health; labour and staff; toll unions, tourism and even mission work—a very large diversity of fields in which there is co-operation.

This is happening in the sphere of commerce in particular. Commerce is most closely associated with transportation because the two go hand in hand. Together with transport, commerce is definitely the field where the greatest impact and the greatest contribution is being made to the normalization of relations with our neighbouring States. This is a contribution to the détente, to the stabilization of South Africa’s position as the primus inter pares among our neighbouring States on the sub-continent.

In this connection it is interesting to note a very glowing testimonial which South Africa recently received from an unexpected source. An article appeared in US News and World Report of 10 April 1978 under the title “No Color Bar in South African Trade”. Incidentally, this can also be said of the activities and the policy of the S.A. Railways in respect of these functions which they fulfil. As far as the Railways is concerned, it can also be said that there is no colour bar in its transport relations with our neighbouring States. I should like to quote a single passage in this article which appeared in US News and World Report—

Mr. Speaker, after a discussion of about seven hours I now welcome the opportunity of replying to all the subjects that have been mentioned here. Before I begin, and before I forget, I want to say that the hon. member for Simonstown, who usually speaks in the Railway debate, is unfortunately indisposed and has apologized to me for not being able to be here this afternoon to participate in the debate. I merely mention this by way of explaining the hon. member’s absence.

I think this has been a difficult budget for the Opposition to discuss. The performances of the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who crossed swords with me here as has been customary in recent years, testified to this. I think that especially the hon. member for Orange Grove, who was the first speaker on the Opposition side, was caught somewhat on the wrong foot immediately after I had delivered my budget speech. He will concede that. Nevertheless, I am the one who has to present and defend the budget, and it was a great pleasure to me to be able to submit such a budget to this House, even though I could not also give the assurance that I would be able to see the financial year through without any tariff increases. In fact, I made that quite clear, in words I had carefully chosen. I shall now try to discuss the various subjects that have been raised here.

I want to begin by pointing out that the hon. member for Orange Grove said that I had increased tariffs last year because there was a deficit. This year there is a deficit again, but this time I am not increasing tariffs. The hon. member wanted to know the justification for this. I think I explained it to a large extent in my speech. For the sake of greater clarity, however, I should like to refer again to a few aspects. In the first place, when last year’s budget was introduced, there were no signs yet of an economic revival. The economic revival only came in the second half of the year, in the third quarter of last year. All the economists have said that it is an economic revival, and I must accept that this is so. In spite of that, we have not seen many signs of it in the Railways yet, because we are not yet transporting much high-rated traffic, largely because of the fact that imports have remained fairly low. At the time of last year’s budget, we were not yet aware of the possibility of an economic revival. I think there are more signs of that at the moment, and I am more optimistic about the possibility of an economic revival during the coming financial year.

I also said in my speech that the fuel problems were expected to bring more business to the Railways. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove, of course, when he alleges that I am going to use the fuel problems as a pretext for trying to obtain more traffic for the Railways. I would much have preferred it if there had not been any fuel problems and if I could have continued as we did in the past. But there are certain facts which one has to point out and take cognizance of. The fact is that we do have fuel problems. Whether we want to or not, if the problems continue and become more severe, perhaps, we shall be forced to make much greater use of the Railways.

Another very important reason why I am much more optimistic about revenue during the coming year is the fact that I am conducting negotiations with the Minister of Finance. Ultimately, this is a matter which has to be referred to the Cabinet, but at the moment the hon. the Minister and I are conducting negotiations. We have already appointed this committee. The course of events during the coming financial year will very largely be determined by the measure of success I achieve in the negotiations with the Minister of Finance and later with the Cabinet. I am trying to get an amount out of the Treasury for the burden the Railways has to bear because of the uneconomic socio-economic services.

Another factor which plays a part is the fact that we are supported at the beginning of the new financial year by a considerably more substantial Rates Equilization Fund than last year. Even if the Rates Equalization Fund amounted to R115 million—I expect that the amount will be approximately that by the end of this financial year—it would hardly be enough to cover eventualities. Nevertheless, it is there. The consideration which compelled us to decide not to increase tariffs at this stage was the stimulation of the economy. The economy must now be stimulated, and it is essential in all respects that we do so. Therefore we feel that it is desirable to do it from the Railway side as well.

There is another very important factor, of course, a factor which I did not mention in my budget speech, and that is the question of inflation. Personally I believe that if the prices of the basic commodities can be kept low, even if only for one year, or if price increases can be prevented, inflation will be dealt a serious blow. Transport costs are basic. This is an undeniable fact, and we accept and appreciate that increased transport costs are felt throughout the economy and lead to a variety of price increases. For this reason, it is necessary and desirable that transport costs be kept as low as possible, quite apart from the cost of other commodities, if we want to combat inflation.

Hon. members, including the hon. member for Orange Grove, said—and I want to agree with them to a certain extent—that they did not like budgeting for a deficit. On the other hand I must admit that if that is his standpoint, he is asking me by implication to increase tariffs. [Interjections.] Last year, he directed his attack from beginning to end at the fact that we had increased tariffs and that in doing so, we were imposing burdens on the economy and the country. This year, however, the hon. member tells me that he does not believe in budgeting for a deficit. I must therefore conclude that he would have preferred me to increase tariffs again. I think the hon. member must choose between increasing tariffs and what I am doing at the moment.

I said a short while ago that there will have to be tariff increases at some stage in the future. It is no use denying this. It is obvious that there will have to be tariff increases at some stage if inflation continues, as is the case at the moment with the increase in wages and salaries and the prices of steel, coal and fuel. The volume of business during the coming year and the considerations I have already mentioned will determine when an increase has to take effect.

I shall now discuss some of the subjects raised by various hon. members. I want to say at the outset that I wish to express my sincere appreciation to those hon. members who participated in the debate, and especially for the way in which hon. members on this side of the House replied to certain matters which had been raised. Several subjects were discussed so thoroughly that it is hardly necessary for me to elaborate on them any further. However, every person has his own way of putting things, and for that reason I shall briefly discuss the various important subjects.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the road transportation legislation and alleged that Management was laying down the law to the Minister and to the Department of Transport with regard to the provisions of this legislation. I do not want to dwell on this. I do not know where the hon. member got his information, but obviously he got it somewhere. There was a short report about this in the Financial Mail as well, so they also heard somewhere that amending legislation was to be introduced in this connection. I may as well tell the hon. member that this is true. I am going to make a small amendment to the Road Transportation Act. This will relate mainly to the use of one-ton pick-ups. The Van Breda Commission found that one-ton pick-ups could be used freely in terms of the legislation. Meanwhile, it has also appeared that the measure, which was intended to accommodate industrialists and businessmen with regard to the transportation of their own goods, has been grossly abused, so much so that trucks which were not meant to be one-ton pick-ups at all had been converted and changed so as to comply with the requirements for one-ton “pick-ups”.

Moreover, a trailer had been added at the back, since there was no prohibition on the use of trailers. As a result, a lot of traffic was handled which was quite out of keeping with the spirit of the legislation. In the light of this, I am going to submit to this House an amendment to the Road Transportation Act later this year. I believe it to be absolutely essential. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on this any further.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is true that the Road Transportation Board will be instructed to be stricter in regard to temporary permits?

Absolutely not. The hon. member ought to know that the Road Transportation Boards are autonomous bodies. I never ever dictate to them. Nor do I dictate to the National Transportation Commission. I will not dictate to them what they should do. The various organizations, the private hauliers and the Railways, naturally appear before the Road Transportation Boards and all motivations are submitted when exemptions are applied for. No instructions are given from my office to any Road Transportation Board or to the National Transportation Commission telling them how to handle certain matters. If it appears to be necessary, the Act will be amended; if not, they have to decide what is to be done on the merits of what is submitted to them.

I should now like to discuss the question of fuel. This is a matter to which the hon. member for Orange Grove also referred. This hon. member said it seemed to him that I wanted to get more business for the Railways, since we argued that the Railways used fuel more economically than the road hauliers. I do not really want to use that argument, but still, it is an indisputable fact. According to a study made in this connection by the Department of Environmental Planning, road transportation vehicles use one litre of diesel fuel for every 6,23 net ton kilometres. In the case of the Railways, one litre of fuel is used for every 60 net ton kilometres. I want to give hon. members a demonstration in this connection. I have in my hand a glass tube filled with a red substance. If the quantity of red substance in the tube had been diesel, it would have been enough diesel for the Railways to transport one ton of freight over a distance of one kilometre. Hon. members must bear in mind that this has not been calculated theoretically. Nor has it been calculated under the most favourable conditions, i.e. on a level line, with a train of a certain weight over a certain distance. It includes everything, even shunting with diesel locomotives, where there is an uneconomic consumption of diesel fuel. Therefore there could be better circumstances, especially when a theoretical calculation is made. Compared to the amount of substance in the glass tube I have shown to hon. members, the road transport service, in order to convey one ton over one kilometre, needs the amount of red substance shown in this larger glass tube, i.e. nine times as much. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that he did not believe these figures.

I said it was about 26 times …

I will come back to the 26 times. In order to convey one ton over a distance of one kilometre, the Railways needs the amount of diesel indicated in this smaller tube, i.e. about two tablespoonsful. In order to convey one ton over a distance of one kilometre, the road transport service needs the amount of diesel indicated by the red substance in the larger glass tube, i.e. nine times as much. Hon. members must bear in mind that at present, the Railways is dependent on diesel fuel for only 35% of its tractive power. For the remaining 65% of its tractive power, the Railway uses either electricity or coal, both of which are local sources of energy. For the road transport service to convey a ton over a certain distance, it needs 27 times the amount of petroleum fuel that the Railways needs to convey the same ton over the same distance by rail, considering the fact that the Railways is independent of petroleum fuel for 65% of its tractive power. If this is taken into consideration, hon. members can see the ratio in this large glass tube filled with a red substance which I have in my hand now, compared with the red substance in the other tube. In order to transport a specific tonnage over a specific distance, the Railways needs the amount of red substance indicated in the small tube. In order to convey the same tonnage over the same distance, according to the calculation I have just made, road transportation needs the amount of red substance in the large glass tube.

Order! How does the hon. the Minister think we are going to get that into Hansard?

Take a picture of it.

Mr. Speaker, that would probably the first time that a picture of any Minister has appeared in Hansard! [Interjections.] In any event, I hope I have made an impression. I want to go further, however, by saying that within a few years, as I have already indicated, we shall depend on diesel for only 20% of our tractive power, because of the process of electrification we are engaged in. In other words, 80% of our tractive power will be provided by energy resources which need not be imported, namely electricity and coal. By that time, therefore, the position will be much more favourable even than the one I have just tried to demonstrate here. I mention this because it is a fact. If we are going to be subjected to greater pressure with regard to the importation of petrol, therefore, I am afraid that we shall just be forced to make greater use of the Railways.

The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about the terms of reference of the Franzsen Committee. He said that we should actually widen the terms of reference. He is not opposed to the terms of reference as they read at the moment; he just says they do not go far enough. The idea was expressed that the terms of reference should include an inquiry into uneconomic goods services—in fact, into any other service which is not being operated economically by the Railways. The Minister of Finance and I have in fact agreed to widen the terms of reference of the committee by instructing it to advise us on any additional inquiries into the finances of the Railways which may be necessary. However, I do not want to include all the other things such as capital provision, etc., in the commission’s terms of reference, because it is so absolutely essential to us that the inquiry be completed as soon as possible. Hon. members will remember my saying that we have asked the committee to report within two months if possible—in any event, not later than the end of May. I know that hon. member is concerned about the fact that we are limiting our investigation to the passenger services, but the passenger services are showing by far the greatest loss. I have a graph here—once again it is something which cannot be included in Hansard—which indicates the losses being suffered on passenger services, while there are only minor losses here and there on goods services. For the information of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, there is an estimated loss of R7 million on livestock for the 1977-’78 financial year, a loss of R11 million on locally conveyed coal and coke and a loss of R20 million on auxiliary services. As against this, there are surpluses on general goods transportation, pipelines, harbours, etc., when we survey the overall picture. I do not foresee, therefore, that every service will ever pay for itself. I think we may suppose that there will always be some cross-subsidizing. However, I do not have such a strong objection to cross-subsidizing within the goods services, because substantial profits are made on highrated goods services. Ploughing R7 million of those profits into the transportation of livestock for the sake of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, for example, does not really matter. We can afford it to a certain extent. Our main objective, however, is for every service to come as close as possible to being profitable. Therefore every service should come as close as possible to paying for itself. The reason why we have recently increased the tariffs on livestock to such an extent is in fact to bring that service closer to being profitable. However, I shall come back to the subject of livestock at a later stage.

The amendment of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, unlike the one of the hon. member for Orange Grove, concentrates on productivity. This—and I say it with respect to the hon. member for Orange Grove—is actually a better point. The first reason given by the hon. member for Orange Grove for not wanting to approve of this budget is that I cannot give the undertaking that I shall not increase tariffs. That is very academic. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, however, concentrated on productivity in his amendment. The first two legs of his amendment relate to productivity.

The third leg relates to the question of the pre-1973 pensions. Let me discuss this matter at once. The fact of the matter is that over the years, we have been adjusting pensions more or less in proportion to the salary increases. Every year, from time to time, we hear about the people who were pensioners before 1973. It is true that their pensions are lower than those of the people who retired after 1973.

However, I must point out again that on 1 December 1973, a new pension fund was established and that the Railway workers and officials make a larger contribution to that fund. This contribution has been increased from 4% to 6%. As a result, the present benefits are better. It is true that this difference exists; it exists as a part of history. Year after year we have increased the pension benefits percentage-wise, but we have never neglected the pre-1973 pensioners. When pensions are increased, as they are now being increased by 10%, the pre-1973 pensioners get the same increase as the other pensioners. What is more, when a pension increase came into operation on 1 October 1976, the year before last, ordinary pensions were increased by 10% and those of the pre-1973 pensioners by 20%, precisely because we wanted to accommodate them. Although they had made no further contribution, therefore, we recognized the fact that their need was greater. Consequently, we gave them a 20% increase in 1976, as against the 10% increase which the other pensioners were getting. I shall read a few sentences from a document which has been submitted to me—

It is illuminating to find that the pension of a person who retired on 1 March 1968, and who is therefore a pre-1973 pensioner, has risen by the same percentage as the consumer price index. With the additional assistance we have given him, he has therefore not lagged behind the consumer price index.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also spoke about productivity. I should like to give a very practical example of how train transportation has developed in recent times. Every year hon. members talk about productivity and every year I prove that there has in fact been an increase in productivity in the Railways. In spite of this, the hon. member does not seem to believe it.

Twenty years ago, 82% of the goods traffic in terms of tons kilometre was conveyed solely by means of steam traction. For technical reasons, a maximum of only two steam locomotives can be used per train. The average length of all trains was 84 axles, or 21 trucks, to convey an average load of 680 tons. The speed was 20 km/h. Every steam locomotive must be controlled by one full crew consisting of a driver and a fireman. Now that electricity and diesel are being used, and especially because the brake system has been improved, seven diesel or electric locomotives per train can be used with only one crew. It is illuminating to see the amount of labour which is saved by using electric or diesel locomotives. Trains under diesel and electric traction now convey 93% of all freight, as against 18% 20 years ago. The average length of trains is now 122 axles, or trucks. The average tonnage conveyed per train is now 1 231 tons, as against 680 tons at that time. The average speed of our trains is now 30 km/h, as against 20 km/h 20 years ago. This is due to various factors, of course, including the improved control system we have introduced.

About 14 days ago, a test was carried out on a 1:140 slope on the Richards Bay railway line. Two hundred trucks loaded with coal were drawn by four C7E-type alternating current locomotives. The total tonnage was 15 300 tons and the length of the train was km. We can now provide in our planning for the exportation of 40 million tons of coal through Richards Bay.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister what percentage of the total tonnage conveyed by the Railways will be conveyed by that particular train?

I have merely pointed out that this has been done by way of experiment. It just proves what is possible, what we are able to do in the future and to what extent productivity in the Railways has improved.

*The hon. member for Witwatersberg asked me a question arising from a report in The Cape Times. I should very much like to react to that because you, Mr. Speaker, have also reacted to something similar. The report to which the hon. member referred appeared in The Cape Times of 8 March 1978 under the heading “Auditor-General queries S.A. Railways finances”. I agree with the hon. member—I think this is what he also meant— that it is unfortunate that a report of the Auditor-General should be tabled and referred to the Select Committee on Railway Accounts for investigation and that reports of this nature should then appear in the newspapers. “Auditor-General queries S.A. Railways finances”. Headings of this nature create the impression that there is something seriously wrong with the finances of the Railways, that serious suspicions exist in this connection, while the matter had not yet been investigated by the Select Committee at that stage. I think this is very unfortunate. On 21 February this year you referred to this procedure, Mr. Speaker. It appears in Hansard, col. 1056, of Wednesday, 21 February 1979. On that day you said—

That is what it amounts to. For that reason I should like to agree with the hon. member that it is extremely unfortunate and undesirable that such a thing should have happened again.

The hon. member for Tygervallei asked me a difficult question. He asked me what was becoming of Salt River, my old workshop, where I worked from 1938 to 1944. I myself was amazed, when I went to Salt River one day about a year ago, to see how much smaller the Salt River workshop had become. I was particularly surprised to see the reduction in the number of lathes and machines in the old machine-shop where I had worked. This is also a tendency of the times, unfortunately. I think the hon. member realizes it must as well as I. The years when I was working there and when Salt River was still a large workshop, we carried out major repairs to the steam locomotives there. There was also a repair depot at Beaufort West, where I began. At Touws River, too, there is a workshop for carrying out small repairs to steam locomotives, as there is at De Aar and at various other places. But when general repairs had to be effected to the locomotives, right down to the boiler, the work came to Salt River, and the locomotive was repaired there. Today, this is no longer the case. Steam is being phased out. I am afraid that what has happened at Salt River is happening at all the large workshops in the country. I do not want to say that this is unfortunate, because modern developments are not always harmful, and when we speak of productivity, it applies to the workshops as well. If we can maintain our traction with smaller and fewer workshops, surely it is essential that this be done. But unfortunately, it has a prejudicial effect on this part of our country, here in Cape Town, where there is usually a shortage of activities.

Truck repairs are still occupying all centres on a full-time basis, here in Salt River as well. The same applies to repairs to passenger coaches, although the hon. member must remember that today’s new steel coaches have less need of repairs than the wooden ones used to have.

The various centres are also fully occupied with harbour work. Iron-foundry has declined as a result of the new block brakes which are now being manufactured instead of the cast-iron brake blocks. As I have said, the workload follows a general tendency, but I want to assure the hon. member that we are constantly giving attention to it and that we like to make the necessary work available at a place such as Salt River, where we have a steady team of workers.

The hon. member referred specifically to points and crossings. There has been little activity with regard to points and crossings lately at Salt River, at Durban and to a larger extent at Uitenhage. It was during the period between 1974 and 1977 that we were working under fairly high pressure. Today this is no longer so and there is a sharp decline. However, I want to assure the hon. member that careful attention is once again being given to the question of whether we should not repair the points and crossings shop and make it more balanced. This will all depend on the increases in activities.

I cannot tell the hon. member much more than that, except for saying that my heart is at Salt River, in Cape Town and in the Boland. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Groote Schuur agrees with me, but it seems that many other hon. members do not. However that may be, we shall give careful attention to this matter and do everything in our power to keep Salt River going properly.

The hon. member for Bethlehem made a very interesting and positive speech, a speech for which I have already thanked him. However, he mentioned one matter which I cannot fail to refer to as well. That was the remark made by the hon. member for Berea. I want to tell hon. members who were not present what the hon. member for Berea seems to have said. When reference was made to the efficiency of the Railways, he said, “Rhoodie was also efficient”. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member for Berea is a little too big for his boots. [Interjections.] I think he is also a little presumptuous. [Interjections.] I think he owes me and the Railways an apology. I think I could also advise his hon. Chief Whip to call him to his office, to close the door and to tell him to behave with a little more modesty and decency in this House. [Interjections.]

He and McIntosh are birds of a feather. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Groote Schuur raised certain matters to which I should like to refer. In the first place, he referred to the tankers which have to enter the harbour to discharge their cargoes. I have some doubt as to whether it would be desirable for me to furnish publicly the information I have before me. Hon. members will understand, of course, that matters of this nature are strategically very important. All I can say is that this oil wharf was originally built to accommodate ships of approximately 70 000 tons. Because of the oil crisis and pressure from the oil companies it has been decided, as a temporary concession, to allow oil tankers to discharge their cargo at the east wharf. The Administration is quite aware of the fact that a mooring place for tankers presents a fire hazard. Full and modern firefighting equipment has been installed there, and the many years of accident-free use of these wharves proves the efficiency of the precautions. The final solution which is being planned for the problem lies in the use of Saldanha Bay harbour for the discharge and transfer of crude oil. The facilities there will be completed in June this year.

The question of a discharge buoy in the bay is a matter which was investigated by an independent committee of oil companies as far back as 1974. The committee found that it would be impractical and expensive. They found, inter alia, that weather conditions would permit it to be used only 65% of the time. I cannot agree with the hon. member that the weather conditions in Cape Town are not worse than those around Durban.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give us the assurance that when the facilities are available at Saldanha Bay, the tanker discharge terminal in the Duncan Dock will be done away with completely.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give this kind of assurance on the spur of the moment. I have been in politics too long to do that. This is a matter which has to be investigated and about which I shall be able to give the hon. member a well-considered opinion at a later stage.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur will realize, of course, that ships of approximately 300 000 tons, such as the one which recently got into trouble, have to lie off the coast approximately 21 km from the refinery at Milnerton and to the north-west of Robben Island. A ship such as that will have to berth about 7 km from the new nuclear power station to discharge its oil with the aid of a buoy. For the information of the hon. member I want to point out that the nuclear power station will use sea water for cooling purposes. In the case of oil pollution in that vicinity, serious problems could arise at the nuclear power station. Therefore the position is not nearly as simply as one tends to believe.

I want to make haste, Mr. Speaker. There are so many other interesting subjects which could be discussed. The hon. member also referred to the Johan Hugo. The Johan Hugo was used for transporting coal when we did not have sufficient rail capacity for the transportation of coal to Cape Town. According to our calculations, the Johan Hugo is cheaper for us to use than chartered vessels. We own it and we are still using it. It is not only cheaper than rail transport, but it has always been cheaper than a chartered vessel as well. In the light of the increased rail capacity which is to become available in the near future, as well as the expected drop in coal consumption when the Koeberg nuclear power station is put into service, the whole matter of the Johan Hugo will be reconsidered.

As for repairs to this vessel, these are not carried out by the locomotive repairshop, but by the same highly trained workmen who carry out repairs to the Administration’s tugs in the harbours. The hon. member also inquired about the staff. In the management section of the head office, there are two members of staff who attend to matters concerning the Johan Hugo on a part-time basis only.

The hon. member also asked me certain questions about the transportation of perishable products by the Airways. I want to reply to that briefly. The tariffs levied on the transportation of perishable products, such as fruit and vegetables, are especially low. It is the standpoint, not only of the S.A. Airways, but of all other airlines as well, that perishable products should only be accepted for transportation if there is room available for them. This is because the tariff payable on them is so low. To use a chartered aircraft for the transportation of perishable products is also uneconomic, unless a full return flight of general cargo can also be conveyed back to the south. That is the whole problem. It is impossible, in other words, to make it profitable by merely conveying a cargo of perishable fruit or vegetables to the north. A profitable cargo must also be conveyed from north to south. Nevertheless the S.A. Airways and its pool partners have sufficient capacity available to convey all south-bound traffic which is offered. The trouble is, however, that the other lines which appear on the scene and which want to or are able to convey the perishable cargoes to the north lay claim to the profitable cargoes from north to south. That is where the problem lies. However, it is important to note that apart from the considerable capacity made available by the S.A. Airways and its pool partners for perishable exports (about 1 600 tons per month), the S.A. Airways used 11 charter flights with DC8 aircraft, Boeing 707s, CL 44s and one Boeing 747F on the north-bound route during the period between 15 December 1978 and 10 March 1979. This was done to transport an additional 424 tons of perishable exports to Europe. This is more or less the reply to this matter as raised by the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister just one question? Will he not concede that there is in fact scope for a greater trade north of our coast?

I agree with the hon. member that there may be scope for greater trade north of South Africa to Europe as far as fruit and vegetables are concerned. However, these are our problems. One cannot exist on the traffic of vegetables and fruit alone. There must be something to make it profitable and therefore there must be something to carry back from north to south. I shall not deny that such a possibility does exist.

*The hon. member for Uitenhage mentioned a very interesting matter when he quoted from the magazine called Volkshandel. The emphasis should be placed on efficiency rather than on the protection of the Railways. That is the opinion of Volkshandel, the private sector. However, the hon. member for Bethlehem spelt it out very clearly here. It is all very well to have free competition, but then the rules of the game must also be the same. In our case, unfortunately, they are not. I thought the hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and I were partners, but listening to them, it surprised me to hear them pleading for the private sector. I have thought that they would also want the Railways to make a profit. The hon. member for Orange Grove in particular was guilty of this. The Railways’ share of the transportation market is at present 50%. The remainder is in the hands of the private haulier. What is more, he only takes the goods which are profitable to him.

Does that include coastal traffic?

No, I do not think so. This only refers to S.A. Railways and road transport.

*The private haulier takes only the cream, he choses only the business which is the most profitable. If it is no longer profitable, he discontinues the business. On the other hand, it is expected of the Railways to transport a goat, a pumpkin and a milk-can. [Interjections.] It is unfortunately the position that the Railways is expected to convey everything. What happens—and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will be interested in this—is that farmers send their fruit to market from specific areas in large containers. Since they realize that this would be fairly profitable for the Railways to transport, they take it to the market themselves. When the contents have been off-loaded, they put the empty containers on the train for the Railways to bring back, because it would be unprofitable for them to do it themselves.

Clever!

Clever, yes. It is clever of them, but the hon. member must bear in mind that the Railways is expected to balance its books under such circumstances.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North raised the same matter to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred. I want to discuss this matter straight away, because I consider it to be a very interesting one. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked a question with regard to our relations with our neighbouring States in Southern Africa. I want to assure the hon. House—I believe this is Government policy and I often heard it from the mouth of Dr. Verwoerd—that we believe in political independence, but in economic inter-dependence. On the basis of that consideration, that we should be economically inter-dependent and that we should always promote this as far as possible, I have always endeavoured, and I have instructed the General Manager and his staff, to render assistance and co-operation with regard to transport matters in Southern Africa, where this has been requested or is desirable. On the basis of that consideration and that approach, we have concluded an agreement with Mozambique. Transport matters are running smoothly there, as hon. members know. This applies equally to several of our other neighbouring States, of which Swaziland is probably the best example. The development of the railway line to Gollela, in the south of Swaziland, a link-up with their railway line, took place over several years in close cooperation with South Africa. We made staff available to them, we made traction available to them and we co-operated splendidly. This really applies to all our neighbouring States, including Zambia recently. Zambia asked for traffic, the negotiations took place and we supplied the traffic to Zambia. Everything is still running smoothly in this connection. I understand that there is some minor traffic congestion in Zambia, but I am not aware of any such problems on this side of the Zambesi. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout rightly remarked that one should perhaps not publicize these matters, since there are always jealous people in the world, people who are spurred on to action by our successes with regard to this kind of co-operation in Southern Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also wanted to know what the position was with regard to South West Africa. I believe that the same circumstances will apply with regard to South West Africa as well. Two years ago, for the sake of interest, I had a survey made and we came to the conclusion that the services we were providing in South West Africa were operating at a loss. These include the airways, harbour services and rail services. The greatest losses are being suffered on rail services. This loss amounts to approximately R26 million a year. I believe that this loss is likely to create a problem in the negotiations for the independence of South West Africa. I foresee that, as was the case with the independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana, an agreement will also have to be entered into with South West Africa with regard to the operation of the railway line. It is expected that such an agreement would provide for us to continue operating that line until such time as they are prepared and in a position to do it themselves. That is my standpoint at the moment.

The hon. member also asked a question concerning discrimination and training there. There is no discrimination. Equal salaries are paid for equal work in South West Africa. Recently, certain mine buildings outside Windhoek have been used as training centres. According to all the information and reports I have received in this connection, everything is going smoothly there. Suitable applicants have applied for training, and we are doing this specifically because we realize that the trained staff will eventually have to come from their own ranks. The various population groups are being trained there, and the whole process is running smoothly. The hon. member also wanted to know whether this applied to Transkei, and in this connection I may tell him that all Transkei Railway workers are Black, or almost all. Even the drivers in the Transkei territory are Black today. They are people who were trained …

What would Douglas Mitchell have said?

As long as they have been trained.

… under our supervision and they are rendering good service there.

The hon. member for East London North referred to the S.A. Airways. I do not know what makes him think that our international services are unprofitable. In this connection he has already been corrected by the hon. member for Kempton Park. I said in my budget speech that for the first nine months of this year the surplus on Airways amounted to approximately R32 million. Where would we get this surplus if our international services were operated at a loss?

From the domestic services.

From April 1978 to January 1979, our profit on the foreign services of the S.A. Airways amounted to R23 million. On the basis of this I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is a very profitable service. In fact, we are interested in expanding our international services. I have already announced that we are going to introduce additional services to New York and to London. There is a need for such services. I think the criticism of the hon. member for East London North was really directed at the purchase of aircraft. Aircraft are purchased where we feel that the need exists and the demand is there to justify the purchase. The hon. member for Kempton Park asked whether the purchase of an Airbus aircraft would be considered. I want to tell the hon. member—who is making a very thorough study of this matter—that it would be convenient to have another Airbus aircraft, because the Airbus aircraft not only gives very good service, but is in the air almost all day every day. We are beginning to consider buying more Airbus aircraft. Representatives of the company which manufactures the Airbus were in South Africa recently and we had tentative talks with them. The problem is, however, that the aircraft manufacturers are experiencing a boom. They have orders for years ahead. The further one has to plan into the future, the more difficult it is and the more serious are the mistakes which can be made. If an aircraft is ordered now—whether it be an Airbus or a Boeing—the earliest delivery date is two years from now. Therefore, one has to anticipate now what the demand for air transportation is going to be in two years’ time. With reference to a question asked by the hon. member for Port Natal, I have a great deal of very interesting information about these aircraft which are going to be bought, but I should prefer to give it to hon. members in the Committee Stage.

I do not think the hon. member for Green Point expects me to comment on his speech at any length. The hon. member asked why the three-deck wagon for small stock had only now been put into service. There are many good reasons for this. It is a special truck, and any special truck creates a greater problem than a truck which can be used for all purposes, because if there is traffic in a particular direction, such as the transportation of coal from the coal-fields to Durban or Richards Bay in special trucks, the implication is that the trucks will have to return empty.

In the past, we concentrated on using trucks for more purposes than just one, so that the trucks would not need to be empty in one direction, but could be full on the return journey as well. In the case of the three-deck wagons, matters are not yet so organized, as they are with the transportation of coal and ore, that the special truck is also full on both legs of the journey, because we have to wait until the small stock is available for being transported. The special truck not only returns empty, but also has to stand empty for a long time, until there is a demand for it again. This is one of the factors which has played a part.

Another factor is the recent introduction of computer control for trucks. Computer control makes it possible to press a button and to supply the number of the truck, and immediately the computer indicates at what place, at what station and on what siding the truck is standing. All the various trucks are now on the computer programme, and as a result, it is now possible to do something which could not be done in the past.

The hon. member also spoke about the one stop half-way between Sishen and Saldanha. I do not know what point he was trying to make. In any case, there is no need for anything else.

Other hon. members supported me splendidly in my attempt to obtain assistance with regard to the uneconomic socio-economic services. I appreciate the fine support, and I hope that it will make an impression on the hon. the Minister of Finance. I am sorry that he was not always here to hear the support.

I want to make a few remarks about what was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. This hon. member obviously sees the whole matter just from his own point of view. I have already told him that we have a loss of several millions of rands on the conveyance of livestock. I want to tell him straight away that we are prepared to serve on any committee at any time. The hon. member speaks very lightly of block trains for livestock, such as sheep and cattle. But the sheep have to be there to be transported. There have already been objections from agriculture to the handling of 34 double-deck wagons, which can convey 8 160 sheep, per block load. To make up a train of 34 double-deck wagons, which is considered a block load, 8 160 sheep are required. It takes re-organization, not only by the Railways, but organization by agriculture to make up that kind of block load. The same applies to the transportation of cattle. To make up a block load of cattle, 800 head of cattle are required. If this can be arranged, it is all very well. We concentrate on transporting block loads, because we can convey them from one point to another without any delays and without having to do any shunting. This enables us to do it more economically.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke about Cremora which was being supplied on aircraft. As far as I know, one does not have a choice on the aircraft of other airlines either, and it is only on S.A. Airways flights that one can get fresh milk. On every flight of the S.A. Airways one can get fresh milk if one asks for it.

It ought to be the other way round.

It is obvious that if one has to serve coffee or tea to 100 passengers on a flight within half an hour, it will save a tremendous amount of time if one gives each of them a sachet of milk powder instead of walking up and down with a jug of liquid milk.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the dairy industry produces little packets of fresh milk?

We provide that as well. I am aware of that. That is why I said that fresh milk can be made available. [Interjections.] I am not going to reply any further to the whole matter raised by the hon. member. I should prefer to do so in the Committee Stage. The fact of the matter is that we are still transporting livestock at a loss, because only approximately 70% of our costs are being covered. If a committee has to be appointed, as the hon. member said, we are quite prepared to do so.

Hon. members will recall that they asked me a year or two ago to exempt road transport traffic. I then said that I would do so, but now they are coming back to me. It is no use my giving them the things they ask for.

I think the hon. member for Algoa gave a very apt summary of the positive results of the activities of the Railways. I should like to express my appreciation to him for doing that.

I just want to respond to one more question raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He objected to the fact that we had increased the depreciation rate with regard to the writing-off of our assets by a further 10%. Naturally, this is a problematical issue to which we are giving attention at the moment, and concerning which we hope to be able to make a more permanent arrangement soon. I do not want to go into it in detail at this stage.

I want to remind hon. member, however, that we increased the depreciation rate by 20% a few years ago. Subsequently we have increased it by another 20%, and this year we are increasing it by a further 10%. The hon. member objected to that He said that the taxpayers could not afford it and that companies were not getting any credit for it when they tried to do so from the Receiver of Revenue. That is the approach of the Receiver of Revenue. The hon. member will agree with me, however, that private companies do it for the purposes of the payment of dividends, because it is sensible. When this matter was submitted to me last year, I hesitated to do it, because it would mean an additional expenditure of approximately R45 million. However, I was convinced by argument that it would be desirable to do it. If one normally writes off 10% every year of the historic value of an asset which cost, say, R1 000 and which has a life of 10 years, the resulting cost of the same asset at the end of the period of 10 years will be R2 000, because of the inflation rate of 10% a year, while one would have only R1 000 to replace that asset. How could I replace that asset?

†I should like to tell the hon. member that I do not apologize for it. I rather want to face my critics now. I know that I have done unpopular things in my capacity as Minister of Transport, but I have done them in the belief that it would be in the best interest of the S.A. Railways. I have been trying to make the S.A. Railways more self-sufficient by way of capital provision. I think we have been successfull in that.

*That is why I am not apologizing for it. I would rather be criticized today than to hear it said in the future that Lourens Muller sent people into a blind alley and that they are having serious problems because he did not make the necessary provision. Those funds are not funds which are lost. It is money which we obtain from our revenue and which is not lost, but which we have available to be used for the purpose of replacing our assets. That is why I do not apologize for it.

I sincerely hope that circumstances will be favourable in the coming year and that we shall be able to proceed without burdening the Railways consumer with additional expenditure by way of increased tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.