Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half hour? Before raising various matters in the Committee Stage, I should like to refer to some of the answers that were given by the hon. the Minister at the end of the Second Reading debate. I am afraid that these answers are far from satisfactory.

In the first place I should like to refer to the argument on the question of the most effective use of diesel fuel. I am afraid that in spite of the visual aids the hon. the Minister produced to prove his point, on closer analysis his specious reasoning does not hold water. This is particularly so in regard to his argument attempting to prove that for every litre of fuel per ton kilometre this was a quotation given to the SAR transport system, private enterprise needs 26 litres to achieve the same result. The hon. the Minister is trying to prove his point by suggesting that because most Railway operations are either electrically or steam-driven, they use what diesel they do use, more productively. With all respect to the hon. the Minister, this argument is both ridiculous and nonsensical. If one carries that sort of argument to its logical conclusion, one can argue that if I carry goods on the carrier of my bicycle, I would be able to utilize diesel fuel more effectively than the Railways, because I did not use any at all.

In regard to the claim that, on average, road transport uses nine times as much diesel fuel as rail transport, we are at least on slightly more reasonable grounds, although I must say that the hon. the Minister has still failed to convince me. When it comes to the transporting of bulk goods, like coal or ores, over long distances or the conveyance of some siding-to-siding traffic, rail transport will use diesel fuel far more economically than road transport. I have to admit that. There are many other instances, however, involving light but bulky goods with dispatch and delivery points some distance from railroads, where I have no doubt at all that motor transport uses diesel fuel much more economically. The hon. the Minister presented arguments and made claims which, to my mind, in this case do more harm than good, because they are simply not credible. I should like to suggest to him—perhaps I should challenge him—to produce the study done by the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy, together with the Railways Administration’s own statistics, which he mentioned in his budget speech. I shall then hand this information over to transport consultants and economists representing private enterprise road haulage contractors, to enable them to present their comments on the claims made and their arguments to contradict the hon. the Minister’s arguments. I am afraid the hon. the Minister seems to regard private enterprise as an enemy. This was never more clearly shown than yesterday when he spoke about hon. members on this side of the House claiming to be friends of the Railways and yet talking in favour of free enterprise. The point I have tried to make, and this appears to have escaped the hon. the Minister entirely, is that it is his job as Minister of Transport to ensure that State-owned transport systems and private enterprise should be put into a position where they are complementary services, working together for the good of the South African economy. Unfortunately, the philosophy of the hon. the Minister and his party is a socialist philosophy which demands that State-owned concerns must be built up and protected to the detriment of private enterprise. This type of socialism has already proved to be unsatisfactory and not in the interests of economic growth and prosperity. We on these benches believe in a competitive and free enterprise system. We do not believe in this sort of socialist philosophy. We do not believe in the socialist philosophies which are continually being put forward from the Government benches.

I want to revert to the question of the rationalization of passenger services, which is the subject of the third point of the amendment that I moved during the Second Reading and has been discussed by both the hon. member for Green Point and myself. I believe that the passenger services of the Railways have reached a very crucial stage, the stage that was probably reached in the United States in Europe in the two decades after the Second World War. Passenger services have become an embarrassment to the Administration, and all that they are interested in at this stage is ridding themselves of the financial responsibility as quickly as they possibly can. When this stage was reached in the United States of America a large percentage of the passenger rail service was disbanded completely. It was realized, too late, that they had gone too far. They attempted to resuscitate some of these passenger services under the federal agency Amstrak. This proved to be a very costly operation. The whole operation of getting it into gear again was very costly because it had been allowed to degenerate too far. This is something which we will obviously have to avoid in South Africa. In Europe a different pattern was followed. I think we could refer to this pattern as a socialistic expedient whereby rail services had to be increasingly bailed out through central Government subsidies. To my mind, neither of these two extremes is a complete answer for South Africa. The appointment of the Franzsen Committee seems to indicate that the thinking of the hon. the Minister and the Administration is tending to lean in the direction of the socialist subsidy solution. I want to urge the hon. the Minister to clarify his thoughts on this, and I want to make a few suggestions to him, because I do not think that it is completely the right answer. The present oil crisis gives us a clear indication that passenger services stand to become increasingly viable. This fact has been reflected by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech. On top of this, the Government migrant labour system means that they are committed to the continuation of railway passenger services whether they like it or not. Following up a point made by the hon. member for Green Point, I think the hon. the Minister must guard against loading passenger services with all sorts of expenses which are common to the rail system as a whole. When a similar situation existed overseas and they were trying to separate the costs of passenger traffic from the rest of the railway system, figures quoted to justify the isolation of various costs, did not prove accurate, because staff and facilities which were regarded as being responsibilities of the passenger service proved to be far more integral to the rail system as a whole than anyone realized. I hope that the Franzsen Committee, who have a very difficult task ahead of them, will be able to isolate and identify costs accurately so that the hon. the Minister and the Administration will be in a position to plan with the knowledge that the information they have is quite accurate. I want to make it quite clear to hon. members that no matter whether it is the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Railways Administration itself which subsidizes passenger services—and I believe it is inevitable that we will have to continue subsidizing them—the taxpayer pays in the end. So a tremendous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister to see that passenger services are run as economically as possible.

You are all wrong there. It is not in every case that the taxpayer has paid. In some cases it is the railway user who pays and in another it is the Railways Administration.

Well, one section of taxpayers or another is, in fact, paying. I do admit that if the Railways Administration pays, it is the rail user who is more heavily taxed than the non-rail user. The money nevertheless comes from the public. I believe, as I have said before, that rationalization by way of motor coaches is a possibility in some areas and should be looked at, but there is no doubt at all that many existing services will have to carry on.

I should like to make what I consider to be another positive suggestion to the hon. the Minister. He has the advantage of the example of changes made in both Europe and America, so he should be able to avoid the pitfalls and mistakes those countries have made. The European model shows that passenger services should be making most of their money from the provision of second-class accommodation. We do, it is true, have a somewhat different and more complex situation here in that class distinction is also colour distinction, so people who would normally share accommodation are separated. I believe, however, that a good case could be made out for the immediate introduction, or the introduction as soon as possible, of open-design inter-urban trains in which all races would share daytime accommodation. This, it seems to me, would be a good beginning. It seems to me that the promise of fast and clean trains, in this second-class category, would attract a multiracial clientele, people who would be sufficiently impressed by the standards set not not to think about race differences.

I also think that the days of compartments in second-class accommodation should really be drawing to a close and that it would suit people’s pockets better to sit in open-design carriages, even for long-distance journeys. The European railways show us that open-design carriages can be not only comfortable, but that they also remain a viable choice at reasonable second-class prices, even when compared with air and car travel. I believe that they would attract more people and would be much more economic to run.

I must say that one of the ways in which train travel could be made more attractive would be by increasing the speed and therefore cutting down on the duration of journeys. I regret to say, however, that as far as speed is concerned I do not believe that the Administration has met the challenge of the times. The fact that the Railways can produce a high-speed bogie of considerable merit has made absolutely no difference to our timetables at all. We hope, however, that it will do so in the future.

About two or three years ago, during a Railways debate, I spoke about a deterioration in the timetables for the Cape Town suburban trains since 1936, in spite of all the improvements that had been made, e.g. in electrification and signalling systems in regard to which there has been great improvement. Unfortunately, however, there are many other examples. A trip from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town takes much longer than it did in 1963, and trips on the TransKaroo express now take slightly longer than they did last year. There are many more examples. With our improved technology and efficiency, why has there been this decline? I realize that when it comes to the question of speed, our narrow-gauge lines give us considerable problems. As the hon. the Minister probably knows, however, the Swiss system has a narrower gauge than ours and yet there times for specific distances are very much better than in this country.

To sum up my argument, let me say that I believe that the oil situation is such that members of the public are more ready than ever to use public transport, and the time is at hand for the Railways, as an operator of passenger services, to imaginatively improve standards of speed and conveyance, especially in the range of intermediate, second-class journeys. I also suggest that these services should have a multiracial clientele, and even if it means scrapping colour differentiation to attract an economic density of custom, this has to be done.

At this juncture I should like to raise another matter. It was with considerable distress that I heard, this morning on the radio, that what can only be described as an ecological disaster had taken place at Richards Bay harbour. I heard that inside the harbour itself, which of course falls under the Railways Administration, all sea life has been killed off completely. I gather that the Natal Parks Board, who are investigating this, discovered that all the fish and all the other living organisms such as crabs and prawns are dead. The reasons for this are not as yet clear, but it is almost definite that major pollution has occurred. This could have come from a number of sources. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us what the situation there is. I must urge him to make sure that the Administration, as controller of the harbour, does its part to ensure that something like this will not occur again in the future. We do not know yet whether the damage is irreparable, but certainly it is a most shocking and unhappy situation.

I want to move on to the question of apartheid on the Railways, a subject raised during the Second Reading debate yesterday by the hon. member for Green Point.

I took a bet with myself that you would raise that subject, and I won my bet.

Well, Sir, the hon. member can rest assured that as long as there is apartheid on the Railways, we on this side of the House are going to take the Government to task for keeping on with these outdated ideas. We know that apartheid on the Railways is costing us a considerable amount of money. It is costing us a fortune and it is completely unnecessary. During the course of a debate on energy in the House the other day, I described the ridiculous situation that exists with regard to the shunting around of the Trans-Karoo Express at Touws River station. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister was in the House at the time—I do not think he was. I understand that this matter has already been brought to the attention of the public by The Cape Times in the latter part of last year. When that train gets into Touws River, the coaches for Black people, which are at the front of the train, are shunted away from the front of the train right round the side. The guard’s van is shunted to one side and those coaches are shunted to the rear of the train after which the guard’s van is again attached. All this is done so that when the train pulls into Cape Town station the coaches for Black people will be at the rear of the train and not at the front of the train. Sir, we make a laughing stock of ourselves in the eyes of the world when we do ridiculous, stupid things like this. I believe it applies not only to this train, but also to many others from all over the country. I believe the trains from the eastern Cape go through the same process close to Bellville. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell me to how many trains this does apply and how much it in fact costs the Railways each year. Not only does it make us look extremely stupid, but obviously the whole process is expensive and a waste of valuable energy resources. One can hardly credit it that in this day and age we should be doing that kind of thing. I should like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that this sort of nonsense is going to stop.

There are hundreds of other examples of apartheid enforcement and the sooner we get rid of this sort of discrimination the better off we shall be.

Where is it enforced?

Well, Sir, if that hon. member does not know, he must be very ignorant—and that does not surprise me either. The hon. member is extremely ignorant. In fact, I would say he is one of the most ignorant in the House despite the fact that he is a frontbencher.

If he takes a bet with himself on that point, he will win it every time.

If the hon. member wants some examples of apartheid on the Railways, let him just look at all the separate facilities provided. There are separate bridges across railway lines because Whites and people who are not White are not allowed to cross railway lines together. I do not know whether that hon. member thinks the sky will fall in if different people go over the same bridge at the same time, but I think he probably does. However, I can assure him it will not. He need have no fears on that score because everything will be quite satisfactory. I do not believe South Africa can continue with this sort of policy, either morally or on economic grounds. The sooner it is rooted out by the hon. the Minister and the Administration, the more pleased we shall all be.

A few of you on that side will be pleased …

I can assure the hon. the Minister that I will be extremely pleased.

… and all the others will be unhappy.

Well, I do not believe that. The hon. the Minister must be well aware of the fact that there is considerable integration in transport systems in the city of Cape Town at the present time and that the sky has not fallen in, that people are not very unhappy and that certainly these services have been run much more economically than in the past.

I think the hon. the Minister must just put his fears aside, take his courage in his hands and decide that he has to start somewhere. I assure the hon. the Minister that it will happen and that it will not be very long before it does happen. I want to tell him that whether he wants it to or not, it is going to happen. I think it is up to the hon. the Minister not to say that people will be very unhappy, but to put it in a positive light. He has to try and sell it and take action to alleviate the points of friction that might occur. As I have said before, we are not asking him to bring it about overnight, but to phase it in. We believe that if he does so in an intelligent manner, it can be done to the benefit of everybody in South Africa.

Another matter I want to raise is the question of catering facilities for Black passengers on some of our main lines. I particularly want to refer to some of the lines in the eastern Cape. The opportunities accorded to travellers to obtain refreshments on the East London-Port Elizabeth train or the East London-Queenstown train and other trains running in that area, are inadequate, to say the least. The Railway café at King William’s Town just cannot cope with the traffic. There is a Railway café at Queenstown, which is completely inadequate. Moreover, there have been unpleasant stories in the Press about discrimination practised there, although Black passengers have to pay the same as White passengers. I think the hon. the Minister has to realize—I am sure he does—that the non-White commuter traffic is probably the most profitable part of passenger operations. It is up to him to look after our Black passengers. I think efforts are certainly being made in this respect. I remember walking around Johannesburg Station approximately 18 months ago and being quite impressed with what was being done, but I think there are more outlying areas which still require the attention of the Administration. I think these matters have to be looked into and I ask the hon. the Minister to do it.

This whole question of Black commuters is a very serious one at the moment. As the hon. the Minister knows, the line north of Pretoria—I shall refer to this in a later speech during this debate—is overloaded. There are a tremendous number of buses carrying passengers who will eventually be carried by train. I noticed the report in one of the newspapers the other day which quoted the ex-Secretary for Transport, Mr. Driessen, as saying that a dangerous situation existed because of this inadequate transport accommodation for Black people in that area. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether it would be possible to speed up the establishment of that service. I think it is one that deserves priority because of what an acknowledged transport expert like Mr. Driessen calls a dangerous situation. I think it is vitally necessary, if it is possible, that that operation should be speeded up and that we should try and complete it. I am not quite sure of the estimated finishing date, but I think it is around 1983. That is too far ahead. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to try and do something about it.

The last matter I should like to raise in the time at my disposal has to do with the turnaround time of trucks. Out of my own knowledge I am not able to comment on this, but I have been told by somebody that the turn-around time of trucks have deteriorated considerably in recent times.

If you had done your homework, you would have known what the situation is.

I do wish that stupid hon. member would be quiet. I cannot hear a word he says.

You are lucky.

Yes, I must admit that if I did hear what he said it would probably have been worse.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister exactly what the turn-around time of trucks is estimated to be at the moment. Obviously this is a yardstick of efficiency and productivity. I know that over the years it has been a recurring problem for the Railways Administration. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell me whether or not there is in fact a deterioration taking place at the present time and, if so, whether he can furnish reasons for that deterioration. He must tell us exactly what the situation is.

With these questions I should like to leave it to somebody else at this stage to continue the debate.

Mr. Chairman, one is sorry to hear about what happened to the marine life in Richards Bay. I could not hear whether the hon. member said that the Progs, the frogs or the prawns were dead but, as I said, it is with regret that one hears that the marine life there has been destroyed.

To return to the debate, I want to associate myself in the first place with the congratulations which were conveyed to the hon. the Minister and his department on this excellent budget which we have before us in this House in these difficult times. That we budgeted without increasing the rates, is an excellent achievement for which South Africa is extremely grateful.

However, I should like to dwell for a moment on and just refer briefly to the matter on which the hon. member made an announcement. I want to express my personal thanks to him for doing so. Hon. members will recall that in the corresponding debate last year I specially dealt with the question of socio-economic services. At that stage the hon. the Minister undertook to ensure that the matter would be gone into, and today I want to express my thanks for the announcement that this committee has already been appointed. It consists of Dr. Franzsen and Dr. Brand and its terms of reference are to institute an investigation into the subsidization of certain socio-economic services. It is true that we make use of cross subsidization and that the pipelines earn the highest profit. This year a profit of R115 million is being budgeted for and then we are not taking into account the pro rata share of the appropriation account which still has to be debited against the pipelines. It is, in fact, this service which to a large extent subsidizes the losses on other services. It is also true that in the presence of an energy crisis in South Africa the fuel consumer is also making his contribution to the building of a second and third Sasol. For that reason I think it is justified that this committee should give a great deal of attention to ensuring that it is not only the fuel consumer who assumes responsibility for these essentials, but that they are, in fact, placed on a broad basis so that the entire nation will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of those socio-economic services which are essential.

However, I return now to the budget. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is the NRP’s main speaker on Railway matters. He made a fairly responsible speech here and one can listen to his criticism. He came to the conclusion and made the statement that “this is the best controlled budget”. Those were the words he used. He went so far as to say that he did not see any need to analyse this budget or to examine the expenditure since it was being properly controlled. In his opinion this is the best budget in recent years.

I said the best controlled budget.

He is a person who made a study of the budget. After that we listened to his colleague, the lone wolf of the NRP here in the Cape, the hon. member for East London North. What did that hon. member do? Apparently he also examined this budget, particularly the operating account He said that he understood and knew something about budgets, but after having listened to the statements the hon. member made here, one would have to conclude that he knows nothing about a budget. After the first speaker of the NRP had said that it was the best controlled budget, he, almost the most junior member, spoke next on that side and his first statement was “that the hon. the Minister is spending money like a drunken Indian”. Why he used that terminology I do not know either, because I do not think it is constructive.

He is the person who professes to know about budgets. Let us now examine the statement which that hon. member made. I cannot single out all the items, but, inter alia, he referred to “working and maintenance” under “Harbours”. He said there was a tremendous increase there; an additional expenditure of 15,2% was being budgeted for. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said that the expenditure on Revenue Account was being increased by 14,5%, because there had been an increase in prices. The prices of steel, coal and electricity were being increased and on top of that there was still the 10% salary increase. He referred only to the 15,2% increase but he did not take into consideration that the harbours had expanded. In addition cranes had been purchased and heavy expenditure incurred on the container system. The number of berths and quays was increased and additional dredgers were acquired; in other words, it is obvious that working and maintenance costs must be higher. Under that specific head which he dealt with, there are 43 accounts and he did not have the courage to refer to one of them and to say that the Railways had overspent. He merely made wild statements.

I want to refer to a second aspect. The hon. member referred to the Airways and spoke about an increase of 15,9%. This is the increase of R53 million on R337 million. The reasons for this increase are precisely the same. The number of aircraft has increased, there were higher maintenance costs, salary increases, etc. However, the hon. member seized upon a mere percentage and emphasized only the 15,9%. Has one ever seen such ridiculous figures?

Now I want to refer to a third aspect. Unfortunately my time is limited to only a few minutes and I cannot elaborate at length on all these things. The aspect to which I now want to refer is that of the pipelines. In that connection the hon. member stated that there was an increase of 20%. The amount which is being budgeted for this year, is R10 million. This means an increase of R1,7 million. Percentage-wise this is therefore 20%. However, the costs of electricity supplies rose by 33%. This is an increase which was beyond the control of the Railways. Furthermore a second pipeline was added. Surely this also has to be maintained. The hon. member can hardly expect me not to say that he made an extremely unfair attack? That hon. member, who is so clever when it comes to budgets, went further and singled out one specific item, viz. the one in regard to the maintenance of “Permanent way and Works”. He referred to item 212, the maintenance of permanent way under contract, and asked how it was possible that there could be an increase of 53% in this case. This is the increase of R4,368 million to R6,75 million. It is, in fact, 53% but this is a contract concluded by the Railways for the maintenance of a permanent way. The hon. member did not take the trouble to ascertain the length of the permanent way concerned. It could be 200 miles, 400 miles or even 500 miles. However, the hon. member compares an ape with a baboon, or something like that. [Interjections.] Surely that is not a comparison, but the hon. member makes a statement of that nature. If he had done his homework he would have known that this amount had been R8 million two years ago. Everything depends on the size of the contract concerned. Surely one cannot simply make such wild statements and then kick up a fuss and exclaim: “It is scandalous!” and then add: “If these figures had been submitted to me, I would not have accepted them.” I do not know how the hon. member can make such a statement. Granted, the figures may be high. However, the hon. member’s judgment is, in my opinion, very poor. I think that is his problem.

Now I just want to refer to the capital programme, if there is still time left. The whole problem of the Railways lies in the financing of its capital programme. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to that. However, they will have to decide for themselves what percentage from Revenue they regard as reasonable for the financing of the capital programme of the Railways. When the Post Office budget was discussed here last year, the hon. member for Hillbrow applauded it, and he could not praise the former Minister enough for his good budget. But what do we find in that budget? Of an amount of R322 million 40% was used to cover depreciation and the increase in the replacement costs of assets. Then it was “hunky-dory”. It was ostensibly a wonderful budget. But when the Railways requires an additional 10% to cover depreciation, the hon. member for Orange Grove stops in his tracks like a donkey and one cannot budge him. Then he is his party’s chief spokesman on these matters. These are little matters which they will have to decide among themselves so that we can know where we stand with them.

In the case of the NRP things are exactly the same. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to the capital budget. The hon. member for Umhlanga Rocks … [Interjections.] I mean the hon. member for Umhlanga. He is “on the rocks” in any case. The hon. member for Umhlanga advanced the same argument. He agreed with everything and said that he gave the hon. the Minister an A-plus for his budget. [Interjections.] However, when this extra 10% is requested by the Railways, all those hon. members stop dead in their tracks.

Now I want to refer to a final aspect.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, it is such a pity that you are spoiling a good speech now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, not for a long time have I heard such blatant racism from that side of the House as I did this afternoon when the hon. member for Orange Grove was speaking. I get the impression that the hon. member can only absorb suspicion and gossip in his political digestive system these days. The hon. member now alleges, after having decided to travel by train like the rest of us, that the passenger coaches are being changed round. He expressed his reservations about that. According to him, it amounts to discrimination against the passengers who first travel in the coaches right in front and later in the coaches right at the back. The hon. member has probably never examined the construction of the Cape Town station. It is merely a practical arrangement on the part of the Railways that when a train enters the station, the facilities for non-Whites are more easily accessible if they travel in the coaches at the back. The opposite applies to the Whites. The facilities for non-Whites are not inferior, but this the hon. member does not know. What the hon. member does not know either is that the train passengers in South Africa represent the different strata of society. One does come across the good ones and the educated ones, but one also comes across those people who are not so well educated, as well as the poorly educated and the barbarians.

So non-Whites are poorly educated!

It is very easy for that hon. member to talk, since he is a rich man. He can afford to travel by Blue Train every time. However, there are other people in South Africa who cannot afford to do this.

If non-White passengers were to travel to Cape Town in the front coaches, the hon. member would be asking next year why the non-Whites were travelling in the front coaches. The hon. member would then maintain that they had been placed in the dangerous part of the train, because when a train is derailed, the front coaches are derailed first. If the hon. the Minister were to allow non-White passengers to travel to Cape Town in the coaches at the back the following year, the hon. member would make the accusation that non-Whites were being discriminated against, as another train could collide against those coaches from behind. Just like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member is afflicted by chronic distrust. I want to leave the matter at that and try to base my speech on another issue.

I hope you will do better this time!

I do not intend to enlarge on the position in which the South African farmer finds himself at present. However, the meat producer, just like other producers, is battling hard against rising costs. I know that the hon. the Minister is acquainted with the position of the farmer in South Africa, and for that reason I feel we should all reflect on these matters. However, we should do this without pleading for the agricultural sector to be favoured at the expense of the Railways. Of course, the reverse also applies. We may not take steps with regard to the Railways at the expense of the agricultural sector. The question now occurs to me: How is the calculation of the revenue from and expenditure on the transportation of livestock made? This is an important aspect around which I want to build my argument. Are the calculations for the transportation of small stock separated from those of large stock when the financial results are worked out? If this is the case, does this mean that whatever the favourable result on the transportation of small stock may be, it will have no effect on the unfavourable result from the transportation of large stock?

The introduction of the double-deck wagon for the transportation of small stock is, in my opinion, a very important development in the right direction. The resultant rebate of 33/3% on present tariffs is a major concession to the meat producer. We are very thankful for this concession. It will be an even greater concession if the research on the three-deck wagon succeeds. Success in this regard will mean a rebate of 50%, as the hon. the Minister has already indicated. This reminds me of an occasion when I made representations for the development of such a wagon and it was maintained that it was not possible to design a double-deck wagon. It now seems that the double-deck wagon will be a success, and I believe and trust that the three-deck wagon can also be successfully developed. I proceed from the assumption that with the rebate of 33⅓% in the case of a double-deck wagon, the cost of transportation of the small stock will still be covered. This is a principle which cannot be objected to. I also assume that the transportation tariff in the case of the three-deck wagon will have the same financial results for the Railways.

Since the rebate on tariffs will only apply to small stock, I must conclude that in this regard there is, in fact, a difference in the calculation of expenses for the transportation of small stock and large stock. I must accept this as being the case. The transportation of small stock and large stock is a matter which affects the meat industry as a whole internally. Last year, in the controlled areas alone, 1½ million head of cattle and 4,9 million sheep were slaughtered. All these concessions on the part of the Railways benefit the producer as well as the consumer. In addition, it is important that the Railways should undertake the transportation at a tariff which at least covers its expenses. However, in view of the present development, it seems that in the case of the one important leg of the meat industry, i.e. beef, neither the producer nor the consumer nor the Railways will benefit in any way. Since the tariffs for the transportation of livestock will remain unchanged, whereas costs will continue to rise, I must accept that the present tariff fails to cover the transportation costs of the Railways in this regard.

The thought has occurred to me that perhaps the transportation of large stock and small stock, i.e. all livestock, should be regarded as a unit for the purpose of calculating expenses, and that the tariff should then be determined on the basis of these cost units. If this can be done with due allowance for the concession which will be made with regard to the transportation of small stock, this could benefit the whole industry. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would pay particular attention to this aspect of tariff calculation. I think that the farmers will be so satisfied with the concessions granted to them that they will also do everything in their power to limit the cost factor in the loading and unloading of livestock. In this regard I want to suggest that the Administration should consult the farmers with regard to efficient methods for the loading and unloading of three-deck wagons. A farmer will always come up with something. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and the hon. member for De Aar dealt with various matters which I shall not comment on. I want to raise an entirely different matter with the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to things being “hunky-dory”. The group of people I want to refer to certainly do not find everything hunky-dory at present. It will not surprise the hon. the Minister to realize that I am referring to those Railway pensioners who retired prior to 1973. In the past we have discussed the plight of this particular group of pensioners and we have had various statements from the hon. the Minister about them. One was hoping that there would be some alleviation in this budget for those pensioners who retired before the improved benefits came into operation on 1 December 1973. Almost exactly four years ago, on 13 March 1975, during the course of the debate on the Railway budget of that year, the hon. the Minister made various references to those old pensioners who were then getting a minimum type of pension. We know that there have since been changes in the administration of the various types of pensions, but the hon. the Minister on that occasion said (Hansard, 1975, col. 2542)—

This policy of providing an income on which people can live, is a matter which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister, because obviously a group of former Railway employees are finding it increasingly difficult to live on their present rate of pensions. This is particularly so when one takes into account that a number of these people retired some years ago. It is true, as the hon. the Minister indicated when he replied to the Second Reading, that there have been increases. Nobody denies that fact, but one must take the position into account in which these pensioners find themselves in today where there is a tremendous gap in the pension of those who retired prior to 1 December 1973 and of those who retired after that date. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention to narrow that gap or not. In 1976 the hon. the Minister did make an attempt to narrow the gap by granting a 20% increase to those pensioners who retired prior to 1973 while granting a 10% increase, with a minimum of R25 per month, to those pensioners who retired after 1973. This did help those pensioners who were receiving small pensions taken on the basis of the minimum increase of R25 per month. Thereafter these pensioners had to wait till 1978 before further increases were granted. This was a very small increase, an increase of 5% with a minimum of R15 per month, to help those who were receiving smaller pensions. With its practical application, however, it was found that a number of these people received far less than what they had originally anticipated.

It was a source of great disappointment and dissatisfaction amongst the older pensioners when they discovered that they did not receive a 5% increase, but indeed a very much smaller increase. I have a typical example which I want to bring to the attention of the House. A person who was anticipating a R15 per month increase in his pension in fact only received R4,84. The application of the 2% enhancements, whereby this is deducted from the assessed increase, is a new facet which only came into operation last year. The 2% annual increase was granted as far back as 1969 and there are no other occasions which I can recollect where this deduction of 2% was taken into account where an increase had been granted to a group of pensioners. It is therefore a development which has taken place in recent times. In terms of this budget, there is a 10% increase for pensioners, and here again there is reference to the 2% enhancement which is taken into account whereby persons receiving this increase will also be subject to a deduction of that 2%. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is to be any minimum increase as far as this pension increase is concerned. No mention was made of the question of a minimum. If there is to be no minimum, it means that those receiving lower pensions will suffer most in the face of the proposed increase of 10% on 1 April. Such increases however, one must bear in mind, involve expenditure. It is nevertheless interesting to note that of the total number of Railway pensioners, i.e. 65 343, some 32 425 are persons receiving pensions awarded prior to 1 December 1973. This figure represents just under 50% of the total number of pensioners. One also realizes that this number is a decreasing one. Obviously, as the years go by, fewer and fewer persons will fall into the category of pensioners who retired prior to December 1973.

If one looks at the financial position, as outlined in the memorandum tabled in this House, one can see that over the years the Fund has grown at a considerable rate. Indeed, if one takes into account the period from 30 November 1977 to 30 November 1978, as illustrated on page 8 of the memorandum, one sees that the Fund has grown from R828,7 million to R895,1 million. This is a substantial increase when one takes into account that there is a contribution of some 6% that is being made, and also in view of the fact that there are wage increases now coming into effect. What I am trying to illustrate, however, is that it would appear that the Fund is in a healthy state. For instance, if one goes back further in time and covers a longer period, e.g. 31 March 1974 to 31 March 1978, one sees that the Fund has grown from R655,71 million to R851,5 million, which represents an increase of R195,8 million. In other words, there has been a growth in the Fund of almost R200 million over the past four years. It would therefore appear that the Fund is in an extremely healthy state. Therefore, if it is possible, I think that the hon. the Minister should consult the Joint Committee on Pension Matters to see whether the increase of 2% per annum, which was announced in 1969, should not be increased to try to meet the tremendous increase that has taken place in the cost of living, living costs having escalated enormously, particularly in recent times. One soon discovers that the increase of 2%, whilst being appreciated by the Railway pensioners, today falls a long way behind living expenses.

Then there is the question of the narrowing of the gap, a question that is such an important one. In 1976 an attempt was made to narrow the gap, but it appears that in this year’s budget there is no attempt to do so. I hope, however, that the hon. the Minister can give some indication of what his plans are to assist that group of people who went on pension before 1973 and who are receiving pensions far below those now being paid to those who retired after that date. I say this because those people—and I am sure the hon. the Minister appreciates the fact—did make a contribution to the Fund. Indeed, many of those people made a contribution to until 1971. We know that in 1971, by virtue of an arrangement that was made, there was no increase in salaries and wages, but there was a reduction in the contribution to the Pension Fund, a reduction from 8% to 4%. That, however, happened in 1971, and a large number of people who went on pension before 1973 therefore did make large contributions. We know that the contribution was initially reduced to 4%, but was then increased to 6% in 1973 when the improved benefits came into being. The point I am trying to make is that the gap, instead of narrowing, is now going to widen in terms of announcements so far made.

Let us compare the pensions that two different people receive. An artisan who retired before 1973, would have been receiving R183 on 1 April 1976. A person occupying the same post, but who retired after 1973, would have been receiving R269 per month, a difference of some 68%. Then, taking into account the increase granted in 1976, this went to R229 for the person who retired prior to 1973 and R309 for the person who retired after December 1973, the ratio then being 74%. One can see that, particularly in view of the latest announcement, the gap is going to widen and not become narrower. I hope the hon. the Minister can give some indication that he will be coming to the rescue of these people who are having tremendous difficulty in trying to meet the increased costs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister replied to the hon. member for Umbilo yesterday and I am sure he will say more about the position of pre-1973 pensioners today or tomorrow.

I want to say that as far as the transportation of livestock is concerned, the producer and the economy of the country are facing a serious situation. I am aware of the tremendous decrease in the transportation of livestock by train. I am also aware of the fact that the single most important reason for this is that more farmers are transporting their stock themselves or having it transported. In the year ended 31st March 1978, the drop in the number of small stock transported was 41,6%, and the drop in the number of cattle was 25,2%, which gives an average of 36,7%. The number of truck loads of livestock dropped by 32,8%. It is estimated that between 80% and 90% of small stock and more or less 50% of large stock are presently being transported to the markets by road. I find this decrease and this situation very disturbing. It may offer a solution in the short term, but it is a pity that this tendency has gone so far that producers will not find it easy in the short term to switch back to rail transport, because many of them have bought their own vehicles and numerous private contractors have incurred great capital expenditure in order to provide these services.

I am convinced, however, that producers will have to return to rail transport in the medium term and definitely in the long term. I could give many reasons for this. However, I shall point out only two. In the first place, there is the ever-increasing shortage of petroleum products and the enormous price hikes resulting from it. The transport sector of the national economy absorbs approximately 70% of the fuel consumed every year. Of the country’s total diesel consumption, the Railways consumes 16%, as against the 25,6% consumed by the agricultural sector and the 22,6% consumed by road transport not connected to the Railways. The hon. the Minister convinced the House in a very realistic and effective manner yesterday that for each litre of diesel fuel consumed by the Railways, road transportation consumes an average of 27 litres for the same net ton kilometres. Furthermore, the pattern of energy consumption by the Railways is such that only 35% of its traffic is transported by means of diesel traction. By electrifying more and more sections within the next year, the 35% will be reduced to 20%, which will give us a ratio of 1:60. The more sections are electrified over a longer period, the larger this ratio would be. From this it is quite clear that one of the most important contributions to fuel saving for the country as a whole could be effected by transporting by rail the traffic which is at the moment being transported by road.

Secondly, South Africa can no longer afford the large, heavy lorries on our roads. The building and maintenance of good and effective road communications require an enormous amount of capital today. The weight of big lorries does damage to the roads. What is very important is that in calculating the licence fees of these lorries, the cost involved in the construction of the roads and the damage caused to them by the lorries are not taken into account. In addition, millions of litres of fuel are wasted by lorries which return empty.

It is a well-known fact that the Railways sustains losses on the transportation of livestock every year. For that reason we wholeheartedly welcome the efforts on the part of the Railways to increase the carrying capacity of certain trucks. We welcome, for example, the introduction of double-deck wagons for the transportation of sheep, which will reduce the transport costs by one-third. There will shortly be a prototype available of a three-deck livestock wagon. By arranging block loads in such a way that trains can travel directly from one zone to delivery areas like City Deep and Cato Ridge without the composition of the train having to be changed, train and locomotive time can be saved and consignments will reach their destinations much sooner. This is very important.

The hon. the Minister referred yesterday to the problems involved in making up such block loads. By introducing large feedlots for the fattening of livestock and by allocating quotas to agents and not to individuals, however, it is possible to implement the system of block loads successfully. As with the introduction of containerization, there should be an in-depth investigation into the efficient transportation of livestock, for a new approach to the transportation of livestock could also result in a considerable saving.

According to Die Volksblad, Mr. J. C. van Rooyen, public relations officer of the Railways, stated that the Railways had sustained a loss of R7 million on the transportation of livestock in the 1977-’78 financial year. On page 79 of the annual report, the revenue obtained from the transportation of livestock is quoted as R11 977 680. It is a decrease of 24,8% compared with the previous year, while there was an average tariff increase of 20%. If Mr. Van Rooyen’s figures are correct, it means that the revenue obtained covered only 63% of the real expenditure. If the tariffs of the Railways were to be adjusted so as to wipe out the loss on the transportation of livestock, or to ensure a minimum loss of possibly 15%, I want to assure hon. members that in the light of present prices, cattle farmers in remote production areas could forget about stock farming.

At the moment, an investigation is being carried out to determine how the White depopulation of the remote farms in particular, mostly border farms, can be arrested. It is no use spending millions of rands to settle farmers there, if we make it financially impossible for them to get their products to the market. If it is in the interests of a stable small stock and large stock industry in our country, if there is a regular supply of sufficient meat to the consumers in our cities, if scarce resources like petroleum products are saved and utilized better and if the unnecessary destruction of our roads— these are extensive and costly road communications—can be prevented, I believe the subsidizing of a loss of R7 million would be justified.

The revenue from the transportation of livestock amounts to R12 million, as I have said. It constitutes only 0,62% of the total income of the Railways. If the loss amounts to R7 million, it represents only 0,36% of the total income of the Railways. Bearing in mind that the loss on passenger services amounted to R286 million last year and could rise to R350 million this year, I want to submit that this loss of R7 million on the transportation of livestock should fall in the same category as uneconomic socio-economic services. For that reason I want to plead that when the possible subsidization of passenger services is investigated by the Franzsen Committee, the subsidization of the transportation of livestock should also be investigated in depth. It is essential that a thorough study be made of the whole matter.

Mr. Chairman, listening to the utterances of the Opposition and certain statements by other bodies I am reminded of my childhood years when, at table, my mother would look at me with an expert eye and say to me: “Go and wash your hands before you come and eat.” It seems to me that we have not all had the same upbringing.

Accounting is an exact science, and a budget is an accounting instrument whereby one can pursue certain economic targets and influence certain economic trends, taking into account facts of accounting. In my opinion, in drafting this budget the hon. the Minister has succeeded in achieving its stated aim in a masterly fashion. By budgeting for a deficit the hon. the Minister has seen to it that substantial funds remain in the hands of the private sector. By keeping tariffs low he has further contributed towards the effort to check the rate of inflation. What is more, the hon. the Minister has announced an amount of R125 million in salary increases. This is half as much as the amount made available last year by the hon. the Minister of Finance for housing, with the specific aim of boosting the economy. I said that a budget may not and cannot disregard accounting facts. If, therefore, it is said that tariffs for certain commodities must be reduced, it is inescapable that one has to find the money lost in this way, somewhere else. If, therefore, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South requests that the tariffs on livestock be reduced, then, as the hon. member for Smithfield said in regard to the funds, the tariffs have to be found elsewhere.

As a practising farmer I am of course just as eager as anyone else for the cost of the transport of livestock to be reduced. But as a realist I am grateful that the Railways are prepared to convey livestock at 70% of the real cost. Therefore I cannot seek the fault with the Railways. If we reduce the tariffs we have to obtain the funds elsewhere.

Is road transport prepared to render the same service to the agricultural community? This is a subject about which the hon. member for Orange Grove is so fond of speaking. Now I wish to ask the hon. member, if he really wants to make a contribution, whether he could not convince his private carriers to concentrate on short-haul transport, which they could certainly undertake more economically than the Railways. Long distance transport and particularly high rated traffic must be left to the Railways. If it does so, we shall not only make a contribution towards saving of essential fuel supplies but in addition, the entire tariff structure in our overall transport system would necessarily have to be reduced. This would be in the interests of agriculture, industry and the consumer as well.

I have before me two reports, one of which appeared in Die Transvaler of 19 January 1979 and the other in The Citizen of March 1978.

Which one is Connie’s newspaper?

I think I am discussing a very important budget and I do not believe we should discuss these side issues. In one report the AA states—

Then they come up with a recommendation—

The other report also refers to the AA—

That is exactly what they said the previous time. Now, however, they add—

The profit yielded by the pipelines has to be used, on the one hand, to reduce the price of petrol at the pump by one cent per litre. On the other hand it must be utilized to finance flyovers. One simply does not know what these people want. When the Railways shows a loss on certain commodities that does not trouble them and one never hears a word from them about that. However, when a profit is shown they can think of a hundred and one other places where that profit can be utilized, apart from the acquisition of an improved tariff structure in general. However, if these people were to take more note of the accounting facts we would not encounter such nonsense in this House and in the Press.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Green Point is not in the House at the moment. [Interjections.] Well, it seems to me that irrespective of whether we are discussing the tariffs for livestock or the price of maize, the PFP always get back to their favourite topic, the subject of apartheid. I do just want to ask the hon. member to confine himself to the facts. When he maintains in this House that two railway stations are being built, one for Whites and one for non-Whites, he ought to know that that is untrue. One does not begrudge him his politicking, but at the same time one asks with what purpose he makes statements of this nature, particularly in his speeches in this House. I do not believe there is a single hon. member in this House who is aware of any place in South Africa where two railway stations have been built, one for Whites and one for non-Whites. Particularly when we are engaged in a discussion of the budget I believe that it is essential for people to confine themselves to the facts.

Then, too, the very important statement concerning the block trains for the conveyance of large stock has been made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South as well as the hon. member for Smithfield. However, we must bear one thing in mind. The Railways has always made the service available, and if we, as people with an interest in farming, can make known at our agricultural congresses that block trains are available and that farmers will have to provide the necessary organization in this regard themselves in order to have their cattle transported on block trains—which must necessarily entail a lower cost—we shall be doing something definite and positive to alleviate the burden on the farmer. However, in all fairness, I do not believe that we can really expect of the Railways to provide this service at a still lower tariff unless we expect the consumer to pay more for his manufactured goods. Unfortunately it is true that those very manufactured goods are those goods which in most cases are conveyed by road. Consequently we shall never achieve the happy situation in which we have sufficient high-rated traffic to subsidize this low-rated traffic to a greater extent.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Losberg, who just completed his speech, has dealt mainly with the problems of farmers vis-à-vis the Railways. It always strikes me as amazing that, no matter what subject is debated, approximately two-thirds of the speeches are devoted to the improvement for the farmer. [Interjections.] I wonder whether hon. members on that side will ever give any consideration to the railwayworkers themselves. [Interjections.]

That is the last thing you have done in this debate.

In every debate it is the old story! Give the farmers a little bit more, but do not worry about the poor railwayworker. [Interjections.]

In a moment I shall come back to one specific group of railway workers. Before doing that I want to respond to the hon. member for De Aar, also for the benefit of the hon. member for Von Brandis, who keeps up such a running commentary. The reply of the hon. member for De Aar to the hon. member for Orange Grove on the shunting of passenger trains at Touws River and elsewhere was poor. The hon. the Minister has had specific questions put to him in this respect and I am sure that he is going to reply to them. We only hope that his answer will be a little more convincing than the hon. member for De Aar. Never in my life have I heard such a weak and unconvincing reply. The hon. member tells us that the main reason why this “skinderstorie” has developed, is because the problem with Cape Town station is that it was designed in such a way as to make that necessary. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? The reason why Cape Town station was designed in the way it was, is because it was based on apartheid, and the hon. member knows it. That was the underlying motive. That was the whole idea. The hon. member for Losberg says that we must indicate one place where there are two separate stations. Let us use another analogy.

We can take post offices throughout the country as an example where special signs were placed indicating separate facilities for Whites and non-Whites. The hon. the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications has had the courage to take all those signs down. I want to know when the hon. the Minister for Transport will also tell us that the Railways are starting a programme which will see the end of something which is undesirable and unnecessary in South Africa today, i.e. the taking down of signs at all our railway stations. We cannot have one hon. Minister telling the world that the Government is moving away from discrimination, many years ago, while there has been no sign whatsoever on the S.A. Railways and Harbours, of any movement whatsoever away from it. I believe that it is high time we see some movement towards that.

The only area where these signs have been done away with is at the airports. Is the hon. the Minister only doing that to impress visitors from overseas? I do not believe he can be that insincere and cynical. If the hon. the Minister can do it there, I believe a start can be made on our railway stations. I do not know how many hon. members on that side ever use trains apart from once a year or so.

How many on your side?

I can inform the hon. member that at least the chief spokesman for the official Opposition travels by train every day. So do I. Yesterday I travelled by train from Claremont to Cape Town. The hon. member for Von Brandis tells us that hon. members on this side of the House are obsessed with race. Can the hon. member then tell me why it is necessary for every station—and I counted them and watched every day as I travelled from Rondebosch and back—to be a major advertisement of racial differentiation? It tells us where the Whites must go and where the non-Whites must go, also where to go out. So the question can be asked: Who is obsessed? The hon. member for Von Brandis is obsessed. That is why he is sitting there and not here. That is what sent him there. It is a great distress to me personally. How many thousands of people have to witness this every day of their lives? They are reminded all the time that they are not first-class citizens in their own country. That is what obsession with race has done and that is what the Railways are doing, and that is the reason why I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us about his programme to move away from discrimination on the Railways. If he has done that, we will accept the comments of the hon. member for Von Brandis.

In the few minutes that are still available to me, I want to come to the speech made by the hon. member for Umbilo where he dealt with a group of Railway workers who, after many, many years of service, still have a very definite grievance. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister made reference to this, because hon. members raised the question of these pensioners who retired before 1 December 1973. The hon. the Minister quite rightly said that this issue was brought before him on many occasions and was debated in the House on many occasions. I should like to refer especially to the words of the hon. the Minister that the contributions have been increased from 4% to 6%. That is, of course, true. He used that as an argument to demonstrate that because improvements were made at one time and because of the fact that more contributions were coming in, those who retired after December 1973 would receive better benefits. The hon. the Minister knows better than I do that the contribution used to be 8% and not 4% or 6%. The very pensioners who are now complaining—I received another ’phone call from one today—plead with us to do something for them as they do not seem to be able to make the hon. the Minister understand their grievances. We all know what pensioners are going through today, we know what has happened to the rand and we know how they have to struggle. All we ask is that the families of the thousands of pensioners, who have served the Railways well over many years, should be looked after a little bit better than they are at the moment. In 1975 I asked the hon. the Minister whether consideration had been given by the Administration to allowing the Association of Railways, Harbours and Airways Pensioners to be represented on the Federal Consultative Council, the Joint Committee on Pension Matters, etc. At the time the hon. the Minister replied as follows—

This is a very reasonable response. It is quite normal that if one is on a board representing a group of people, one represents them, like one represents one’s constituency. Unfortunately those pensioners who retired before 1 December 1973, have no one to represent them on those boards. The hon. the Minister does not seem to hear their pleas and one hears nothing, no request, response or argument from that side of the House in this regard. It is always the Opposition who has to speak for those pensioners. We speak again today, and I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not give fresh consideration to giving them representation on these boards. Let their voices be heard in the courts, amongst their peers, and let them tell the people what it is like to live on the pittance they are receiving. Only then will their grievances be heard and will that side of the House perhaps wake up and deal with their problems.

Mr. Chairman, I should have liked to spend my ten-minute period debating issues which the hon. member for Pinelands raised. My time does not permit me to do so. I would like to turn my attention to one or two others matters if the time permits me. I view the hon. member’s observation that they are concerned about the interests of the Railwaymen as entirely laughable. Nowhere in the debates of the past three years have hon. members in the official Opposition expressed a thought in regard to the interests of the Railwaymen of South Africa.

The hon. member for Pinelands had a lot to say about first-class citizens. Does he consider himself a first-class citizen?

Absolutely!

Let me then ask him: If he considers himself a first-class citizen, why does he not buy a third-class ticket on the suburban trains? He has a choice, and he can buy a third-class ticket, travel in a third-class carriage and get off at a third-class platform. There is no prohibition on that. [Interjections.] But like everything else, when it comes to issues of race, they twist the picture, because the traditional situation of trying to …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Von Brandis allowed to suggest that another hon. member twists the picture? [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Von Brandis mean?

Mr. Chairman, I said the usual thing for the official Opposition was to twist the situation in their argument.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it and substitute the words “resort to subterfuges in argument”.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove, the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on transport matters. I said yesterday that one would expect at least some indication from the official Opposition of what their policy was in regard to the transport situation in South Africa. I said that they were bankrupt of any policy. In support of that argument I said that the hon. member for Orange Grove had never made any effort to read even the annual report of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. And here we have the evidence today that my statement was correct, because the hon. member for Orange Grove used the half-hour during which he spoke as a sort of question-and-answer session with the hon. the Minister. The last question he asked the hon. the Minister was: “What is the turn-round time of trucks?” If the hon. member had read the annual report of the S.A. Railways and Harbours he would have seen that there is a specific item in the index titled “Turn-round time of trucks”. On page 15 of the annual report there is information on the use of mini computers at certain centres to facilitate and quicken the turn-round time of trucks. On pages 31 and 32 there is a considerable amount of information in regard to the time taken for the turn-round of trucks. Why does he ask the hon. the Minister a question like that when the information is already contained in the annual report? Why raise it? Information is fully available in the annual report. He would not have asked the question if he had read the annual report and studied the contents thereof.

While I was speaking during the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Orange Grove said: “What you are now saying is untrue as I said nothing of the sort.” I was referring to the hon. member’s accusations in regard to inefficiency, non-production and non-productive time on the Railways. In a sense the hon. member had accused the railwaymen of South Africa in that regard. I challenge the hon. member for Orange Grove to tell the House whether or not he used the words: “The railwaymen of South Africa carry the stigma of being part and parcel of an organization that loses money.”

I remember that speech. Quote it in full context.

Mr. Chairman, what did the hon. member imply? What is this stigma that the railwaymen of South Africa carry? What did he imply in regard to the railwaymen of South Africa? As I said yesterday, it means nothing more nor less than that the railwaymen of South Africa were loafing on the job! The hon. member cannot run away from it. The hon. member has no right to say, when I make an accusation against the official Opposition, that I am not telling the truth and that I am making untrue statements. You see, Sir, this is what one has to deal with with this type of Opposition. They are completely bankrupt of thought, constructive ideas or proposals. During the whole eight hours of the Second Reading debate not one constructive thought or suggestion came from them on the future rail transportation needs of our country.

This is what we have to put up with in this House in considering the budget of a vast national undertaking such as the S.A. Railways, whose success and successful operation the whole economy of the country is dependent upon. The official Opposition— a potential alternative Government of South Africa—comes here and poses foolish, silly little questions across the floor of the House to the hon. the Minister when they can either obtain the information from the Department of Transport or get it from reading the annual report of the S.A. Railways and Harbours.

Having disposed of the official Opposition, I now want to raise an issue which affects my own constituency. As the hon. the Minister knows we have problems in regard to the social conditions prevailing in the areas surrounding Park station in Johannesburg. As the hon. the Minister knows, we have in Johannesburg the Witwatersrand metropolitan Transportation Advisory Board on which the Railways is represented. Certain proposals have been put to this board by the Traffic Department, by the municipality and by other associations interested in the development of the central business area of Johannesburg. There are severe social problems in this area, particularly in the Park Station area, problems relating to the transportation of our Black citizens. The unsatisfactory conditions prevail particularly in the Noord and Hoek Street areas of Johannesburg. Why I am raising this matter here is because the position is, to a very large extent, becoming one of grave concern to the S.A. Police, the authorities maintaining law and order, in the sense of there being a danger to the safety of the citizens residing in the blocks of flats in that area. It is true that when the planning was done some 25 or 30 years ago, in the postwar era, the planning and the conditions were considered to be satisfactory. The fact remains, however, that the present-day situation that has developed in Johannesburg, the central economic area of our country, is such that thousands upon thousands of workers flow into the city. Existing conditions and facilities are, under present circumstances, simply not catering for this situation. A proposal has been made to have the east side of Park Station covered over and developed into an area with proper facilities such as transport points, toilets, restaurant facilities, etc. The figures seem to indicate that it is not only a question of Black citizens arriving in the city of Johannesburg to work in the city on a particular day. There are also large numbers of Black citizens who, in transit, use the facilities of Park station. In consequence there is a great deal of lawlessness and loitering in view of the fact that the existing facilities are simply inadequate. The situation is getting out of hand to such an extent that the manager of one fairly prominent hotel has complained. He has, in fact, made representations to me. He says that the portal of the hotel is now virtually a first-aid station because assaults in that area average about 80 per month. People rush into the portal of the hotel, having been slightly injured or because they fear assault. This is, in fact the situation in that particular area, and I can quote a considerable number of further incidents. As the hon. the Minister and the Railway authorities well know, the Johannesburg municipality has created a mall at these approaches, but contrary to what was originally expected, conditions have deteriorated completely. I now understand that a proposal and certain ideas and plans are at present being considered by the Witwatersrand Transportation Advisory Board, Jomet I think it is called, a board on which the Railways has a representative. I also understand that the municipality is very much in favour of these ideas and plans. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister if he could possibly make a statement on the matter today, indicating whether the Railways would not give top priority consideration to the alleviation of the situation prevailing at present by developing a programme for the creation of additional facilities to meet the large volume of Black citizens travelling to work in Johannesburg.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to listen to this debate, particularly after the things that have been said by members of the Opposition. I have listened to all the congratulations of the hon. the Minister and his department, congratulations which have been streaming in from all sides, even from the Opposition. Even the latest Sunday Times described the present General Manager, Dr. Loubser, as the best since Mr. Marshall Clark. If one takes into account that that was 30 years ago, one can say that he is the best we have had in living memory.

It is interesting that there has been so little criticism of the hon. the Minister and his department in this debate that the official Opposition had once again to saddle up their old hobby horse of apartheid and other things. It was particularly interesting to me that the hon. member for Pinelands attacked members on this side of the House by saying that not one of us had spoken for and on behalf of the average Railway worker. I find this strange, because if one takes note of what foreigners say about this party and about what, according to them, the party represents in South Africa, I do not believe they really have the right to accuse us of that. I should like to refer hon. members to an extract from Zuid-Afrika realistisch bekeken, written by one of the senior Senators of the Belgian Parliament, Senator Wim Jorissen. Referring to what distinguishes the various parties in South Africa, he give the PFP the following testimonial—

This is the testimonial which a foreigner gives this party, but then the hon. member for Pinelands comes along and states that he is the great man who will plead the cause of the average Railway worker here because the members of the National Party can no longer do so.

In conveying my thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department, I wish to convey my special thanks, in the first place, for his reaction yesterday to the appeals made by the hon. member for Tygervallei, because the hon. the Minister said that he would take another look at the workshops in Salt River and the possibility of expansion there. Secondly, I should like to convey my personal thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department for the way in which they deal with all appeals, personal requests and personal representations made to them by MPs on behalf of their voters. It is also a great pleasure to co-operate with this department. One gets an immediate reaction to one’s representations from the Minister and the department.

Apart from the petty issues broached by the Opposition, I think that there is such general agreement on the facts that we could perhaps begin to consider this budget in a peacefull atmosphere at the level of the national interest, and in this regard I should like to make a few remarks. Mindful of the present and future petrol crisis threatening this country and the world, it is clear to me that the Railways will be able to play an increasing role. I want to draw attention once again to the example the Minister put to us here on the basis of an absolutely thorough investigation by the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy on a scientific basis, which the hon. member for Orange Grove rejected in an unscientific way. I refer to the fact that road transport uses one litre of diesel fuel for every 6,23 net ton kilometres, as against the Railways which uses one litre of fuel for every 60 net ton kilometres and the possibility that this could be shifted up to 80 or 100. In this regard I refer hon. members to the data as provided on page 11 of the annual report. In the light of that I should like to qualify a statement I made previously. Instead of our saying that the Railways can make a contribution, I should prefer to say that the Railways will have to make that contribution. If, therefore, we recognize that steel on steel is one of the cheapest forms of transport on land, and if we also take into account that our country is in any event blessed with reserves of coal which provides both steam and electricity, I should like to ask, with reference to the introductory words of the hon. the Minister when moving the Second Reading, viz. “Mindful of the significant influence which developments in the national economy have on Railway finances …“, what we can and are going to do, taking into account the influence which Railways finances have or can have on the national economy, in order to make that influence as favourable as possible for the revival and stimulation of our economy. A number of replies to that could be furnished. I should like to refer to a few examples. I think that our Railways Administration is and remains abreast of developments in the world in the technological sphere.

The Railways is already a world leader in many spheres. The whole annual report is larded with information about technical development, research and the introduction of equipment. In this regard one calls to mind factors such as air brakes, longer trains, new signals, special trucks and many other things. However, I believe that the present energy crisis affords this department a new invitation and challenge and also imposes an obligation on it to become a world leader. If we look at this challenge with new vision and accept it, then it is not such an impossible one after all.

Due to the energy crisis the world is undergoing a transformation as far as energy is concerned, a transformation which, in scale and extent, cannot be compared with any other development in the past On the other hand, it is fortunately the case that more than half—some statisticians say 9/10ths—of all scientists that have ever lived, are alive at the moment. There are more scientists and engineers today than the accumulative total that have lived over the past 6 000 years. Over the past 15 years our scientific knowledge has doubled.

Looking at existing illustrations in the technological sphere, one notes that the period of time that elapses between the demonstration of a new product and its production on a large scale is constantly being dramatically reduced. With the motorcar it was 40 years; with the aircraft, 14 years; television, 10 years; atomic power for peaceful purposes, 7 years; and communications satellites, five years. If we are already able to have goods trains travelling safely at 200 km per hour I can see no reason why we should not have passenger trains travelling at 200 km per hour in future as well. If this could be made possible among the major centres of this vast country of ours, it seems as if the transport times would compare favourably with aircraft times with regard to expense and convenience as well. Therefore one could leave Cape Town by train at 19h30, spend a peaceful night and arrive in Johannesburg at 7h30 the next morning. [Interjections.] Yes, to Johannesburg. We have the human material and the basic knowledge. All that needs to be motivated is the will of our people to accept the challenge, the will to succeed and the ability to think in a different dimension. In order to do so, I believe that the staff must be motivated and inspired. It is striking that this year’s savings have been largely due to greater efficiency and productivity in this department. It is gratifying to note that the reduction in labour costs has been compensated by savings bonuses without there being a loss of productivity, as we have seen in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech.

I believe that the establishment of a manpower division with full-fledged management status from January 1979 in order to carry out evaluation etc., will only be to the benefit of this staff. However, I also believe that this research is vital, particularly since the annual average increase in productivity from 1971-’72 to 1977-’78 has been a mere 2,09% as we note on page 9 of the report. At the national level these figures compare well, but not at the international level. Looking at the Railways’ proud record that has been built up over the past few years by the hon. the Minister and his General Manager, a record which has moved everyone of us in this House to congratulate them, one feels that we are entering a new era. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Vasco indulged in some private warfare with the official Opposition but towards the end of his speech he made certain suggestions in regard to the energy crisis. In my opinion those suggestions have merit, and we should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about them.

†I should also like to raise the matter of pensioners. [Interjections.] I do know why hon. members are so reluctant to hear about it. It is because all of us are receiving correspondence from them. The hon. members on that side of the House also received correspondence from them, but one never hears them speaking about it. The problem is that unless we can convince the hon. the Minister that there is a problem, the situation will never improve. But there is a reluctancy on the part of the hon. the Minister, and I think hon. members opposite will concede that the circumstances are such that unless something is done about this matter, conditions will only deteriorate. The hon. the Minister referred to the effective increase of 8%.

You are wrong. It is an effective increase of 10%.

This is where we start again. It is an effective increase of 8% over and above what they bargained for because they were expecting a 2% normal adjustment annually and now they are receiving an increase of 10%. So, as far as they are concerned, it will only be an increase of 8%, over and above what they expected. This is what it is in effect. The point is that that is totally inadequate overall. When one is dealing with the pre-1973 pensioners, the gap is so wide that this increase does not help their position at all. The hon. member for Umbilo mentioned that there should possibly be a doubling of that, but experience has shown that the gap is so wide that even if it were to be doubled the closure of the gap would not be in the region of 10% if the one group receives 10% and the other group 20%. The gap would then only be closed to the extent of 5% or 6%. The hon. the Minister must realize that last year, when the 5% increase was announced, many of these people regarded it as a cruel trick that was being played upon them, because the inclusion of the 2% was completely ignored. In reality, for many of those people the amount was only 1%. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that him having mentioned, when he referred to 10%, that the 2% is included, the matter is now a little more straightforward and what unfortunately happened last year can be prevented. It is not my intention to play with percentages, but by the hon. the Minister not mentioning yesterday that the contribution to pension fund was 8% prior to 1971, he is giving a completely different slant to this debate. The amount was reduced to 4% for only a few years. Therefore, to appreciate the whole picture, it must be borne in mind that many of these people did contribute a much higher percentage of their salaries over the years. However, the fact remains that the disparity is shockingly great.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister made reference to the consumer price index and stated that pensions had increased by 127% by April 1978. It was in reference to pensioners who had retired in 1968. He said that the consumer price index rose by a similar percentage, from 91,8 to 200 over the same period. I do not want to play with averages with regard to the consumer price index. However, the facts are that a pensioner does not spend money on the whole range of items which are included in the consumer price index.

Your arguments are weak.

That remark just shows how little those hon. members know about the situation in South Africa and how little they care about it. The pensioner spends his income on food. Can the hon. the Minister deny that the increase in the price of food was far greater than the average increase in the consumer price index? Of course it has been far greater! Fortunately many Railway pensioners are home-owners and as such they pay municipal rates. Now, these rates have increased in cities such as Cape Town by 200% to 300% over a period of 10 years. They also have to spend money on commodities such as electricity, as well as other bare essentials. They cannot afford all sorts of luxuries. They can only buy food, pay their rates and taxes, water, electricity and so on. The cost of electricity supplied by Escom has increased by between 300% and 400% over the last 10 years. Although many of these people do possess motorcars, one must bear in mind that fuel prices have also increased tremendously. In 1968 a litre of petrol cost 9c. Today it costs 36c. That means the price of fuel alone has increased by 400% over a period of 10 years.

What these people have to face is nothing near the 126% increase referred to by the hon. the Minister, although it equals the rise in the consumer price index. I only point out what they really need. They need money to buy food, to pay their rates and taxes, their electricity and their means of transport. Those are the things they are worried about. What I want to point out is that the prices of these items have increased by far more than 127%. All hon. Ministers should acknowledge the fact that there is a problem and that this problem will only become worse. It is no good to come along with nice little arguments and to blame the bad system that existed before 1973. Problems cannot be solved in that way. By telling those people that the hon. the Minister is not unsympathetic and does not ignore their plight, is utterly meaningless. They cannot live on sympathy.

That is correct.

I do not want to embarrass hon. members of the NP, but I have to state here that I am in possession of letters written to me by people claiming that they have written to their members of Parliament, who happen to be members of the NP, but that no replies ever seem to be coming forth. This concerns people of at least 20 constituencies represented here in this House by hon. members of the NP.

*Now there is another aspect to which I should like to refer. In my opinion the Railways should be mindful of the power it has in South Africa, especially with regard to the national economy. I believe that at times the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration are unmindful of how much power they really have. I assume that the Railways does conduct its activities on a business basis. I believe that at times the Railways should get up on its hindlegs and in its own interests and in the national interest reprimand the Government about things that have to be done by the Government, but which it fails to do. It is expected of the Railways to construct railway lines and to render services. As a result of negligence on the part of the Government with regard to the proper economic development of certain parts of the country, we find that there are certain railway lines which ultimately become white elephants. The hon. the Minister knows this. In fact, he referred to this in his budget speech when he mentioned the fact that 32 long-distance trains and 47 suburban trains had to be cancelled. If, in certain cases, the Railways were to put it to the Government that it had tremendous investments in certain parts of the country and were to ask why nothing was being done for the development of those particular parts of the country, we would possibly be able to reach the stage when the Government would be doing something positive for the development of those areas to the benefit of the country as a whole. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is undoubtedly hon. members on the Government side who are sympathetic towards our pensioners. [Interjections.] Indeed, we have expressed our sympathy by granting them increases as far as financially possible. However we on this side of the House settle our affairs in the caucus room where we discuss these matters with the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] We do not try to make propaganda in this House by exploiting the dilemma in which our elderly people find themselves.

Yes, you intrigue in the dark.

In September 1977 a group of parliamentarians had the opportunity to visit, inter alia, the cabin service building and the flight meal centre at Jan Smuts airport. On this occasion we were acquainted with the training procedures of flight stewards and air hostesses. We also made the acquaintance of the various types of training offered there. They include first aid, aviation medicine, emergency procedures, refreshment services, traffic, posture, makeup for air hostesses and language courses which include courses in French, Italian and other languages. We were also shown how cabin staff undergo their practical training in models of, inter alia, the Boeing 747 and Boeing 707 kitchens. We also visited the timetable office where timetables are compiled for more than 1 000 flights leaving Jan Smuts airport every month.

On this occasion we also visited the flight meal centre. This modern building was constructed at a cost of approximately R10 million and here meals and snacks are prepared, sorted and packed on a large scale for outgoing flights. This flight meal centre is equipped to prepare 20 000 meals per day. At present approximately 12 000 meals and snacks are prepared. Menus for overseas services make provision for three meat courses for first-class passengers and one meat course for passengers travelling in the economy class. In the internal flights the menu changes every day and therefore eight different menus are compiled. The quantity of food and vegetables processed here is phenomenal. I shall mention a few examples in this regard. Every month approximately 2 500 dozen sausage rolls, 21 000 dozen eggs, 1 800 loaves of bread, 14 000 bread rolls, 7 500 kg of chicken portions, 11 000 kg of canned vegetables, 2 200 cases of tomatoes and 360 crates of salad are used. Moreover 3 300 kg of fish, 2 500 kg of cold meat, 16 000 kg of other types of meat and butter, large quantities of shrimps, fillet steak, trout, crayfish, etc. are used. Apart from the variety of light snacks, 61 000 breakfasts and 106 000 lunches and suppers are served every month. Apart from cool drinks, approximately 35 000 cans of beer, 82 000 glasses of spirituous liquor and 25 000 bottles of red and white wine are served on our aircraft every month. An average of 1 ton of ice is served with this liquor and cool drink every day.

These foods are of super quality and only the best fruit and vegetables are used. Trained and capable cooks compile these menus. It is interesting to know that special meals are served to comply with religious and health requirements of passengers. Every piece of meat is deboned with great care, membranes are removed and portions are made up. Then follow various processes of grading and preparation to make them tasty and attractive, after which they are served. When the food leaves the centre it is packed in such a way that air hostesses and stewards can serve it without difficulty or waste of time. Every plate of food is tasty, neat and attractive; a treat for the passengers.

On the aircraft itself it is the most important task of the cabin staff to see to the comfort, convenience and needs of the passengers. I made inquiries with the aim of finding out who the cabin staff really are. I should like to call them “our ambassadors in the clouds”. I shall mention a few facts to hon. members in regard to the staff serving them on the aircraft. I have ascertained that 19 of the 756 male staff have university degrees or diplomas. 10 of the men have a B.A. degree, two have a B.A. (Hons.), two have a B.Com., one is a B. Juris and the other has a B.Mus. degree. There are three with teaching diplomas and there is even a clergyman. Of the 515 women working as cabin staff, 64 have, inter alia, the following qualifications: 36 have B.A.; four have B.A., U.E.D.; two have a Bachelor degree in drama; two have B.A. (Hons.); two have a B.Sc.; one has the degree B.Proc. and 17 have teaching diplomas. 58 of the air staff of 638 have degrees of various kinds. These are the people who serve us on those aircraft and I believe that hon. members must take cognizance of the quality of the people they deal with there.

The kitchens of a modern jet are small, compact and functionally equipped. All the food, cutlery and crockery is packed in trays in these kitchens from which the 270 passengers of an airbus or the up to 350 passengers of a 747 jet are served. To serve drinks to a full load of passengers on a flight between Johannesburg and Cape Town, to present a full hot meal and then on top of that serve tea or coffee is something which attests to the thorough training received by air hostesses and stewards. Have hon. members noticed that such an air hostess pours the tea or coffee without spilling a drop? The tea pot she uses is round and lacks a spout. It does not even look like a traditional tea pot, and is the result of years of research which led to the discovery that the traditional spout was the cause of the tea spilling. This is only a small aspect attesting to planning of even the finest details. Therefore, the next time hon. members are served from one of these compact kitchens by a friendly air hostess or steward, they must bear that in mind while travelling, perhaps, eight or nine kilometres above the Karoo at a speed of at least 800 km per hour with a delicious hot meal on a tray and a glass of fine cold Cape wine. This is only possible because those responsible for serving have been specially trained for this task. They know that it is their principal aim to see to one’s convenience and comfort.

One undertakes the flight knowing that there is a captain and crew in charge of the jet who will do everything humanly possible to get one to one’s destination safely and in good time. They are all people who contribute towards enhancing the image of the S.A. Airways here and overseas. When the pretty, efficient and friendly young lady serves one and makes one feel important, one must bear in mind that the training of air hostesses is a never-ending task because they are efficient, skilful, very attractive, well-trained and very much in demand. Nor does it take long before they appear before the altar as a result of romances which quite often began high in the clouds.

Mr. Chairman, it was a real pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Kempton Park when he referred with so much piety to a group of railwaymen and women. I really wish to congratulate him on a very interesting speech.

When we consider the S.A. Railways we find that there are really a great many facets affording us as South Africans much reason to be very, very proud of the S.A. Railways. In this regard I have in mind, for example, the labour force of 114 531 White workers and 148 993 non-White workers who are not only engaged in all the trades and industries we find in South Africa, but also, indeed, form the backbone of the whole structure and the activities of the Railways. What is more, due to this labour force the Railways is the biggest employer in South Africa. Over the years the S.A. Railways has never hesitated to look after this labour force. One can illustrate this by reference to a number of examples and in this regard one need only call to mind what the hon. member for Kempton Park said this afternoon.

Another example is the fine house ownership scheme which the Railways has developed over the years. As a result of these schemes, more than 47 000 dwellings have been built for our railway workers at this stage for the enormous amount of R514 million. If we were perhaps to address further representations to the hon. the Minister in this regard this afternoon it could be a sign of ingratitude on our part. However, knowing the hon. the Minister as the person he is, I have no hesitation in making representations to him in this regard even though we know what is being done for the railwaymen every day in various spheres and even though we are sincerely grateful for everything that is being done for our railway people.

I want to refer to a matter of importance to all, and that is that when the railwayman requires a loan he can obtain it by way of various house-ownership schemes at an interest rate of 4% or 5%, depending on the scheme under which he obtains it. These loans that are negotiated are therefore in fact for essential extensions.

As the Railways has developed, the needs of the railwaymen have increased, and rightly so. It can often happen, and it does in fact happen often, that the railwayman requires extensions which are not regarded as essential extensions. In such cases he can obtain a loan but then the interest rate amounts to 10,8%. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to arrange that non-essential extensions such as the building of a better garden wall, the purchase and laying of wall to wall carpets and the building of an additional bathroom, which do not fall into the “absolute essential” category, be permitted so that the railwayman can enjoy the benefit of an interest rate of 4% to 5% in this regard as well. I wish to assure the hon. the Minister that if this concession were made, the railwayman would be very grateful.

I want to raise another matter relating to the city where I live, Port Elizabeth. As everyone knows, large quantities of iron ore are shipped through Port Elizabeth harbour. Certain problems arise as a result of large scale enshipment of iron ore. In the past, substantial pollution problems were encountered in the Port Elizabeth area. It is understandable that many representations were made to the Administration to deal with these problems. If these problems had not been surmounted, the enshipment of iron ore through Port Elizabeth harbour would have had to be stopped. This would have entailed very grave implications for this harbour city, so much so that it would have resulted in a loss to the harbour of approximately R4,4 million per annum and the discharge and/or transfer of a large number of workers and other staff that would mean a loss of approximately R350 million per annum in salary and wages. Port Elizabeth could not afford such losses at that period when unemployment was in fact a major problem. However, the Railways announced that new apparatus would be installed and that new efforts would be made to combat this tremendous problem of pollution. It is an exceptional privilege for me to express my gratitude today for the fact that this problem has been counteracted. I want to quote what the chairman of the health committee of Port Elizabeth said on 6 February this year—

The chairman of the National Association for Clean Air, Eastern Cape, also said in this regard that the problem of ore pollution had been counteracted. In my personal capacity I wish to thank the hon. the Minister and his Administration for the fact that this tremendous problem has eventually been counteracted.

Finally I wish to refer to the outstanding and tremendous achievement of our harbours in the latest financial year. I should not really refer to them merely as achievements. I should in fact refer to them as records. For the sake of interest I just want to mention a few. Firstly, I refer to the achievement of Durban harbour. During January 1979, 238 559 tons of steel were shipped, 17,9% more than the highest previous record. Secondly, I refer to the achievement of the Richards Bay harbour. During December 1978, 1 765 488 tons of coal was shipped at Richards Bay harbour, 40,6% more than the previous record. Thirdly, I refer to the achievement of the Saldanha Bay harbour, where 1 572 819 tons of ore was shipped during February 1979. Moreover it is estimated during March, this month, 1,9 million tons will be shipped.

Finally, I wish to refer to the achievements in the field of productivity at our four older harbours over the past year. It is natural to expect that my city would be in the forefront in this sphere and I take pleasure in referring to this. When we talk about productivity we refer to the tonnage handled per gross crane hour during one calendar year, for example 1978. In this regard we encounter the following increases: Port Elizabeth, 16,58%; Durban, 16,08%; Table Bay, 12,07% and East London, 9,53%. I really think, therefore, that it behoves us this afternoon at this late hour of the debate to pay tribute to our hon. Minister, his Administration and all the railwaymen and women who have performed their tasks in such a way that we have been able to listen to this debate with so much pleasure and were able to refer to the innumerable achievements of the S.A. Railways and Harbours.

Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty with the speeches made by the hon. member for Kempton Park and the hon. member for Newton Park. I shall therefore come straight to my subject and touch on the question of air-fares.

I want to start by discussing what is an anomaly, and the anomaly is that although the flight from Cape Town to London covers a shorter distance than the flight from Johannesburg to London, the air-fare from Johannesburg to London is a good deal lower than the air-fare from Cape Town to London. This strange situation was, in fact, the subject of a parliamentary question. I put to the hon. the Minister, and because there are certain implications arising out of the question and the reply, I should like to quote the first part of the question. I asked the hon. the Minister of Transport—

1. (1) from Cape Town to London;
2. (2) from Cape Town via Johannesburg to London?

The answer given was that the distance from Cape Town to London is 10 643 km. This is correct. The distance for the flight from Cape Town via Johannesburg to London was, however, given as 11 302 km. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that this second figure is entirely incorrect, except in a special sense. The fact is that the distance from Cape Town via Johannesburg to London is 13 180 km, about 2 000 km more than the figure given by the hon. the Minister. What is interesting is that the figure is one that I subsequently discussed with officials of his department. It appeared to me, from our discussions, that his officials were unaware of the reason for the error in the figure. Let me explain what the reason for the error is. There are mileage tables prepared for international airlines and the figures given for the distance from Johannesburg to London is in fact the average figure for the airlines operating on the route from Johannesburg to London. It is well known that S.A. Airways fly around the bulge of Africa while other airlines fly direct. The figure given, which is used purely for the purpose of fixing air-fares, is the average of the distances flown. This means that, whether the department is aware of it or not, they are charging less per flight from Johannesburg to London even though that flight is longer both in terms of mileage and flying time. If one compares flying times, one finds that the flying time for a direct flight from Cape Town to London is 14 hours 55 minutes whereas for the flight from Cape Town to London via Johannesburg, as given in the hon. the Minister’s reply it is 18 hours 45 minutes, which gives a difference of roughly four hours. If one then subtracts the two hours which it takes to fly from Cape Town to Johannesburg, that still leaves 16 hours 55 minutes, which means that the S.A. Airways flight is not only over a longer distance but also takes two hours longer in flying time. Yet, despite the extra two hours’ flying time and the extra distance of more than 1 000 km, the price charged is actually R120 less than the price charged on the flight from Cape Town direct to London.

I bring this anomaly to the hon. the Minister’s attention because I believe he must prepare his mind for the report by the Margo Commission which I hope will bring this and some other anomalies to his attention. I very much hope that the hon. the Minister will accept the recommendations of that commission with a very open mind because there are some other things that are also disturbing about the air-fare structure.

I want to point out that, according to the very valuable memorandum prepared by the department, a memorandum which in my opinion has been very well produced, it appears that the number of passengers flown by SAA over the period from 1974-’75 to 1978-’79 has increased very slowly year by year. There is very little growth in the number of passengers carried. That growth is, indeed, far slower than the growth of the economy, the growth of international trade or whatever one may want to use as a standard of comparison. It is also true that the number of kilometres flown has hardly changed over the past five years. The position is that the number of kilometres is almost static, and certainly bears no relation to the growth of the economy. However, expenditure by the S.A. Airways has risen by between 16% and 17% per annum in round figures. Passenger revenue has increased by about the same amount, i.e. between 16% and 17% per annum. If one then looks, by way of comparison, or as a check, at the revenue and expenditure per kilometre, one finds that there has also been an annual increase of approximately 17%. This is the kind of growth there has been. Quite clearly, costs have risen, expenditure has risen, and this is, at least in part, inevitably due to the effects of inflation. Because expenditure has risen, revenue has also had to rise. In the case of the air services, most of the revenue comes from air fares. Air fares have been rising at a rate of approximately 16% to 17% per annum over the last five years. There is something too inflexible about this. Put differently, the point will be reached where it will be found that these air fares are elastic in the sense that if they continue to increase, the number of passengers able to afford to use the airlines will start decreasing. I believe that, if one looks at the figures, there are already signs of that elasticity setting in as regards the attitude of passengers to the increased fares. I believe one has to look very carefully at this. I believe that, maybe because of the policies of IATA or maybe for other reasons, we are tied to a system which is going to lead to the destruction of, or which is going to gravely damage our services. We cannot go on increasing air fares at the rate of 16% or 17% every year. People simply cannot put up with it. It is going to act as a disincentive. I do not know what can be done about this. I believe that one possible answer may be to go for cheaper fares. Freddy Laker, for example, has done this. He has shown some of the other airlines that by offering cheaper fares, one can increase the number of passengers and one’s business to such an extent that you make bigger profits than those airlines which operate on the basis of high air-fares. I believe that Pan-American Airways is contracting out of IATA for this very reason. They cannot make a profit by charging high fares. They have seen Laker prove that one can make a bigger profit by offering low fares. I believe that this question of elasticity between the fares and the number of passengers, has to be looked at very carefully. I hope that the Margo Commission, which is investigating these matters, will also have a very hard look at it.

I believe that all in all the question of the S.A. Airways’ services needs to be looked at analytically in the light of the figures supplied in this memorandum. There is no room for complacency. If expenditure must increase, either fares or the profits taken must increase. I believe that one way to make profits increase, is to look very carefully at the possibility of reducing fares instead of continuously chasing expenditure by increasing air fares. This is a fundamental matter. I recommend it to the hon. the Minister for attention and I very much hope that the Margo Commission, which I gather, has reached the concluding stage of its report, will also be giving attention to this matter and will make recommendations to the hon. the Minister. I believe that we need to be openminded about this matter and not to assume that, merely because we are a member of IATA and that IATA follows certain policies, we are in duty bound to continue through thick and thin, or even to refrain from raising our voice in protest against, the system of continuing to increase air tariffs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my constituency I first want to congratulate the hon. the Minister most sincerely on this budget. I want to thank the Management of the S.A. Railways and Harbours and the hon. the Minister for the way in which they are helping to build the South African economy and for the singleness of purpose with which they are planning to make South Africa the leading country in the southern hemisphere in the field of the electrification of railway lines. I say thank you today, not only for one or two items contained in this budget which are to the advantage of my constituency, but also for approximately 100 items—which amount to a total of approximately R120 million—from which Boksburg’s factories will possibly be able to benefit.

In my town we manufacture, inter alia, mobile permanent way relaying equipment, rolling stock, cranes, spare parts for electrical units as well as various other types of equipment.

If the Railways grow, Boksburg flourishes. This budget will ensure that not only our factory workers in Boksburg have employment opportunities, but thousands of others throughout South Africa as well. Just like the hon. the Minister I also earned my first wages behind a lathe. I want to say to him that I am grateful that he and his team are helping to make South African industries world leaders in the manufacture of railway equipment.

Hon. members of the East Rand constituencies will be able to testify to the fact that various companies in our part of the world are already entering export markets, thanks to the S.A. Railways.

†Years ago, when I was working in a factory in Sheffield, where I was being trained to test traction motors, the works superintendent of the factory remarked to me: “We appreciate the fact that South Africa finds it more economical to build its own traction motors, but here in Sheffield we will always remain the tool-room of the world.” Two years later this man worked with me in a Boksburg-based factory producing traction motors. Five years later he became a South African citizen. Today that Boksburg factory is a tool-room of Africa and, as I see it, it is going to play a major role in the electrification of the railways on the Southern African subcontinent.

It is obvious that the policy of electrification has many advantages, and one of them is that we are able to lure highly skilled technical people to come and live in South Africa. We all know that famous singers are awarded the golden record when more than 1 million copies of a particular record have been sold. A golden type LA3 mechanical refrigerator truck was handed to the SAR in Boksburg last year. I want to tell the House that not only were those men and women on the receiving end filled with joy to accept it, but those men and women who helped build it were also bursting with pride. It was not the one millionth; unfortunately it was only the one hundred thousandth one produced in South Africa. The hon. the Minister is not only putting his money where his mouth is; he is also putting it where his heart is, right here in South Africa. By doing so, he is helping South African factories to become the tool-room of the world in their field.

*I am also thankful that the hon. the Minister appointed a committee to institute an investigation into the possible subsidizing of passenger services. I want to suggest that the establishment of sheltered parking facilities at railway stations in the metropolitan areas be urgently considered as a means of subsidization. If we want to bring the fuel crisis under control, this is but one way in which to do it. I think that city councils should also contribute to the establishment of such facilities, because they themselves will benefit by it. We must persuade that man who travels alone in his motor-car from Boksburg to Johannesburg every day to travel by train. His problem is to get from his house to the station and then to his work without being inconvenienced, for example by being caught in the rain. His problem is that if he leaves his motor-car at the station, it becomes shabby due to the sun and hailstorms. Local authorities cannot provide transportation systems to pick up all passengers at their houses and convey them to the station during peak hours. For that reason one must look at the second best alternative, and that is parking facilities at stations. A city council will also be able to place its transportation service on a much better footing if it conveys greater numbers of passengers between the stations and their place of work.

For example, a worker who wants to travel from Boksburg North to his work in Chamdor in Krugersdorp could be persuaded to leave his vehicle at Boksburg station if he can be assured that he can travel by bus from Krugersdorp to the Chamdor industrial area. I believe this is an alternative we shall have to examine in the near future. Furthermore he is very concerned about that R8 000 motor car of his which is left unsheltered from the elements at the station. One of the motorists who travels from Boksburg to Johannesburg and back every day, informed me this week that his fuel account now amounts to approximately R106 per month. I think he would certainly hire a car shelter at such a station if somebody would erect it for him there. I am very serious about this matter and I should appreciate it if attention could be given to it.

There is a second matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I have already discussed this matter with some of the officials. At the Delmore station there is a hostel for Black men. Due to expansion that has taken place in Boksburg over the past decade, this hostel is surrounded by White residential areas, and this causes social problems. I would appreciate it if the department could consider the possible removal of this hostel. In the first place because of the social problems it creates and in the second place because the piece of ground on which the hostel is situated, could be utilized far more beneficially for industrial purposes. The plot is situated next to the Pretoria/Randfontein and the Springs-Randfontein railway lines and since we should be orientated to energy saving in our future planning, I think that where possible we should establish industries next to railway lines where such sites are still available. Since many services are already available at Delmore, the city council of Boksburg could benefit greatly by developing this land as an industrial area. Inter alia, the station Knights, as appears from this budget, is already being served by five railway lines. There are also a large number of White residential areas and a Coloured township in that vicinity. From these areas the industrial area in that vicinity is provided with manpower.

Before I conclude, I want to ask hon. members to look at the smiling faces on the photographs of the Coloured family on page 75 of the General Manager’s annual report. I want to say thank you for those houses in Reygerpark, which the Administration constructed for its Coloured officials. Boksburg takes off its hat to the hon. the Minister and to the Administration of the S.A. Railways.

Mr. Chairman, each one of us who listened to the budget speech of the hon. the Minister and studied the annual report of the General Manager will, I think, agree with me that they testify to efficient, scientific management, to research into the problems of the Railways and to the solutions of those problems. I think that we should be realistic and should realize that, in an extensive and wide spread organization like the S.A. Railways, not all problems can be solved in a day or a year.

To me as junior member of this Parliament it was amusing to observe the methods employed by hon. members of the Opposition to focus attention on themselves. They loaded apartheid problems, pensions, the problems of railway workers, as well as the problems of the farmers onto their train. I should also like to add something today with regard to farming. Yesterday the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South quoted here the figures contained in this document of the organized agriculture, one after the other. I do not want to dwell on that. I just want to say something about it briefly to the hon. Opposition and to hon. members of the NRP. The farmers of South Africa decided more than 30 years ago which party they wanted to support. [Interjections.] Since then history has demonstrated to us that their confidence was not misplaced. If farmers are experiencing any problems today, including problems with the hon. the Minister or with the Railways Administration, it is true that those problems will not be discussed across the floor of this House; on the contrary, they will be discussed and solved in a spirit of mutual trust. [Interjections.] It was after all the NP Government who formulated and implemented the Soil Conservation Act and the Marketing Act. It was under the regime of the NP Government that the farmers of South Africa were afforded an opportunity to state their case, also in the highest council chambers of the Government. There they always found a sympathetic ear to listen to them, too.

Are you satisfied with the rates?

I am more than satisfied with them. I believe that we are dealing with a Government which also has time for the fanning community and which is prepared to approach the farmer’s problems on a level of consultation and discussions. However, I do not want to waste my time on this matter. I do want to put on record, though, that it is in this spirit of mutual trust that I briefly want to point out a few things, things we got to know about from the hon. the Minister’s budget speech and from the General Manager’s annual report. When we look at this increase in efficiency, as well as matters such as cost savings, the optimal utilization of space, the length of trains, an increase of 11% in the conveyance of oil by pipeline, the training of staff, the decrease in the number of accidents, the paying of bonuses to staff members, the defining of objectives by the staff, etc., one realizes that this testifies to scientific and truly reliable management. If we should go on to consider the appointment of the committee that has to give attention to socio-economic problems and socio-economic passenger services, we would find that this is a positive step in the direction of solving this problematical source of loss on the Railways as well.

The double-deck trucks were also discussed during the debate, and we are indebted to the hon. the Minister for having held out the prospect of a saving of 33⅓%, as well as a possible saving of 50%, in rates on small stock when these triple-deck trucks are put into operation. While we are still saddled with the problem of the rates for the conveyance of large stock, I want to mention an idea to the hon. the Minister today for possible attention. At present large stock in South Africa are to a large extent marketed at a very young age. Our animals are often marketed in great numbers at an age of between 8 and 12 months. I want to request that consideration be given to the possibility of putting double-deck trucks into operation for these young animals as well. This might also lead to our being able to reduce to a certain extent the general rates for our large stock. I should like to associate myself with what has been said in this House before in connection with a possible reduction of rates.

The idea of containerization is particularly suited to the purpose of agriculture. I can give hon. members the assurance that the agricultural sector will do anything on its part to make this possible. This applies to the conveyance of agricultural products and also to the means of production, such as fertilizer and lime.

Finally, as a token of thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister, I want to say something in connection with what the Railway system has achieved with regard to the saving of fuel. I think they have set a commendable example. We are aware of the fact that only 35% of the present transportation operates by means of diesel power. The hon. the Minister has held out the prospect that in four years’ time we will be able to do 80% of the work with the help of electrical power. I am grateful for the electrification of so many of our railway lines and I am convinced that every sector of South African society will be indebted to the hon. the Minister and his staff for what they have done in this regard.

During the current financial year, and I think my figures are more or less correct, provision has been made for approximately 95 electric locomotives and 45 diesel locomotives. No provision has been made for any further diesel locomotives in the budget and for me this is a sign that the hon. the Minister is in great earnest concerning this matter.

Before I forget, I should like to bring something else to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that I represent one of the prettiest towns in the northern Free State, viz. Heilbron. Heilbron is a border industry area and—I am not saying this because I represent the region—it is one of the smaller towns in the Free State which is developing very rapidly. However, our problem is our railway facilities and our railway station. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether these railway facilities and railway station cannot possibly be adapted to the rapid industrial growth that is taking place.

Finally, I wish to broach another matter which is to me a matter of great earnest. The farming community of South Africa is absolutely convinced that the Railways should do its cartage work. It is convinced that in the long term no private road transportation undertaking can replace the Railways’ service on a permanent basis.

For that reason I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we should also do everything in our power to institute an investigation into these rates which are causing problems in certain places. At present 90% of our small stock are being transported by road. I am convinced that this reduction in the rates for the transportation of small stock will result in small stock, which is at present being transported by road, being transported by the Railways again. I have already told this House what I think will happen with regard to the transportation of large stock. If we should find ourselves in the situation tomorrow that road transportation, due to fuel shortages, is no longer able to render a service and if in the meantime we have changed the trucks in such a way that the Railways cannot take over that service immediately, can hon. members realize in what a dilemma the country as a whole and agriculture in particular would find itself? I want to make it very clear that in view of the far-sightedness and the willingness of the hon. the Minister and his staff to investigate our problems on a scientific basis, I am absolutely full of confidence that these problems will also be solved. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Heilbron will forgive me for not becoming too involved in his discussions at this stage. He has raised political matters affecting the hon. the Minister. Perhaps it will be appropriate for the hon. the Minister to deal with the questions raised by the hon. member for Heilbron in regard to various votes of no-confidence posed by certain Railway organizations during the past six months. If the hon. the Minister could deal with their dissatisfaction, he would answer the questions of the hon. member for Heilbron.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to take the matter raised by the hon. member for Constantia a step further. In this regard I wish to turn my attention to the S.A. Airways. It is true that when one has had a good meal one says: “Compliments to the chef.” I have no hesitation—and I am sure all parties will join me—in complimenting the S.A. Airways for the efficient manner in which they are conducting the air services. One should also compliment them for the speedy service and the courtesy which they show at all times.

I feel, however, that there is one aspect of their policy that I have to criticize today. In this regard I want to refer to a statement made by the Chief Executive Officer where he was quoted as having said that the fares to and from South Africa will not be reduced despite of IATA’s decision to allow airlines to cut their tariffs. The reason that was given for this decision at that stage was that they now have to fly around the bulge and that this brings about extra expense. A further reason was that the SAA needed mass volume in order to support the lower air-fare structure. As against that it is believed that since the World Bank has stated that 50% to 60% of the total air-fare of long flights, amounts to the actual air-fare itself, it has become necessary to lower the rates in order to make it more attractive for foreigners and tourists to visit South Africa. That is the policy I wish to urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider in respect of the SAA.

To take the issue which the hon. member for Constantia raised further, I want to refer to what President Carter said when he recently announced the new United States international aviation policy. According to him this policy is aimed at, amongst other things, lower passenger air-fares, greater competition amongst the world airlines, the elimination of restrictions on chartered travel, the elimination of restrictions on capacity frequency, route-operating rights and to authorize no more cities for non-stop and direct services.

I now specifically want to refer to package tours which are, for example, arranged by Scandinavia and West Germany, to Kenya. These package tours are tremendously successful. Twenty-one day and 15-day tours are arranged in terms of which for R1 000 a person can go to Mombasa and stay at a four-star hotel. An estimated 500 passengers a week are visiting Malindi. We are missing out on all the tourists that are going there, simply because we do not wish to get involved in these package deal tours.

I think we should be doing this. We are missing the cream and are allowing others to take the profits that we should be taking. There is a vast demand from people in West Germany, Scandinavia, Switzerland, etc., to come to Africa. They are told that they will be going on safaris in certain game reserves. They are offered accommodation in four-star hotels. South Africa can offer them much better hotels and we have more magnificent game to offer. These people want to experience the joys of beaches and the sea, and we can offer them that. What these people really want, is to get away from Europe into the sunshine on the beaches. A visit to the game reserve is a little extra, and not really the main attraction. Since we have made a profit of something like R20 million on the Airways and since we have the Boeing 707s standing by, I see no reason whatsoever why we cannot change our policy and try to institute charter flights to bring people to South Africa. If no profit is made on these charter flights, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take a broader view and to consider the compensations to South Africa through the earning of foreign exchange, the boosting of the turnover of the retail trade, the improvement of our hotel trade and getting foreigners to come to South Africa to see the situation here for themselves and in many instances find that the picture painted of South Africa in overseas countries is not as bad. These foreign visitors are irreplaceable as ambassadors of goodwill for South Africa if on their return to their own countries they talk about South Africa to their families and friends. South Africa has so much to offer for the foreign tourist. There is Cape Town, with all its beauty, and the Garden Route where bus tours can be undertaken to Plettenberg Bay and back. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider that when people go on these Railway bus tours to Plettenberg Bay, part of that tour, between George and Knysna, should take place by train. I do not think there is a more beautiful scenic route in South Africa than that followed by the railway line from George to Knysna. The little train puffs its way past Langvlei, Rondevlei and Swartvlei, across the entire Knysna Lagoon, past some of the most beautiful scenery in the world. From Knysna the tour could be resumed by bus. I think this would be a tremendous tourist attraction.

I can illustrate the beauty of the package tour by citing the example of the Argentine tours. No doubt people have been amazed that there is no hotel accommodation available in Cape Town. The reason for this is that the Argentinians have been flocking to Cape Town because hotels and other items are cheaper and they are offered a package tour to South Africa for which they pay the equivalent of something like R2 000. Included in these package tours is accommodation at five-star hotels a bus trip along the Garden Route to Plettenberg Bay and back and a visit to the Transvaal. Recently some of these Argentinians travelled back to Cape Town on the same plane as myself after having gone to watch the Grand Prix at Kyalami, which they thoroughly enjoyed. They also paid a visit to the Kruger National Park. So, while other people are running these package tours, we are losing out because we are not offering similar tours.

I understand that something like 10 000 to 12 000 Argentinian tourists have paid a visit to South Africa during the three-months season which lasts from January to March. An aircraft carrying approximately 150 passengers arrives from Argentina every single day. These tourists go shopping in Cape Town and purchase a tremendous amount of goods, as I have seen for myself, because there is no restriction on the amount of money they may take out of Argentina. I was told yesterday of a case where an Argentinian woman tourist went into a shop and bought some blouses. The following day she returned and purchased a further 150 blouses. I spoke to the owner of a pharmacy recently who told me that a tourist from Argentina entered his shop and collected several cameras, paid for them without blinking and walked out. These tourists are bringing a tremendous amount of trade for our shops, and because of the short sighted policy of the Government we are losing out on these package tours. The Airways are not prepared to meet a situation whereby we can improve the position in South Africa by attracting overseas visitors by means of package tours. I therefore earnestly want to urge the hon. the Minister to bring about a change in policy and to reduce the air-fares and to allow package deals of the nature which I have described to South Africa so that we can gain the advantage instead of others.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an opportune moment for me to discuss certain of the matters which have been raised here. I was somewhat surprised at two of the matters discussed here, because in my opinion, they were completely inappropriate this year. The first was the question of livestock and the objections and complaints which were raised in this connection. The other related to pensions.

I want to begin by referring briefly to pensions. I had expected that there would be general appreciation for my announcement that we were increasing pensions by the same percentage as the general inflation rate over the past year, i.e. 10%. [Interjections.] But the hon. member for Umbilo and others are asking still more. I shall come back to this matter.

First I want to say a few words about the question of livestock, especially with reference to the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. In all fairness, I want to state at the outset that the atmosphere this afternoon is not going to be as friendly as it was yesterday, because this time the hon. member has cast a reflection on my honour. I am very jealous of my honour, and it is also a matter of great importance to me not to lie to this House or to submit untruths to this House.

He never said you lied!

I am not speaking to that hon. member.

But he never said you lied!

You may as well keep quiet because I am not speaking to you. I will not speak to you either until he apologizes to me and to the South African Railways. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is a matter of great importance to me that what I say in this House and outside is not only the truth, but is not calculated to mislead either. However, this is what the hon. member accused me of doing yesterday. I would have let it pass. I listened to it yesterday and I thought that such things were said in this House from time to time and that I would therefore not comment on it. The reason why I am coming back to it today, however, is that it was announced in a report under fairly big black letters in The Cape Times this morning that I had misled the House.

That was not my fault.

It was the hon. member’s fault, because he is the one who is quoted. If the hon. member had not talked about “misleading”, that report would not have appeared in The Cape Times this morning.

The facts were misleading.

Order!

The hon. member said—

That is true.

He also said—

I know it is only inadmissible for an hon. member to say in this House that another hon. member of this House has deliberately misled the House for the purpose of conveying something or creating an impression which is untrue. However that may be, the hon. member attributed something to me which is completely untrue. There is not a grain of truth in it.

It is their tactic.

Let us just see what I did say. That hon. member also quoted what I had said in this House last year, and I shall now quote the same passage as he did (Hansard, Vol. 72, col. 2493)—

I emphasize “the average tariff index for the Railways”. I quote further—

Then some stupid person, if I may say so, on the radio and on television interpreted the general increase in the railway tariffs as being the increase in the livestock tariff. However, I never said that. I did not say it on radio or on television. It was somebody else’s interpretation, however. Now the hon. member comes along and says that I misled people, but it is not true. What did I do? I continued with my speech, and if the hon. member had read it, he would have seen that I came back to that subject and emphasized that I was not talking about an increase in the livestock tariff, but about the increase in tariffs in general. Before quoting my words, I want to point out that it was my intention to compare the rising cost of transport with the rising cost of meat. That was my intention, and that is why I related the increase in the tariffs in general to the increase in the production prices of livestock.

Give him until tomorrow to understand that.

I went on to say (Hansard, 7 March 1978, col. 2494)—

I added that specifically in order to emphasize that I was comparing the general tariff index of the Railways with the increase in the price of livestock and not with the livestock tariff. Because the hon. member and others wanted to and did in fact misinterpret it, I am now being accused of having misled people. I would not have taken exception to that, had it not been for the report which appeared in the newspaper this morning under the big heading “Muller tariffs claim misled—De Jong”. Then the hon. member tells me that he had nothing to do with it!

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member can put all the questions he likes.

Was it not misleading of the hon. the Minister to compare the figure of 165% with the figure of 110%, since the 165% referred to one item, while the 100% referred to the tariffs in general? Are the two comparable?

That is a reasonable question which the hon. member is asking me. Unfortunately, I do not have that graph with me—it is still on its way from Johannesburg to the Cape—because I should like to show it to the hon. member. On that graph, the price increases of various commodities, including livestock, are shown, as well as the general tariff index of the Railways. These are the figures which I compared, and I spelt out quite clearly, after all, that these were what I was comparing.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, furthermore, whether the figure of 165% to which he referred did not relate to one single item, i.e. sheep, and not to livestock as such? [Interjections.]

The word I used was “livestock”.

In general?

Yes, I was talking about “livestock”.

It was “sheep”. [Interjections.]

Sir, I shall tell you what offended me—and if I am offended, then I am offended on behalf of all the hon. members in the House. I am offended at the fact that reports such as this one are published about members of this House as though we were dishonourable. I am jealous of my honour, and that is why I am annoyed about this. This report reads—

This is the way it interprets the hon. member’s words—

I never said that. Nor did that hon. member; this is something which The Cape Times sucked out of its own thumb in order to aggravate the misrepresentation which existed. Meanwhile, I have obtained the graph. There are various lines on this graph. The one line represents livestock and another line shows the rise in the rail tariffs. My point was that the prices of livestock have risen more sharply than the tariff index of the Railways. That was what I said. I cannot help it if other people misinterpret me. I take exception to the fact that the hon. member created this impression, an impression which, as he can see for himself, has been so badly misinterpreted by a newspaper. This English morning paper in Cape Town revels in unsavoury stories, of course, and that is why it seized upon the allegation of so-called dishonour which the hon. member made against me. They seized upon it, aggravated it and then proclaimed it to the world. This false impression was created by the conduct of the hon. member on the one hand and of The Cape Times on the other. [Interjections.] When I have finished, the hon. member may rise and apologize to me if he wants to. If there is a trace of honour and decency left among the people of The Cape Times, I expect them to correct this tomorrow in the same large type in which they misrepresented it this morning.

I should like to discuss the merits of the livestock tariffs. I pointed out yesterday that we had suffered a loss of approximately R7 million on livestock in that particular year. I openly admitted this and said that if there was a loss on certain goods here and there, this could easily be made up from the profits we make on the transportation of other goods. Our great burden at the moment is the passenger services. That is why I said that I did not want to postpone the investigation which is now being conducted by involving all these other smaller details, because it is important that this investigation be completed as soon as possible. I said that we were prepared to bear that loss of R7 million. I am not being touchy or petty about it. I want to ask the hon. member who made this plea and who adopted this attitude towards me to furnish one reason why the industrialist, the dealer and certain farmers, such as the wheat farmer and the maize farmer, people whose goods are transported by the Railways at a profit, should subsidize the cattle farmer to get him going.

It is to keep the people on the border farms.

That was what he asked me, while the Railways now covers approximately 70% of its expenditure with regard to the transportation of livestock. The cost cover in the case of the transportation of large stock is approximately 76% at the moment, while in the case of small stock it is considerably less, 46% on average. If he would give me that reason, we could consider it. However, why should the cattle farmer be subsidized? If he does not pay his own cost cover, must somebody else pay for it? Who must pay for it? It must be paid for by the industrialist; by the dealer, out of whom we make the profits on goods; and by his other farmers themselves, on whose goods we make a profit.

I did not ask for that.

But what is the hon. member asking for? The hon. member said a great deal about the prices of livestock. What does he want, then? If he did not want anything, he need not have spoken, after all.

The hon. member for Smithfield asked for exactly the same.

Recently a document was given to me which had been drawn up by the S.A. Agricultural Union, a document in which the cost of transport to agriculture is analysed and in which it is indicated how low the transport cost is in the various areas. This report was not drawn up by the Railways; it was drawn up by the S.A. Agricultural Union. According to this report, the cost of transport and marketing, as a percentage of total variable expenses, is 35,1%. These are variable expenses; they do not include the cost of the farm and the interest paid on it. The figure is 35,1%, of which the marketing cost, according to this presentation by the S.A. Agricultural Union—and this applies to beef cattle in the Koster Highveld region—is 31% and the transport cost is 4,1%. Why does the hon. member not seek to reduce the marketing cost, which forms such a high percentage of his expenditure?

We do.

Then he should take it even further. What is illuminating is that according to this report, transport and marketing costs, in addition to the cost of feeding, constitute the greater part of the total variable expenses, i.e. 35,1%. The conclusion which is drawn here, therefore, is that these costs should be kept as low as possible. It is not necessary for me to read this. I have now referred to the cost with regard to the Koster Highveld region. In the case of the Northern Cape, the marketing cost is approximately 12% on average and transport cost is approximately 3,6% of the total cost, while in Natal—I think that is where the hon. member farms—it is only 3,5% and 0,9% respectively. In other words, his transport cost in Natal is only 0,9% of his total variable expenses, excepting, of course, the cost of the farm itself.

I am not talking about Natal.

There are further particulars which I have obtained. According to available figures which have been given to me, the slaught fee for cattle is R29,92 per unit, and the transport cost—this includes offloading the cattle and feeding them along the way—from Otavi in the north of South West Africa to Maitland is R33,35. From Vryburg, your constituency, Mr. Chairman, to City Deep it is R10,67 as against the slaughter fee of R29,92. Hon. members should now compare that slaughter fee and the work it involves with the transportation of the cattle and everything that entails from Vryburg to Johannesburg. I would not have dished up these particulars, but in all fairness towards the Railways I was compelled to do so. That is why I am doing it here today. I am doing it especially because we had to listen yesterday to everything the hon. member said. The Railways is not indifferent to the cost of livestock transportation. This is proved by what the Railways has done over the past year. The Railways has already developed the double-deck sheep wagon this year. The development of a three-deck small stock wagon is also being envisaged. This in itself proves the determination of the Railways to keep the cost of transport as low as possible. We shall keep working for that, and we shall also succeed in keeping the cost as low as possible. I was obliged to react to what the hon. member said here yesterday, of course, especially after the humiliation which he and The Cape Times had inflicted upon me by reflecting upon my integrity.

I have nothing to do with The Cape Times. [Interjections.]

I referred to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana yesterday as the hon. member for Port Natal. That was a mistake.

I said yesterday that there were certain matters which I might be able to illustrate more fully during the Committee Stage. I should like to do so now, not only with reference to what the hon. member said here about the Airways, but also with reference to what was said here about the Airways by other hon. members. For that reason I should like to furnish particulars to hon. members concerning the new aircraft we are purchasing.

The official designation of these aircraft is the 747 200 kombi. This means that the aircraft will look like an ordinary 747 Super B. Hon. members all know the 747 Super B. That is the big aircraft. The new aircraft will look just the same, except that there will be a big freight compartment in the back part of the fuselage. These aircraft will be used as ordinary passenger aircraft in the first place, that is to say, the aircraft as a whole will be used as an ordinary passenger aircraft. Otherwise it will be used as a combined aircraft for conveying passengers as well as freight on the main deck—that is the passenger deck.

In its full passenger form, the aircraft can carry 330 passengers, together with 30 standard freight containers in the hold, while the Kombi—when the back part of the aircraft is used for the conveyance of freight, it is known as a Kombi—can carry 255 passengers, together with 30 standard freight containers in the hold, while an additional 24 standard fireight containers can be placed on the main deck. In this form, therefore, the aircraft will be able to transport 54 freight containers in all. The maximum total mass of the aircraft upon take-off is 375 000 kg, with fuel accounting for 164 000 km. The mass of the fuel alone is more than the total take-off mass of the Boeing 707. This specific model is the heaviest Boeing 747 presently available, and its take-off mass is equal to 1¾ class 25 steam locomotives in full working order.

The aircraft will be equipped with engines which have a thrust of 25,5 metric tons. In theory this means that one single engine could take off vertically, carrying with it a total of 25,5 metric tons. The thrust of the engines of our present Boeing 747 aircraft is approximately 22,5 metric tons, as against the 25,5 metric tons of the new aircraft. Therefore the new engines are approximately 13% stronger than the old ones. The greater thrust is required for taking off from Jan Smuts airport with a full load on hot days. Height and high temperatures have an adverse effect on the take-off ability of an aircraft, and the S.A. Airways is one of the few airlines using as its base an airport situated as high as Jan Smuts, viz. 1 700 metres above sea level. Not one of the aircraft now in service can fly from Jan Smuts to London without taking in more fuel, except with a reduced total load, which naturally makes such a flight unprofitable. The engines are described as “new technology engines”, and in spite of the increased thrust, they use approximately 4% less fuel than the present engines. Moreover, they comply with all the prescribed requirements concerning noise, reliability and technical details. The 4% greater fuel efficiency means a saving of 5 000 kg (6 300 litres) of fuel on a flight from Jan Smuts to London with a full load.

The new aircraft will therefore have the advantage of being able to take off with a full load and flying to London without landing anywhere. Furthermore, they can rapidly be converted to adapt to changing ratios between passenger and freight supply. The fuel saving will be very welcome, of course.

I thought that this information would be valuable because I have been requested in the past to furnish certain information and particulars in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister says that these aircraft can be quickly converted and the passenger and load configuration can be converted from one to the other. When the hon. the Minister uses the terminology “quickly”, is this in terms of hours or days?

The terminology “quickly” means reasonably quickly, in terms of hours. I can give the hon. member the assurance that once they are converted, they will look as comfortable and proper from the inside as the ordinary aircraft today.

*The impression will not be created, therefore, that one is sitting among a lot of freight. The aircraft will be just as neatly finished as the present aircraft, even though a part of it is used for the freight.

I want to refer to the matters which were raised in the House this afternoon. I shall begin with the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. This hon. member picked out several subjects and tried to indicate that we were now showing a socialist tendency by asking for these subsidies. As regards passenger services and the so-called subsidy on passenger services, which is being talked about so freely, I just want to emphasize that this must not be seen as a subsidy to the Railways. After all, the Railways is theoretically able to levy tariffs which would cover its costs. It is a subsidy, however, which is being requested for the passengers. The passengers are the ones who are going to receive the benefit of that subsidy. That is the interpretation which should be given to these representations we are making with regard to passenger services.

The hon. member for Orange Grove, as well as other hon. members of the Opposition, devoted large parts of their speeches to apartheid. I do not intend to dwell on that aspect. There is such a great difference of opinion between us and the PFP that it is not worth arguing about it at any length. I just want to make a few remarks in passing. Firstly, the hon. member is a member of a small political party. In spite of this, he wants to demand things from the Government, and in doing so, he loses sight of the very great support which the Government enjoys.

Quality, not quantity! [Interjections.]

I am not necessarily referring to the hon. members in this House. I do not want to offend them as regards a lack of quality. I am referring to the people who elected them to Parliament. The Government came into power by an overwhelming majority on the basis of a policy which it spelt out to the people in full detail. Moreover, the Government has not only spelt out its policy, but has been applying it in practice for the past 30 years. On the basis of that policy it was elected to this House, and now this hon. member comes along, with the meagre support they enjoy, and he demands certain things from the Government. According to him, we should simply do away with the promises we made and with the policy we submitted to our voters. For the information of the hon. member for Orange Grove and of other hon. members as well, I want to spell out here this afternoon that detailed steps were taken the year before last to abolish unnecessary and irritating apartheid measures where they could possibly be abolished. This hon. member and others have said that they have seen nothing of that I can mention many examples of where we have in fact made such changes.

Mention them.

It is because of the possibilities created by the Government over the years that we have been able to do this. The face of South Africa has been changed, and for that reason, many of the measures which were necessary in the past can now be abolished. This can be done because we have instituted separate group areas, for example, and different communities are now living in different areas of the country. Therefore, we have been able to abolish many measures which were necessary in the past to ensure peaceful coexistence. Indeed, many changes have been made in this connection. But I should like to assure the hon. member that where apartheid measures are necessary in order to avoid friction between population groups, we have to continue with the implementation of those measures. They have paid dividends repeatedly during the past 30 years. Hon. members will agree with me that we must try to avoid points of friction in South Africa, especially where the different population groups may come into conflict. That is why we try to avoid such situations. That hon. member is sitting in the Opposition, of course, and therefore he can act absolutely irresponsibly by asking for anything, irrespective of what the consequences would be. I am not going into any further detail in this connection.

This hon. member referred specifically again to the shunting which is done at Touws River with regard to passenger trains. When a passenger train arrives there, the non-White section, which was in front, is put at the back. This hon. member gave the reason for that himself, i.e. that the Cape Town station is so arranged that when the train stops in the Cape Town station, the rear part of the train comes to halt in that part of the station which is intended specifically for the convenience and the purposes of the non-Whites. That is why it is being done, and we shall continue with it as long as it is necessary.

The most relevant question asked by the hon. member this afternoon, I believe, was the one relating to the newspaper reports about the destruction of marine life in Richards Bay. I have not yet received all the particulars in this connection, but the information available to me indicates that the marine life was not destroyed because of pollution by the Railways or the harbour activities there. It is probably industrial pollution which is taking place because of canal water which is flowing into the harbour. I have already discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, and his department is investigating it. When we have more information available and have been able to ascertain how true the report is that the marine life has been destroyed, we shall be able to give hon. members further information in this connection.

The hon. member also referred again to the energy problem. He simply does not want to agree with me altogether. Therefore we shall just have to agree to differ with each other in this respect. I am absolutely convinced that the data I gave this House today is the right data, according to the best technical information available to me.

Will you give me access to that information?

The hon. member was concerned about our calculations of expenses, especially in so far as they relate to our passenger services. I can assure the hon. member that our calculation of expenses is among the best in the world. We use the same system in this connection as the most important overseas railway organizations, and it is accepted as being correct, not only by the Schumann Commission, but also by the Department of Finance. So I do not think the hon. member need have any fears on that score.

As regards the turn-around time of the trucks, the hon. member has already been answered by the hon. member for Von Brandis, who pointed out that this is explained on page 31 of the annual report of the S.A. Railways and Harbours for 1977-’78. In case the hon. member does not want to take the trouble to go and read it himself, I may just mention that as far as the special trucks are concerned, i.e. the trucks built for special purposes, the turn-around time is less. In the case of the other general trucks, this is not so much the case. Of course, the hon. member must bear in mind that the turnaround time of trucks is related to economic circumstances and the demand for the trucks. Obviously, we are constantly specializing and providing and building special trucks for the transportation of the various commodities. As a result, it is to be expected that there will be more general trucks which are perhaps not being fully utilized.

As regards the particulars submitted to the House by the hon. member for East London North yesterday, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has dealt with him.

I now want to say more about the question of pensions. I said a short while ago that I had expected that there would be appreciation from both sides of the House for the fact that there is a 10% increase in pensions. Hon. members of the Opposition have two old strings which they keep harping on: The one is the pre-1973 pensioners and the other is the 2% automatic and built-in increase which the Railway pensioners get. I discussed the pre- 1973 pensioners at length yesterday and I want to tell hon. members of the Opposition that I have the interests of the pensioners just as much at heart as they have. I do not think there is a single one of us who is not sympathetic. I personally believe that hon. members of the Opposition want to use the pensioners for making politics.

One cannot eat sympathy.

If the hon. member for Durban Point had still been the chief spokesman on Railway matters, he would not have raised this subject. I am giving the pensioner an increase which covers the inflation rate of 10%. In spite of this, because they think it is a popular political point, hon. members of the Opposition keep harping on this. Political arguments are flung back and forth and hon. members of the Opposition want to pretend that they are now fighting and struggling on behalf of the pensioners while the Government is supposed to be indifferent to the pensioners. Sir, this is not so. We are no more indifferent to the interests of the pensioners than they are. We are just as concerned about the pensioner as they are. The hon. member for Umbilo says that the 2% should not be deducted and he argues that the pensioners would otherwise be getting a net increase of only 8%. That is not so. The Railway pensioner is better off in this respect than the civil pensioner, because provision has been made for the Railway pensioner to get an automatic increase of 2% in his pension, which he has been getting every year up to now, irrespective of whether there have been inflation and price increases.

But then it is deducted again.

No, wait a moment. If the hon. member would be patient for a moment, he would understand it better. He enjoys a built-in 2% increase in his pension. In other words, even if nobody else gets anything, even if the civil pensioner gets nothing and even if there is no other pension increase, he still gets that 2%. There is something which those hon. members will not understand, and that is that in the national administration, the one hand simply cannot do anything that the other hand does not know about. They must know about each other. That is why there is consultation and co-ordination when pensions are discussed. There are a few questions which I may ask the hon. member for Umbilo. Firstly, if we gave the civil pensioner a 10% increase, and we gave the Railway pensioner the 10% plus the 2%, does he think the civil pensioner would be happy? That would mean that the Railway pensioner would be getting 12%. In fact, he would not be getting only 12%, because he would actually be getting a 10% increase after the 2% had been added. Therefore he would actually be getting 12,2%. Does he really think that would satisfy the civil pensioners?

But civil pensioners could be given the same treatment. If you are going to treat the two the same, why do you not give the civil pensioner 2% as well?

The hon. member says I should add the 2% to the civil pensions as well.

Just change their scheme. Bring the civil pensioners’ scheme into line with yours.

I am now dealing with Railway pensions, so I must confine myself to the Railways. Let me tell the hon. member that I am thinking of withdrawing that 2% because of the fuss which is made here every year by the Opposition, because they are making things impossible for me!

And you say your heart is full of sympathy?

I say this because they allege, as they have done again this afternoon, that I am giving those people 10% and deducting 2%, so that they end up with only 8%. Surely this is not so. They would be getting 12,2% if I were to grant the 10% increase. So they are in fact getting the 10%.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends giving a minimum increase since in the past a minimum was granted to assist others?

No, I do not intend giving a minimum this year.

Did you take the 2% off?

We did give a minimum last year of, I think, R25.

No, R15.

We are not, however, giving a minimum this year.

*We cannot do it every year, because it costs us millions of rands extra. It is very easy to ask for it, but the money has to be found somewhere, and if I were to increase tariffs now …

Mr. Chairman, may I …

Just a moment. There is something else I want to explain to hon. members about these pension increases. The hon. member reads the memorandum and then blithely says that the Pension Fund is substantial, but the increase in pensions does not come from this fund.

I know that.

It comes from revenue. Therefore I have to find the money somewhere for increasing the pensions. If I were to increase tariffs, what would they say then? They would say that I am being irresponsible. They would be very quick to say that.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why he cannot say that he is granting an 8% increase? Surely the 2% is constant? Then the people will know where they stand, will they not?

I cannot do that, because there may be people who do not get the 2%. In fact, there are such cases. Take the case of a man who retired less than a year ago. He has not yet received 2%. He only receives it a year after his retirement. As a result, he has not yet received that 2%, so he is entitled to the full 10%. That is why I cannot put it the way the hon. member suggested. I spelt out the position quite clearly this year because of the dispute there was about it last year. I want to request hon. members to help me and not to make things more difficult for me. They must help me to get people to understand this. This is why I said that they were getting 10% this year. I put it a little differently and said that the 2% was being deducted. Surely it is clear now that the actual pension increase is 10%, but that the man who has already received 2% is only getting another 8%. That is the whole story. It has its merits too. We expect that the social pensioners, too, will get only 10%. I do not want to speak for the hon. the Minister of Finance, but we have had certain talks in this connection. That is the position. I do hope that this bickering about pensions will now come to an end, because we are not being unreasonable to our people.

The hon. member for De Aar raised a very interesting question. He said that for the purposes of our calculation, we should take small and large stock together, i.e., we should really pool the two. That is what it amounts to. The idea is that the part of the benefit resulting from the use of double-deck wagons and three-deck wagons for the conveyance of small stock should be used to assist large stock farmers. I have certain problems in this connection. The first one is that we have a very small share of the small stock market at the moment, because a very small amount of small stock is conveyed by the Railways. If we take the trouble of manufacturing a double-deck wagon or a three-deck wagon, surely we must attempt to increase our share of the small stock market substantially. The second consideration is that as far as small stock is concerned, a very low percentage of the cost is covered at the present tariffs. Therefore we must also try first of all to get a larger cost cover in respect of small stock. If I started giving away the advantage attached to the use of double-deck or three-deck wagons, I would not achieve my objectives. For this reason, I foresee that we should rather make adjustments at a later stage to rectify the position in the way envisaged by the hon. member for De Aar.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Umbilo and told him that there will be no minimum with regard to this year’s pension improvements. As far as the pre-1973 pensioners are concerned, this is a matter which I discussed at such length yesterday that I was convinced that it would not be necessary for me to refer to it again today. I indicated at the end of my explanation yesterday that in one respect, the pre-1973 pensioners found themselves in a position which is probably shared by few in South Africa, and that is that with the supplement we have given them, they have received increases over the period I referred to which have exactly kept pace with the rise in the cost of living.

The hon. member for Smithfield also referred to the question of livestock. I just want to say, as I said yesterday, that we need not be so concerned about covering the losses on the conveyance of livestock, if losses there have to be. Let us accept that we suffer a loss on those services, because the conveyance of livestock is problematical. The hon. member advocated that the losses on this service should also be referred to the Franzsen Committee so that relief may be given in that connection—in other words, that that service should be subsidized as we are asking for the passenger service to be subsidized. I suspect that that is what he wants. This problem is not so great; it is actually a small one compared to the passenger services. My most important consideration is that I do not want to ask the Franzsen Committee to investigate any other matters now, thereby delaying the investigations unnecessarily.

With reference to what was said by the hon. member for Losberg in connection with the pipelines, I just want to make one remark, and that is that hon. members must remember that approximately 45% of our petroleum fuel is still being conveyed by Railway tank trucks and by the Department’s road transport services. Pipelines have not been laid on everywhere. Where there are no pipelines, therefore, petroleum fuel still has to be conveyed by tank trucks. The tariffs applicable to tanks truck transportation must be such as to make that transportation profitable. What we are doing is to take the same tariffs which are applicable to tank trucks transportation and to apply them to the transportation of petroleum by pipeline as well.

The hon. member for Pinelands also spoke about apartheid. I think I have said enough about that, so I do not think it is necessary to say anything more in that connection. As far as pensions are concerned, the hon. member said that the pensioners did not serve on the Federal Advisory Council. That is so, but it must be remembered that the pension funds are being maintained at the moment for the people who have to retire in the future. In any event, the Federal Advisory Council looks after the interests of the pensioners.

I do not want to reply now to the representations made by the hon. member for Von Brandis. He drew my attention to the unfavourable, unhygienic and poor conditions obtaining at Park Station in Johannesburg. I should like to postpone my explanation to the hon. member; perhaps I shall be able to say something about it tomorrow, or else at a later stage.

I think I should conclude for the present. At a later stage, tomorrow perhaps, I shall reply further to the representations made to me by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest appreciation for every word spoken by the hon. the Minister in his reply. It is very clear to me—in fact, it should be clear to everyone—that the hon. the Minister is someone who knows his subject down to the finest detail and that it is really rather dangerous to tread on his toes.

I want to try and sketch the economic value of the South African Railways, not so much as regards their activities, but as regards their South African purchases. Before I do so, I want to refer with great pride to an illustrated article which appeared in Die Vaderland last Monday. The photograph shows seven railwayworkers from Springs with the beautiful trophy that they had won for industrial safety. This trophy is awarded once every six months for neatness, cleanliness and other factors conductive to industrial safety. One of these railwayworkers has won the trophy the last three out of four times. I should like to tell those men of Springs that there are many people who appreciate their sense of responsibility and their good work

The South African Railways should at all times be closely associated with the progress and development of virtually every industry in South Africa, and particularly with the incredible industrial explosion which has taken place during the last few years. As the national transport organization, the roles which the South African Railways have played in our country, have been not only manifold, but varied as well. The Railways is expected to provide the communications between the city and the remote rural areas and in so doing to transport people and goods. Whether these transport fees or travel fares are economical or not, is immaterial. What matters, is that the service is in the interests of the community. It is the train and road transport services which reach out into the most far-off and arid comers of our country to assist in the taming and development of those regions, and in making them habitable and populating them.

The S.A. Railways has at its disposal today a single line network of 35 126 km and serves the people of South Africa and South West Africa at 1 026 stations at various points. Incidentally, one just wonders whether this would have been quite possible had it not been for another Government institution, viz. Iscor. In order to meet the ever-increasing transport requirements, enormous quantities of rolling stock are required. That has encouraged private initiative to establish new industries in order to meet the demands of the Railways and to specialize in the requirements of the Railways. The Railways makes heavy demands and is also prepared to provide technical knowledge, if necessary.

I cannot help recalling a factory in my constituency which concentrates on the manufacture of trucks and railway springs. I recall a factory in my bench-mate’s constituency where 1 900 people are employed in the manufacture of railway carriages. I call to mind another constituency, Brakpan, where a particular factory concentrates largely on supplying sleepers for the Railways. Strangely enough, this product is of such a high quality that the managing director of this factory flew to Australia 18 months ago and returned with an order to the value of R14 million for the manufacture of this product for them. Factories like these contribute their share in preventing our old mining towns from becoming ghost towns. They ensure that such towns become strong industrial towns and provide the buying power in those areas. In that way a contribution is made towards keeping the economy of the country going and developing it.

Local entrepreneurs began way back in 1944, with the manufacture of railway trucks, and although passenger coaches and electrical locomotives had to be imported until a few years ago, all trucks and urban and long-distance passenger carriages as well as electrical and diesel locomotives are at present manufactured in South Africa.

Railway purchases of locally manufactured goods amounted to the considerable sum of R505 million in the 1977-’78 financial year and this not only had a wholesome effect on local commerce and industry, but also permeated to many other sectors of our society and in so doing had a wholesome effect on our national economy. The South African Railways demanded skill of a very high quality by exacting high standards and high specifications. Skill of a high quality is to the credit and the benefit of the producer, the consumer and the country as a whole. The Railways are employing 4 769 electrical, diesel and steam locomotives at the moment, as well as 186 370 goods vehicles, 10 409 passenger vehicles and 15 915 road vehicles and trailers. The S.A. Airways has 36 aircraft. The total capital investments of the Railways amounts to a sum of R6 100 million. These figures prove that the Railways as a national transport organization is still fulfilling its duty and is still extending its services to the benefit of the consumer throughout the country.

The Railways offers job opportunities to literally thousands of families, White and Black. The large variety of professions offered by the Railways, affords opportunities to highly specialized people as well as to the humblest labourers. The purchasing power of the railwayman totals nearly R1 000 million per annum at present. It has therefore become essential to the stability of the big manufacturer in the city as well as to that of the small shopkeeper in the country. The latest operating budget amounts to a sum of R3 600 million and a sum of R1 400 million has been set aside for the purposes of capital improvement. I think the suppliers will be smiling because they can be sure of doing good business during the coming financial year.

All the balances of the various departments of the Railways, for example the Renewal Fund, the Sinking Fund and the Rates Equalization Fund are invested with the Public Debt Commissioner and are available as loans to public enterprise. On 31 March 1978, R300 million was invested in this way. This sum has made a considerable contribution to the capital requirements of our country. Our Railways undertakes large-scale transportation for our neighbouring States and in that way earns … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the privilege of being able to follow the hon. member for Springs. One likes to address kind words to someone rather than to criticize what colleagues say. The hon. member for Springs emphasized the achievements of the S.A. Railways. He really impressed upon hon. members all the fine points of the Railways and of the hon. the Minister.

Therefore I should like to associate myself with all the hon. members who have praised the S.A. Railways, who have praised the Administration, the hon. the Minister and the staff for everything they achieve. On behalf of myself and hon. members of Pretoria I should also like to convey a special message to the top management of the S.A. Railways and to the hon. the Minister. I am grateful that they listened to us patiently whenever we approached them with all kinds of transport problems. In lighter vein I wish to add that I have only one problem with the hon. the Minister. Yesterday he told an untruth here when he said his heart was in Salt River and in Cape Town. [Interjections.] This is not true. As far as I know, and as he proved tonight, the hon. the Minister’s heart is wherever some function is being performed by the S.A. Railways. Therefore, the hon. the Minister’s heart is also in Pretoria.

Last year I discussed a matter in my constituency. I asked that the Daspoort station be closed and I advanced reasons for this. The hon. the Minister naturally could not give me an answer at that stage but I am grateful to say that the hon. the Minister gave me an answer in a letter dated 3 August 1978. This once again proved the interest of the hon. the Minister in his portfolio. It is unfortunately the case that the station cannot be closed, owing to reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister.

I should, however, like to plead once again that the matter be reconsidered and that the possibility of lengthening the platforms as far as Moot Street be considered. I should really prefer that pedestrians and commuters walk down Moot Street and not down Herman Street. Although we are geared to prevent friction, we are experiencing this problem in Herman Street. There pedestrians have to walk through the residential area. If it should, however, be impossible, I should once again like to say that I am grateful that the problem has been given attention and that an additional exit has now been provided at the station.

I should now like to give my attention to the hon. member for Orange Grove. Once again he pretended in the House that the Pretorians are not doing their work. What is more, the hon. member went on to say that the S.A. Railways is not interested in the problem as regards the transport of commuters. The hon. member’s sole aim was to criticize when he said that no attention was being given to this and that it was tragic that that line will only come into operation in 1983, when it will be possible to transport commuters. I hope I am quoting the hon. member correctly. I am afraid that the hon. member did not do his homework. He only really pleaded for something of which he has no knowledge.

The real facts are that the Railways have managed to do more in respect of the Wintersnes/Mabopane/Hercules/Belle Ombre line than we had actually expected. An amount of R102 million has been budgeted for this whole project. Of that amount, R48 million was budgeted for Belle Ombre, R33 million for the Wintersnes/Mabopane stage and R21 million for the improvements to Hercules and Wintersnes. According to the progress report they are up to date and on 31 March 1979, R15 million and R3 million will already have been spent on these projects, respectively.

In this year’s budget and as reflected in the Brown Book, amounts of R2 910 000, R10 700 000 and R3 674 700 have been budgeted, respectively, under items 10 and 25 on page 5 and item 99 on page 11. The amounts are actually larger than we had expected. We are, however, grateful that progress is being made and we trust that it will be possible to make greater progress than is expected. I take it that these amounts are calculated conservatively.

I wish to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that 10 additional trains will be placed on this section next year to transport commuters. Therefore it is not true that this section will only be used for the transport of commuters in 1983. Only 15% of these 12 000 commuters will be transported by bus to Pretoria where they work. The rest will use taxis and walk to their places of employment.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before business was suspended for upper, I was referring to the transport problem being experienced in and around Pretoria. I was referring in particular to the transport of commuters from the northern areas of Pretoria to the centre of Pretoria and also to the work being done by the Railways Administration in an effort to solve this problem. I also pointed out that 12 000 commuters will be transported from the northern areas of Pretoria to Bosman Street as from next year, from where they will then be transported further by bus to wherever they wish to be.

However, we are dealing here with a problem which is far more than just a transport problem. Therefore everyone should regard it as their duty and responsibility to try and solve this problem. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister in all modesty to appoint a subcommittee of the inter-departmental committee to investigate this problem analytically and critically. The following people should, inter alia, be represented on this subcommittee: the S.A. Railways; the Administration Board; the City Council of Pretoria; commerce and industry; the bus companies; the Department of Environmental Planning; the provincial administration and, if need be, one or two MPs who, if possible, live in Pretoria. The fact is that this is a complex problem, particularly in the light of the exceptional population growth which has been taking place in and around Pretoria, until very recently 26,2% per year—the highest population growth rate in the Republic. This is causing a host of other problems such as traffic increase, etc., while the necessary roads do not exist. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very tempted to react to what the hon. member has just said, but I shall resist the temptation, because I want to give serious consideration to certain other matters mentioned during the debate.

In the first place I want to react to what the hon. member for Heilbron said. The hon. member told us very virtuously about how they had given substance to the agricultural industry. The hon. member for Heilbron, however, did not say a single word about the problems agriculture and the farmers are experiencing with regard to the Railway tariffs. The hon. member said something here this afternoon and I believe that he, as a new hon. member, should be put straight. I want to remind him that each of the six cornerstones of our agricultural legislation was the work of the predecessors of this party. [Interjections.] In this regard I think, for example, of the Land Bank Act, the Marketing Act, the Co-operative Societies Act, the Soil Conservation Act and the Water Act. These six cornerstones of agriculture were the work of the predecessors of this party. [Interjections.]

Which party was that?

The predecessors of this party were the South African Party and the United Party, the parties from which this party was born.

I did not know that a corpse can give birth.

I object to the hon. member for Heilbron, a member of the disintegrating NP, trying to …

Order! The hon. member should come back to the Railways budget debate.

I am sorry, Sir. However, that member said …

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must accept my ruling.

The second issue with which I want to deal is the complaint of the hon. the Minister against the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I take the very strongest exception to this. I want to quote what the hon. the Minister of Transport said on 7 March 1978. He said (Hansard, 1978, col. 2494)—

In his quotation this afternoon the hon. the Minister omitted the following sentence—

The hon. the Minister placed emphasis on the “cattle farmer”. He omitted that…

It is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. It was an implication; it was part of what he said. The hon. the Minister suppressed that interpolation of the hon. member being a cattle farmer. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

The hon. the Minister objects to being told that this was a false comparison. I repeat that this was indeed a false comparison.

Prove it.

I will prove it. The hon. the Minister used the tariff increase of 110% which was based on the average of all passenger, goods and livestock tariff increases. He had spoken specifically of livestock but he specifically did not deal—I suggest deliberately—with the increase in the livestock tariff of the Railways. He took an average. He said it was 110%, but he should have been told by his officials that it was in fact 406%.

It is absolute nonsense.

Then he took the increase in prices and chose one of the types of livestock, viz. sheep, and said that the increase was 165%. But he should have taken livestock as such. If he had taken cattle, to which he had referred, but today omitted the reference, it would have been an 80% increase against 406%. I say that the hon. the Minister has been fed with figures from computers—and the Railways are very fond of this—which give a false comparison. This is unworthy of that hon. Minister.

You are disgracing yourself.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. the Minister to say that the hon. member for Durban Point is “disgracing” himself?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, that hon. Minister is hypersensitive about criticism, but he has given a comparison between two incomparable facts. I am not prepared to let one of the hon. members of my party be attacked and denigrated when he has simply stated a fact, a truthful fact which shows up that the hon. the Minister used an incomparable set of figures to make a comparison. It stands in Hansard, it stands on record and I will take the matter no further.

I have no time now to deal with what I had intended to deal with. [Interjections.] I am not, however, prepared to let this sort of thing pass unchallenged in this House. [Interjections.] It is important that we should deal with matters in this House on the basis that we can accept what is said to us by a Minister, and I say again that this was not a fair comparison.

I now want to come to the hon. the Minister’s statement about pensioners. He said the Government’s left hand should know what its right hand is doing. If there is anything that does not apply to that Government, however, that is it! He did not tell this House that the 2% increase has been in force for pensioners since 1969, i.e. for 10 years, yet only last year, in 1978, was that 2% deducted from increases in pensions for the first time. Why did he not tell us that for eight years the increase in pensions was in addition to the 2%?

It was accepted as part of it.

He stands up this afternoon, however, figuratively washes his hands and says this is fair! Why does he not admit that for eight years …

You did not dispute it for eight years.

… pension increases were in addition to the 2% and that the 2%

was not deducted? I maintain that this is taking the bread out of the mouths of pensioners. [Interjections.] Let those R1 000 plus a month people who feed the hon. the Minister with information try and see how the R200 a month pensioners have to live. I am not interested in figures, percentages and cost of living indexes. I am interested in how people have to live. All the figures that hon. Minister can bring do not take away the fact that the pre-1973 pensioner is struggling to exist, and year after year his standard of living is being fragmented. I therefore want to congratulate and support the two members of my team who made this point so effectively this afternoon.

Your team?

Yes, my team, small as it is! We have received more letters, more approaches and more appeals than the whole of the Government side … [Interjections.] … from the people who are being ground into the dust by the inhumanity of that Minister. If I had the time, I would certainly tell him something more about the passenger services he has driven from the Railways by a deliberately adopted policy.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to give some advice in all humility to the leader of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban Point. He should concern himself rather with the PFP than with Railway matters. If he does that, he will do much better than he did this evening.

I should like to make a few remarks with reference to his closing statements on passenger services. It is a generally accepted and undeniable fact that the Railways must of necessity play a dynamic role in the economic set-up of South Africa. In conjunction with this one of the most idealistic though most difficult endeavours of the South African Railways is, in my opinion, to make its passenger services not only efficient, but also economically viable. But this is in point of fact a major dilemma of the South African Railways. On the one hand it is expected to render more efficient passenger services. On the other hand these services have not been profitable for many years and according to general business principles they ought to be discontinued.

Unfortunately it is true that an enormous loss has been sustained on passenger services over the past few years, particularly in respect of the first-class and second-class categories. For example, over the past three years, it was R172 million, R205 million and R286 million. As far as losses in the past financial year are concerned, the details are as follows: Main line—first class, R47 million; second class, R67 million; and third class, R22 million. Suburban—first class, R84 million; and third class, R66 million. These come to a total of R286 million.

We know that a rationalization programme in respect of the less viable passenger services has been carried out over the past few years so as to reduce the losses. In this way other 32 long-distance trains and 47 suburban trains have been cancelled in the course of the present financial year, while passenger facilities on 15 mixed trains have been curtailed as well.

Although passenger services are operating at a loss, we know that there will always be a need for them. In other words, the S.A. Railways are rendering a socio-economic service to South Africa by providing these services.

Incidentally, if the Franzsen Committee recommends that these so-called socio-economic passengers services are to be subsidized by the Government, it is still the general public who ultimately pays for them.

Therefore, the overriding endeavour should be to introduce a tariff which will result in a viable utilization of the service. Let me say at once, that in its endeavours to make the service an economically viable one, the S.A. Railways has undoubtedly done its share and has strictly honoured its contractual obligation, i.e. that of rendering an effective service.

Let me furnish a few examples of the commendable service it has been rendering. In the first place, third-class passengers who could not reserve seats before because of the large number of passengers, and who had to put up with a lot of inconvenience as a result, can now reserve their seats on various routes. These reservation facilities for third-class passengers have been extended successfully to 31 main-line trains and are complete on eight of them and incomplete on 23. The extension of these facilities is an on-going process.

In the second place, there are the credit card facilities which have been made available and which contribute to the convenience of passengers. On 1 April 1977 an agreement was entered into with a local commercial bank in terms of which the Administration accepts the credit card of the bank for first- and second-class reservations on main-line trains and for the utilization of other travelling facilities like hotel accommodation and catering services. In the third place, further facilities are made available to passengers, for example a Railways hotel discount plan and concession rates which can effect a saving of the order of 25%. In the fourth place, arrangements are made for tourists, which are unsurpassable by any standards. As far as tourist traffic is concerned, travelling arrangements for a total in excess of 90 000 tourists were made last year—unfortunately there was a decrease of approximately 31 000 in the past financial year. In the fifth place, comprehensive brochures and Press advertisements for promoting the Administration’s rail and tourist services are printed, published and exhibited regularly.

It is an undeniable fact that the department also regards industrial safety as a principal aim in the light of the fact that approximately 6 000 trains run every day. During the year under report, train accidents dropped by 17,2% as against to the previous year. More than 610 million passenger journeys were undertaken during the past year. The fact that only 18 passengers were killed and 68 injured in four train accidents, underlines the safety of the S.A. Railways. Let us compare it with the safety or lack of it of the motor-car: In 1977, 6 420 people died and 19 000 were seriously and 49 000 slightly injured in approximately 264 000 accidents. It is unquestionably safer to travel by train than by car.

In our present hurried life, in which time is valuable, the S.A. Railways performs its task with great punctuality. Of the more than 900 000 passenger trains which ran during the year, 93,9% reached their destinations on time.

In view of the favourable fuel consumption ratio which the hon. the Minister and several other speakers have already pointed out, the most important contribution of the Railways to fuel conservation in the country is the fact that it is transferring road transport to rail transport, and this is something which must be done.

Since rail transport is still the cheapest form of transport, most of the non-White suburban passengers are making use of the service. Why is the public of South Africa not making greater use of train services?

According to an intensive market survey conducted during January 1976, it appears that people are still too much accustomed to travelling by car. It is quite enlightening to note that 81,5% of people who do not make use of the train over short distances, in fact use their cars. It was also found that 90,5% of people travelling over long distances use their cars instead of the train. Judging by the steady decrease in the number of first-class suburban passenger services up to and including December 1978, it seems as if this preference for the motor-car as a means of transport still prevails.

From this short explanation it is clear, therefore, that the department is making all possible facilities available for the convenience of passengers. This is an outstanding service which is placed at the disposal of every citizen of South Africa. Our people must only make greater use of it. It is in their own interest and at the same time beneficial to the whole of South Africa. To make use of these special services of the S.A. Railways, is really a patriotic deed, committed in the interests of South Africa. The onus is on the citizens of South Africa. Let us firmly resolve to make greater use of train services. Let our motto be: To travel by train, remains an act of patriotism; stay on the rails, for it is in the interests of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein East. But before I do so, I want to say that it was a pity that we had to have a display of the kind we have had from the hon. member for Durban Point. I believe his flat refusal to take the hon. the Minister at his word, will cause him to feel ashamed tomorrow when he reads today’s Hansard to see what the hon. the Minister had said and what he said in reply.

I should like to look at the effect of the fuel crisis on the Railways. It has both a positive and a negative effect on the Railways. On the one hand, there are the higher fuel prices which will force up the costs of the Railways, and on the other it has enabled the hon. the Minister to budget for a deficit, because he expects a return of traffic to the Railways as far as passengers and goods are concerned. The air and road transportation services of the Railways will also benefit. I should like to refer to that again later on. This expectation that passenger and goods transport services will return to the Railways, is borne out by facts. I believe the motorist and the businessman have not really noticed what has hit our country. I want to state that it is no longer a question of price, only but of whether we shall be able to get the oil or not. It is becoming a question of availability. The businessman will not be able to recover the higher cost from increased prices, and the salaried man will not be able to insist on a higher salary with which to buy fuel, because he will simply not be able to get it. For that reason I think it is as well for us to take a brief look at the energy position of our country and how it is going to affect us in future. We must argue about the basics of this matter. If we take a look at the various means of transport, we find that suburban trains are the most inexpensive means of transport. For one passenger transported by train, 0,013 kilowatt hours per km is used. A suburban bus uses more or less four times as much, viz 0,05 kilowatt hours per km. A motor-car with four passengers—we hope people will always pick up four passengers, but they do not do it, of course—uses 0,2 kilowatt hours per km. That is 25 times as many as the suburban train. If one person drives to town alone, he uses 0,8 kilowatt hours per km, in other words 60 times as much as the man who travels in the suburban train.

As regards the real cost of a motor-car, it is also true that the train is cheaper, particularly over long distances. On 8 March the AA issued a report based on tests and calculations made by them after the recent fuel price increase. The AA found that the all-inclusive cost for a medium-sized car travelling from Nelspruit to Mossel Bay, a distance of 3 640 km, is R494, or 14,3 cent per km. To cover the same distance in a big car, in other words a car costing more than R7 000, costs R720, in other words 22,9 cent per km. To travel the same distance by train, will cost the four passengers R381. In other words it is considerably cheaper to travel by train.

We can also take a look at goods transport. The hon. the Minister mentioned certain figures in this regard yesterday, figures which have been queried by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I believe we should accept the figures, however. The hon. the Minister came to the conclusion that it was 27 times cheaper to transport goods by train. It is interesting that road motor services also showed better results than private road transport. On average, private road transport uses one litre to transport 6,23 tons, while the road transport of the Railways transports seven tons on one litre of fuel. Therefore, it pays to send goods by road motor transport.

Now I want to come back to a matter touched upon yesterday, viz. the question of the legislation which was amended as a result of the investigation by the Breda Commission. I was a member of that commission and when the commission was meeting, circumstances were quite different from what they are now. We face an emergency today. For that reason it is as well that we have another look at what the effect of the amended legislation has been.

According to figures I received from the Department of Transport, special permits were issued to transport 1,4 million tons of goods privately. Therefore approximately 163 million litres of diesel were used for that. The exemption of the one-ton truck, which we heard about yesterday, resulted in the consumption of 116 million litres of fuel. The automatic exemptions already granted in the case of steel, coal and livestock also lead to a considerably larger amount of fuel being consumed. If we put the three exemptions together, we find that they have resulted in additional consumption of 225 million litres of fuel. This is not all that much if we look at it in relation to our total consumption. It is only 4½%, but when one is facing an emergency, one should count every drop of oil. Therefore I should like to see us take another look at this legislation. It is clear to me that the businessmen and the holidaymaker in our country have never properly considered the real cost of transportation. As regards long-distance traffic in particular, they have not yet made a proper calculation. I should say it is still fair enough to use road transport for short-haul traffic and for the cartage of perishable products. When it comes to long-distance traffic, however, we shall have to take strict action.

I certainly do not want to acquit our farmers of the charge of wasting fuel. Many farmers are inclined to load everything onto their lorries whether it is perishable or not. Everything is loaded and taken to the market, while the train which is available has to undertake its journey with only a few cream cans in the conductor’s carriage; completely empty. Then, when they learn that the price of a certain product at a distant market is a few cents higher, they do not calculate what it would cost them to transport it there by lorry. They simply put it on the lorry and take it to that distant market. Whether it be a 100 or a 1 000 km, it is all the same to them.

Having advanced these arguments, I want to conclude by calling on the hon. the Minister not to terminate road motor services summarily. I believe the demand for road motor services will rise again. I know of quite a number of road motor services which have been suspended recently. I want to request an urgent investigation into the question of the desirability of summarily cancelling road motor services. I believe there will be an increasing demand for road motor services in future particularly among farmers in rural areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all farmers, especially those in the rural areas, I should like to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister for the fine and positive budget he presented to this House this year. However, I should also like to point out a few needs. In the first place I want to express my gratitude because requests from farmers were complied with. Last year and in previous years I personally asked that something else should be done to lower transport costs. Now this has in fact happened this year. For that I should like to convey my gratitude to the hon. the Minister. I also thank the Railways for their co-operation. I am particularly pleased that the hon. the Minister was able to let the Railways have double-decker livestock trucks. The prospect of three-decker livestock trucks gives me hope that we will be able to effect further cost savings in this way.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the possibility of a pool system for the tariffs on small and large livestock here this afternoon. I believe it is very much in the interests of all farmers that nothing of this nature happens. This will only lead to dissatisfaction in those areas where sheep farming is carried on on a large scale because the calculation of a pool price in comparison with cattle farming areas would not be on a fair basis. As I said here last year, I think that changes in the means of transport of cattle could also be effected. There are truck units which are approximately 150 ft. long for the transport of steel bars. I believe that the days of small and short trucks are past and that we have reached the stage, especially as far as cattle are concerned, where livestock should be transported in larger units. Provision should also be made for trucks in which not just 12 cattle, but up to 16 to 20 cattle can be transported. I believe that this is a matter which should be investigated. In fact, I have already discussed this with the hon. the Minister, and I think that this should be effected.

Now I want to deal with another matter. That is the free transport of livestock. This is a privilege granted to farmers for a good purpose. The position is that individuals have made it their business to provide a service by transporting farmers’ livestock to the cities. Individual farmers have incurred heavy expense, because one truck costs between R40 000 and R45 000. Farmers’ co-operatives also made use of the opportunity to provide a service because other people were not prepared to invest such large amounts in transport services. There are various meat cooperatives in the rural areas which purchased large trucks, each of which cost between R80 000 and R120 000. The trucks were purchased to transport livestock to the cities.

If free movement of transport is allowed in certain areas, people with smaller trucks immediately get to work, because they think that they can make money quickly. They are granted permits and they transport as many sheep as they like. However, they transport the sheep normally transported by large trucks, and therefore those trucks are not used. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take this matter into consideration. These cooperatives which have incurred heavy expense in the interests of the farming community should not suffer losses to such an extent that they are ruined financially. When such small transport contracts are granted, the result is that the large truck is no longer at our disposal and then we will once again be in the position in which we were a few years ago.

Finally, it bothers me—I mentioned this last year as well—that officials on the Railways get paid too little. There are officials who receive net amounts of R250 and R280 after deduction. These officials have families of two to four children and cannot make ends meet on the salaries they earn. Of course the Railway officials are all grateful for the increase of 10% they have received. In the light of the fact that Black railwayworkers received an increase of 12,5% I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the low-paid Whites should also in some way receive a greater benefit than the higher-paid Whites. White employees should also be granted an increase of 12,5%. Where the increase is at present 8%, it should be increased to 10%. This must be done so as to improve his living standards and narrow the gap in salary scales between him and the highly-paid employee. Circumstances have changed to such an extent that these people should not only get a percentage increase; an extra amount should be granted to the people in need. This should be done to enable them to improve their life and living standards and to provide better prospects. If the circumstances of the Blacks are improved, consideration should also be given to these low-paid Whites so that a better increase may be granted to them in the future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prieska must pardon me for not reacting to his arguments since they have already been discussed at length. However, I should like to react briefly to a few points the hon. the Minister mentioned in reaction to the speech by the hon. member for Orange Grove with regard to segregation on trains.

The hon. the Minister argued that the official Opposition does not really have the right to make demands on the Government as far as policy changes are concerned. According to the hon. the Minister this is so because we only really represent a small group of people. Soon a new constitutional deal is to come into operation in this country and then the Minister has a choice. The hon. the Minister can either establish three different railway systems under three different controlling systems, or he can retain the present system which will, however, be controlled by organizations such as Parliament, which have the approval of the three different population groups. In this regard apartheid on trains is going to come up against it. However, I wish to subject the present situation to closer scrutiny by looking at the system at present in use. In his arguments the hon. the Minister mentioned the support the Opposition enjoys. To my mind this is a strange request, but I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he would be prepared to undertake an opinion poll amongst all the Railway passengers to determine how they feel about apartheid on the trains. I could hazard a guess in this regard, but I should prefer the hon. the Minister to do it himself.

There is another aspect in this regard I want to refer to. In support of apartheid on other trains the hon. member for De Aar said, inter alia, that one gets decent people, but that there are also uncivilized people, and he went so far as to call them barbarians. If the hon. member had to put together a train, would he have one carriage for decent Whites, one for White barbarians, one for decent non-Whites and another for non-White barbarians? What would his train look like? The only logical conclusion one can come to according to this hon. member’s argument is that like the hon. the Minister of Justice, he simply draws a line and says that the decent people are Whites and the others are Blacks. This casts a terrible reflection, and I hope the hon. member loses sleep about that. I can only hope that in some stage in the future he will have a change of heart in this regard. [Interjections.]

†There is also a somewhat less contentious matter that I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, i.e. the railway line between Nyanga and Mitchell’s Plain. As I have already indicated yesterday during the Second Reading debate, it is a source of great relief to know that this railroad is indeed under construction and one can only hope that the service will soon be operational. The line was initially planned, however, to extend as far as Strandfontein. This extension could create tremendously exciting possibilities for the Cape Peninsula, and in particular for the Black people who live on the Cape Flats.

Such an extension to Strandfontein can in fact effectively open up the False Bay coast beaches for proper exploitation as recreational areas. We are grateful for the fact that the Cape Provincial Council has already budgeted a very considerable amount for the development of the beaches along the False Bay coast. This could really provide amenities which are comparable with those which are at this moment available to the Whites around Sea Point, Clifton and Camps Bay.

This expense that the Cape Provincial Council was prepared to incur, would not necessarily produce this satisfactory result on its own, especially not if adequate transport facilities between the Cape Flats and the False Bay coastline are not provided. During the course of the last session the hon. the Minister indicated that he was not prepared to commit himself to expenditure on the extension of the line between Mitchell’s Plain and Strandfontein. I should dearly like him to give us an indication at this stage of whether or not he can give us some commitment in that respect. I should plead with him that in the interest of the proper development of amenities in the Western Cape, and particularly in the Peninsula, he should consider the fact that this is indeed a very reasonable and very important request.

*Yesterday I availed myself of the opportunity in this House to appeal to the general public to reconsider using public transport facilities. A factor of great importance to the public in this regard, is the question of safety. The hon. member who took part in the debate, before me discussed this matter very thoroughly. He referred, inter alia, to the low accident figures of the Railways, and we took note of that with appreciation. Another matter which, in my opinion, deserves attention, is the safety of our passengers on our stations while they are waiting for trains, as well as their safety on the trains. In this regard I do not refer to their safety as far as accidents are concerned, but to their personal safety from attacks or antisocial behaviour of other passengers or criminals. In this regard I have to say that earlier this year I requested statistics from the hon. the Minister about railway areas in my constituency. The statistics show that the incidence of crime on the trains is impressively low. I give credit to the Railway authorities and the Railway Police for this. But there is still one aspect which leaves much to be desired, and that is safety on stations themselves. Safety on the stations is not yet adequate. There is no doubt that many women, especially elderly people, are afraid to wait for a train after dark on a station on their own, or even to travel by train on their own. It is the duty of the Railways Administration to create that safety for the people to whom I referred, and to give them the realistic assurance that they will indeed be protected if they use the train services. I think this is a very reasonable request and I hope that something can be done about this. When I was still working as a public prosecutor, the Railway Police had a good reputation among the staff members of the Department of Justice as investigators of crime. I hope that this reputation will extend to the area of prevention of crime.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss one other aspect that, I think, deserves the attention of the hon. the Minister, and this is an issue which he may raise with the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is well known that a large percentage of motor-cars in this country are company owned, company operated, maintained and run on company expenses. The expenses connected with these vehicles are considered to be company overheads. Strictly speaking, only the use of these vehicles for business purposes may be considered to be an overhead. In practice it is very difficult to make that distinction. There is no doubt that many company employees and directors are at an unfair advantage as regards the use of these company vehicles. I want to make it very clear that I am not objecting to this situation because I believe that it is company money and a company has the right to offer perks to its employees and to use its money as it likes to the benefit of its employees. I may say that this principle also applies to Government departments. The other side of the coin is that people who do not have the use of these cars and are therefore forced or prefer to make use of public transport are placed in an unfair position. I want to give hon. members a practical example. Any company sales representative, with a company car, living in Somerset West for instance, and working in Cape Town, has no incentive whatsoever to travel to work by train because he can use his company car. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to discuss the speech of the hon. member for Green Point, since there is another matter I want to discuss. In the first place, I want to promise my wholehearted support of the standpoint of the Railway Administration to bring about greater efficiency with a smaller staff. If this can also be done without dismissing staff, but by filling vacancies that arise selectively, and with a programme of training and the improvement of organization and co-ordination of work, so much the better. According to the establishment it is anticipated that White staff may be reduced by approximately 3%, while non-White staff might also be reduced by approximately 4 000. Therefore, it is anticipated that a smaller staff will entail greater productivity. An efficient, hard-working and productive staff is a satisfied and proud staff. If good, permanent housing is available to a satisfied staff, or can be made available to them, the staff can only be happier. Therefore, I want to express my appreciation for the provision of substantial housing for officials, as indicated in this budget. Indications are that under the 100% loan scheme R58 million plus R10,8 million is being made available. Together with the pension scheme loans, a total of R88,7 million is being made available. The budget for departmental housing amounts to a further sum of R20,8 million. In other words, a proposed R178 million will be spent in the following financial year on housing alone. If time permits, I should also like to discuss a certain aspect of the allotment procedure, an aspect which may be revised in order to eliminate certain problems.

However, I now want to deal with certain aspects of the housing policy, particularly that for Blacks. I understand that almost 50% of the Blacks are already members of the S.A. Railways pension scheme. The S.A. Railways is probably one of the largest employing organizations in South Africa. Therefore, as a semi-state organization, management ought as far as is practicable to implement the finest, the best and the most positive aspects of the Government’s policy in its employment policy. The housing of Black workers in the Durban harbour area, as well as in the Railways complex at Pietermaritzburg, is now, in accordance with the capital budget, being planned as two large hostel complexes in Umlazi and Plessislaer respectively. Both are within the kwaZulu territory. I want to express my appreciation for the fact that my plea of a number of years back that the hostel complex should not be built in the Durban harbour area, was complied with. According to my information, it is proposed that approximately 3 700 workers will be housed in the Umlazi hostel. According to the budget it is estimated that the cost of this complex will be more than R28 million. According to the Brown Book it will be R28 232 400. I take it that this includes sport, recreation and other facilities. According to my estimation the per capita costs are more than R7 600. In other words, the cost per resident is more than R7 600. I am told that the present building costs for family houses are approximately R5 000 per house. According to this figure it would, therefore, theoretically be possible to build family houses for 3 700 persons at a cost of R18½ million and to have almost R10 million left for the building of recreation facilities, etc. However, I know that there are other reasons why a hostel building must, in fact, be built.

What are those reasons?

It must, for example, at times be possible for the employer, the Railway organization, to be able to get a large number of workers to the harbour area at short notice if the shipping traffic necessitates this at a particular moment. That is one of the reasons. In my opinion it is also better to be able to get a reasonable number of workers together at short notice. However, I want to advocate that a large percentage of these two budget items, i.e. the R28 232 400 for the Durban/ Umlazi complex and the R22 180 000 for Pietermaritzburg, for the Plessislaer complex, be used for the provision of family housing within the kwaZulu area, at Umlazi and at Pietermaritzburg, even if it is necessary that the family houses then be provided in a single urban complex so that it is still possible to collect a reasonable number of workers on short notice and to get them to the necessary work point. The said hostel complexes can then be built once considerably smaller scale for the truly single worker. I accept that the Western Cape can justly be regarded as a priority area for Coloured workers, but then similarly we ought to regard Durban as a priority area for Zulu workers, particularly those who reside with their families in kwaZulu and within commuting distance from the Durban industrial complex. If it could be done on that basis, if we can concentrate the employment policy on giving preference to workers on a family basis, we can in that way establish a satisfied and more stable corps of workers.

In the time left to me, I want to raise the matter of the 100% loan schemes. It concerns the custom that, if it is found at the end, or shortly before the end, of the budget period that there are still a few thousands or millions of rands available for housing under this scheme, further grants are made. In a case such as this, the officials who are considered for a loan of R25 000, or whatever the amount is, are told: If you can use this grant to purchase a house before the end of December or the end of January, you can get that loan in this financial year, but if you have not yet used it by that time, we cannot guarantee that you can still get the loan in February, March or April. I know of cases of people who were interested in having their own houses built and who had approved building plans but could not get their houses completed in time. I do not know whether this is general usage—possibly it is—but I want to ask whether provision cannot be made in principle for the grant, in a particular financial year, of a certain amount which is then set aside for the provision of a house in accordance with an accepted and controlled contract which the Railway housing organization can supervise. If this can be done, officials will be able to have a house built according to their own plans over certain periods; a house which will meet their personal needs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is true that as a result of the fuel problem we are examining the transportation problem in South Africa with new interest. This has often been done during this debate, too. Transportation has already become so natural and automatic to the transportation user in South Africa that it has become part of our everyday routine. However, it has certainly become necessary to examine the transportation structure with new eyes and with more intensive dedication. I still find it shocking to see how many people still come to the city in the mornings or go to their work alone in their cars. I cannot believe that it is necessary for six out of every 10 persons to use motor car transport in the first place, and then, to crown it all, to drive alone. I believe this trend cannot continue in this way. In my opinion, transportation by rail is entering a new era, but increasing demands will be made on the Railways in this regard. Naturally an increase in rail transportation is welcomed by the Railways, but an important aspect which must certainly be taken into consideration, is that rail transportation should meet the requirements of an effective, acceptable system. It must be fast, inexpensive and safe. I think that the Franzsen Committee which has been announced will certainly carry out a conscientious investigation of the whole structure of transportation. However, what I want to request, and what is of extremely importance to me, is the linking up of the existing road transport services with rail transportation. It will probably be of no avail to improve the rail transportation service and to introduce an effective service if commuters—since they are the main issue—cannot reach stations to be transported from there. It is probably necessary that the movement of the commuters to and from the station also be examined in future planning.

I want to refer specifically to the development of the Mabopane/Belle Ombre railway line. In this regard I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Hercules, and ask for the appointment of an advisory committee to advise the people concerned about this structure. The desirability of members of Parliament serving on such a committee also deserves careful consideration. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether such a consideration will receive his attention.

As I have said, I want to refer specifically to the Mabopane/Belle Ombre railway line. Towards the end of 1980, an improved service will be introduced between Mabopane and Pretoria’s Bosman Street station. Until such time as the Belle Ombre station is completed in 1983, as is expected, thousands of Blacks will have to be picked up and loaded off at Pretoria station. I trust that the Railways will consult at a high level with other persons concerned, bodies and departments to make this distribution of commuters, who will have to get off in Bosman Street, to the various suburbs as efficient and effective as possible, even though it be on the basis of available or estimated figures.

In this regard I just want to point out that when this service is introduced at least two other trains will probably be diverted to the Capital Park/Koedoespoort railway line. These commuters cannot simply be offloaded at the stations concerned at Gezina and other places without the necessary bus transportation for the distribution of commuters being provided. I therefore advocate that this matter be examined in a coordinated way in order to identify the problems at this stage so that, when the service is introduced, proper bus transportation with the necessary additional facilities will be available to make it as pleasant as possible for the Black workers who have to make use of this service.

Another aspect affecting my constituency, is the new goods-shed which is to be built in Capital Park. On a previous occasion I expressed my concern about the desirability of a project of this nature in a residential area. I do not want to discuss it again, except to say that I want to confirm my previous standpoint in this regard. Since the plans for the supply routes to and from the goods-shed are still being considered and have not yet been definitely finalized, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration to involve the city council of Pretoria and other bodies and persons concerned with the negotiations in this planning, so that it will be done with only the greatest convenience and to the benefit of the inhabitants of those surrounding areas. It is true that those people in that vicinity will be affected by any planning in respect of supply routes proposed there. Then, too, I want to ask that the MP concerned be kept informed of the developments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Gezina broached a very deserving cause here, viz. the problems we foresee in respect of the Pretoria station as soon as the extra trains from Mabopane begin to run there. It is true that if the matter is not properly controlled and co-ordinated, we are going to experience very grave problems in Pretoria. Many thousands of Black people are going to arrive at this station. The anticipated number is set as high as approximately 18 000 to 19 000 people, who have to pass through there in the mornings within approximately 90 minutes. They will have to be transported by approximately 500 buses. This could create complete chaos if this matter is not properly attended to. For that reason I want to support the hon. member very strongly in his representations in this regard.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point, the leader of the NRP. That hon. member said to the hon. member for Heilbron tonight that he had never done anything in his life for the farming community of this country.

Hear, hear!

Then that poor hon. member still says: “Hear, hear.” The hon. member for Durban Point says that his party’s predecessor did everything for the farmers in this country. However, the facts do not tally with his statement.

They amended more than 70 acts.

Just listen first, please. In the 1977 election the hon. member for Heilbron did not have an NRP candidate against him. Where was the NRP then—after all, this a constituency with many farmers? Then they were conspicuous by their absence.

Wait till next time.

What is more, if we look at the handful of hon. members sitting there, who belong to that party today, then I ask them why the farmers do not vote for them. After all, there are many farming constituencies in this country. Why do they not, then, vote for that party if that party did all these things for them? Just the other day they ran away from Swellendam. [Interjections.] Now one wonders if it was because the farmers were harvesting at that time. The hon. member for Durban Point says that he and his team of men are the only people who care for the pensioners in this country. That is totally untrue. [Interjections.] Watching and listening to the hon. member’s team, I can understand why some people in this country speak of that party as the “New Remnant Party”. They are really only the remnants who are clinging desperately to the visions of the past.

We did frighten you.

Who frightened us? They were also beaten in Natal, their stronghold, where they wanted to “march”. Now they can only try to score political points off us in this way. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that it does not suit him. We consider him a responsible member. He must cease this type of thing; it really does not suit him.

The hon. the Minister has been paid well deserved tributes over the past few days for a truly exceptional budget introduced by him. He truly deserves it and it is good that our people should tell him that we appreciate it. However, I want to point out that the hon. the Minister is assisted in a competent way by a group of officials of whom we in South Africa can be very proud. They are men occupying important positions who, under all circumstances, do work of the highest and most responsible nature and perform their duties. It is my privilege to be acquainted with many of them. They are voters of mine and for that reason I particularly like to say this to these people. While speaking of Railway officials, we cannot do otherwise but to point out that now, as always they, the largest single corps of employees in South Africa, have really been behaving in exemplary fashion, in contrast to some other employees. They, too, have their grievances and their problems. However, they did not go on strike. They did their work and solved their problems via the right channels. We in South Africa can be very proud of the corps of officials of the S.A. Railways. We want to thank them most sincerely for their hard work, their loyalty and their dedication to South Africa and all its people.

I also want to make one remark about the remuneration of national servicemen in the service of the S.A. Railways. Because the S.A. Railways is the largest single employer in South Africa, in the nature of the matter it makes one of the biggest contributions to the defence of the Republic. In the same way as other employers, the Railways is obliged to relieve from their duties national servicemen who are called up. Even officials in key positions are relieved from their normal duties for the purposes of national service. In this way, 3 892 staff members of the S.A. Railways were absent during March 1978 due to the two years’ national service. During the same period, 581 staff members of the S.A. Railways had to undergo military training for three months, while 326 of them had to receive training over shorter periods. What this amounts to is that a total of 4 799—i.e. 4,1% of the total number of White staff members of the S.A. Railways—were absent from their work during that month. All those staff members received their full salaries. This is praiseworthy. One could recommend this to all employers in the private sector.

As far as this remuneration is concerned, it seems to me—at least as far as I know—that there is a slight difference between the remuneration received by Railway officials and that received by Government officials. It would seem that public servants are in a more favourable position as far as this matter is concerned. I think that the difference could largely be ascribed to the different methods of calculating the remuneration paid to them. Because we should not like Railway officials to be worse off in this regard, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not like to consider employing the same method to determine the remuneration paid to Railway officials.

There is still one local matter which I should also like to bring to the friendly attention of the hon. the Minister. It concerns the elimination of a level crossing in Verwoerdburg. This is the so-called River Street level crossing. This matter has been receiving the attention of the local authority and of the Railways Administration for a number of years now. Although a great deal of progress has already been made in this matter—for which we are very grateful—it is nevertheless true that the completion of a safe crossing there, due to various valid reasons, has to date not yet progressed sufficiently. It is also true that this crossing is not very busy at the moment. In view of the rapid development in progress at the moment in the suburb of Pierre Van Ryneveld, to the east of Verwoerdburg, which will cause this crossing to form part of the shortest and most important access route to the business centre of Verwoerdburg, it is equally true that the traffic over this crossing will become a great deal heavier within the next 12 months, or possibly soon after that, because more people will use this crossing. The danger of accidents will, therefore, inevitably increase too. For this reason I ask the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration whether, if possible, they will give favourable consideration to accelerating the elimination of that level crossing so that we can have a completely safe crossing there as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg seems to be suffering from the common syndrome of the NP, i.e. that you can wash your hands in the ballot-box and come out, as the advertisement says, “whiter than white”. I do not think that this necessarily holds good today, but I do not want to waste any further time on the speech by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg.

I want to refer to the fact that twice during the course of this Railways debate, the hon. the Minister appeared to have a somewhat short fuse. Whether it was in appearance only or genuine, I do not know. On both occasions it was as a result of things said by members of the NRP. The first occasion was in relation to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and his statements about misleading figures. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. If the figures he supplied us with were not misleading, how did it then happen that, as he himself said, the SABC quoted them that night in a different manner as he said he had put it? They were also misled. I venture to say that everything the hon. leader of the effective Opposition has said, goes for me—double.

The other occasion where the hon. the Minister seemed to get extremely upset was in connection with an interjection made by the hon. member for Berea, an interjection which will be dealt with later by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. However, I want to refer particularly to the reaction of the hon. the Minister to this particular interjection. His reaction was that he did not want to have anything more to do with the hon. member for Berea and did not even want to speak to him. I submit, that coming from a Cabinet Minister, I do not really think that this is a statesmanlike statement or a statement which is in the best interest of parliamentary procedure, or of the whole situation where an hon. member of the House represents a constituency. The hon. member for Berea is in fact representing approximately 13 800 voters of the constituency, Berea. He has a job to do for those voters. I believe it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister to listen to the hon. member for Berea when he comes to him with the problems of his constituency. I believe it is only fair and in the best interests of the parliamentary system.

The subject I next want to touch on is the reactions we have had to the fact that two hon. members of the NRP have made speeches in connection with pensions. There has been a lot of flak flying around the House in this connection as to how many letters everybody has received. The hon. member for Durban Point said that we probably received more letters than all the hon. members on that side of the House put together.

I only want to draw attention to one letter from Railway pensioners at East London. It is dated 29 May 1978 and is in connection with Railway pensions. This letter is signed by 78 Railway pensioners from East London. They have all personally signed this letter and everyone has given his pension number. The signatures run into pages. This is indicative of the type of problem Railway pensioners are having.

I want to proceed to a matter which is perhaps of somewhat more importance. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to refer to the plight of the young national servicemen in South Africa. As we all know, these young men have to give up two years of their lives today to serve their country. They have to leave their homes and often have to travel many thousands of kilometres to their base. So these young men are thousands of kilometres away from home. From time to time they are fortunate enough to get weekend passes, and then it is their natural instinct to head for home, to the people they love and the people who love them. They want to go back to their homes, their parents, their girl friends, or whoever it might be. We all know that over a long period of time the roads have been full of national servicemen trying to get back home on their weekend passes. We have had “Operation Safe Ride”, which has, without doubt, helped the situation. The plight of these young national servicemen, who now have to serve two full years, is nevertheless a most unpleasant one. I believe that it is in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Transport to assist them in this situation. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider making some type of special concession available to national servicemen on our Airways, so that they can get back home for their weekend passes. Take for instance the plight of a young man who is stationed at Saldanha Bay while his parents live in Durban, or a young man who is doing his service at Walvis Bay while his parents live at Howick. These distances are tremendous, and there is no chance—either by “Operation Safe Ride” or anything else—for those young men to be able to get home. This is the case even if they have to travel from Johannesburg to Cape Town, or even from Kimberley to Cape Town on a weekend pass. This makes things very difficult for them. The hon. the Minister will know, and I am sure the hon. the Minister of Defence knows, that a number of young servicemen have in fact lost their lives on the roads of South Africa in trying to get home on their weekend passes. They obtain lifts that are perhaps not as safe as they should be, or they have their own cars, and in their efforts to get home, they might have an accident. This has already happened. I believe we owe this to the young men of our country. I believe the hon. the Minister owes it to them that he should consider making available special concessions on our air routes for them. We all know that the hon. the Minister of Defence recently announced that national servicemen’s pay was going to be increased to R100 a month. It is now quite possible that with that extra pay these young men will be able to afford a concession airfare from wherever they might be during their service period back to their homes. I should like to leave this thought with the hon. the Minister. I believe it is something which, if he can succeed in doing it, will bring him the thanks of many, many thousands of parents and many thousands of servicemen right throughout South Africa.

In the time I have left, I want to quote from an article that appeared in The Star of 16 January 1979. This is purely a parochial matter for me, a matter which refers to our East London harbour facilities. The heading of this article in The Star is an unfortunate one, one I do not like. It says—

The article goes on to say—

They are referring to the harbour—

I know that what is a cloud for one man, might be a silver lining for his colleagues from Natal. At the same time I believe that containerization has resulted in East London losing quite a lot of traffic. Lately we have been quite fortunate in this regard, and I do not know whether we should thank the hon. the Minister or the President of Zambia for the traffic that we have lately received. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for East London North attempted to defend the bad interjection which the hon. member for Berea made the other day. [Interjections.] I hold that interjection in so much contempt that I am not even prepared to repeat it or to quote it from Hansard. [Interjections.] This afternoon, while the hon. member for Kempton Park was speaking about the earnestness with which this side of the House approaches the position of the pensioners, the hon. member for Berea remarked that pensions and the pensioners are not discussed in the NRP caucus because they have more important things to discuss. They simply pay lip service. The hon. member for Berea remarked this afternoon that…

That is untrue and you know it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Amanzimtoti entitled to say to the hon. member for Klerksdorp: “That is untrue and you know that.”?

Which hon. member said that?

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

Did the hon. member for Amanzimtoti use those words?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I withdraw them.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has to withdraw words at this early stage, I wonder how he is going to defend the hon. member for Berea later on, for I have been given to understand that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is going to defend the bad interjection of the hon. member for Berea.

Which interjection?

I am not prepared to repeat the interjection. [Interjections.] There is no doubt that the hon. the Minister and the Administration of the S.A. Railways are very sympathetic towards the financial circumstances of the Railway pensioner. The hon. the Minister did in fact announce a 10% increase in his budget speech, and it is being reduced by the normal annual increase of 2%. In fact, there is no one who is not going to receive a total increase of 10% this year. The Railway employees realize what South Africa’s position is.

I should like to bring one aspect with regard to the widows of pensioners to the attention of the hon. the Minister. There is much appreciation for the improvements which have already been effected to the benefits to which widows are entitled and which are applicable to those who became widows on or after 30 November 1977. No person who became a widow prior to that date qualifies for the improved benefits. I realize that a heavy responsibility rests on the new Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund to pay the pensions of the approximately 46 000 pensioners and remain solvent. The Fund of course has to be able to fulfil its future obligations to the approximately 112 000 members who are potential pensioners as well, and therefore the solvent position of the Fund should never be detrimentally affected. Therefore pensions cannot of course be granted at random, as the hon. members of the Opposition are trying to imply they will do if they should be placed in that position. I should like to make a plea for those persons who became widows prior to 30 November 1977. They are also experiencing difficulties. I should like to argue in favour of including those widows in the improved pension benefits. I know that it cannot be acceded to immediately, but I do believe that it could take place gradually. In fact, the exact obligations of the Fund in a situation of this nature can be determined. This would bring about great alleviation for those widows and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would give favourable consideration to this request.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and express my appreciation for the co-operation and friendly service the Railway staff is rendering. In my constituency, the staff, from the Passenger and Goods Superintendent—I prefer the old designation “Station Master”—down to the most junior staff member, are very dedicated people. This dedication is also applicable to the System Manager for the Northern Cape in Kimberley, Mr. Fourie, and his staff. One does not have to wait for replies to representations to those people. Of course, the answer is not always “yes”, but one is always satisfied. I find it very interesting that Klerksdorp, which is the major town in the Western Transvaal, does not fall under the office of the System Manager of the Western Transvaal. I must say we should very much like to have the office of the System Manager of the Western Transvaal in Klerksdorp, for then it would really be the office of the System Manager of the Western Transvaal. I can assure hon. members that we would give him a good reception and an enjoyable stay in Klerksdorp.

Since I spoke about co-operation, I should also like to mention the office of the General Manager and his staff with appreciation. One receives only the best co-operation from them, and that enables one to render service to the people one is representing.

What strikes me, is the fact that the Railways is a large club of loyal people. The people are loyal and they are of course Nationalists. They are loyal to the Railways while they are in the employ of the Railways and just as loyal when they retire from service. The people who are employed by the Railways are proud of the Railways, and when the time comes for them to retire, they continue to remain proud of the Railways.

It is, therefore, a privilege for me to refer this evening to one of those people in my constituency. I should like to pay tribute to Oom Kosie Weyers who is already 80 years old. He has been a loyal and enthusiastic railwayman all his life. In his time, he was a first-grade conductor and a member of the Appeal Board of the Railways. He has had the interests of his fellow-employees and of the Railways at heart at all times. He is still an expert in the field of Railway pensions today, and in this field he has been able to assist many of his fellow-employees by word and deed. I know, too, that he is very grateful for the increase he is receiving. He has rendered only the best of service to the Railways over a long period. I have often spoken to him and he has told interesting stories, particularly about the war years and the troup trains. He has often told me how he, as the conductor, had to give the “right of way”, as he called it, to his driver. He still knows the right way, because even today he is still a Nationalist in heart and soul. [Interjections.] I also know that he will follow this Railway budget debate with the greatest of interest. I am sure that he should like to give the Minister the “right of way” this evening, like all of us, for the year that lies ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the kind words the hon. member for Klerksdorp expressed with regard to staff. However, I must also refer immediately to the background against which we should today regard the wonderful achievements of the S.A. Railways. It is a well-known fact that the economy in South Africa is not what it should be and that the industries are on an average operating at approximately 84,5% of their capacity. Although the present conditions in our industries are causing unemployment and lower profits, the S.A. Railways is constitutionally obliged to render an effective service at the most economic rates. This is no easy task, particularly when we bear in mind that the Administration has to reconsider annually how to render the most effective service at the lower rates. We find it remarkable that the Administration keeps this fact in mind every year. The various financial statements of the report of the past year, reflect the fact that a record income figure was achieved in the past year, an improvement of 22,1% over that of the previous year, while the expenditure figure rose by only 16,6%. When analysing this report, one looks for factors which led to this favourable financial situation in the S.A. Railways. It is indeed true that the production factors, labour and capital, play a very large role in an enterprise. However, even if an enterprise were to have all the capital it was entitled to have, and it did not have the necessary good labour, such an enterprise would be unsuccessful. In that respect, it is remarkable, as the S.A. Railways proved to us by means of statistics, that they have had an average productivity growth of 2,9% from 1971 to 1978. This question occurs to me: How do they achieve this constant growth in productivity, how do they accomplish this wonderful achievement year after year, while other sectors of the economy are leading a precarious existence? The Railways remains legally obliged to render the most effective services at the most economic rates. The answer in this regard is without doubt that the Railways regards its staff as its most important asset. That is why salaries and other conditions of service are continually being adjusted and why better home-ownership schemes, better medical funds, better pension benefits, travel facilities, etc., are repeatedly under review. We have already pointed out the salary increases which are envisaged for 1 April, as well as the 10% increase in pensions and the R25 million savings bonus which was paid out to the staff in January of this year.

It remains remarkable to me that the staff renders a quid pro quo in this regard. This has once again been reflected in the productivity during the past year. The increase in the handling of loads surpassed the staff increase. In 1976-’77, for instance, the handling of loads increased by 8,13% as compared to the previous year, while the staff increase was only 1,76%. In 1977-’78 the increase in the handling of loads was 10,39% as compared to the previous year, while the staff increase was only 3,44%. One is impressed by the co-operation which exists between the Railways Administration and the staff, as is mentioned in the report. The existing training facilities are mentioned, but I am always impressed by the exceptional understanding which exists between the Management and staff. It has already been said, and I should like to repeat, that discussions are held with staff associations and that not only are grievances expressed at such discussions, but matters such as better work methods, increased productivity and a more efficient service are also discussed. It is a fact that various schemes exist in terms of which the available labour force is applied as efficiently as possible in order to achieve an ever higher production level. The various ways in which that is done have already been pointed out.

Here I should like to refer in particular to the managerial skill, good planning and perception which exist among the staff. I should like to refer in particular to a new project which has been instituted for management development. A task force was established to see how increased production can be achieved and a more efficient service can be rendered with less labour. This bears witness to a very loyal staff. When I speak of the loyal staff, I should like to start with the reservations officer here in Parliament.

Hear, hear!

He renders service of the highest quality at all times. I should also like to refer in this regard to our Parliamentary catering service which offers the best service one can get.

Hear, hear!

We find people of this calibre with whom we come into contact every day in every constituency. One finds these people in every level of the community: in the clerical field, the cultural field and in civil defence. One could talk about various facets of life in a community. The railwayman also plays a role in the educational field. One finds them everywhere.

And in the NP.

Yes, of course, one also finds them in the NP; that goes without saying.

I cannot pay adequate tribute to this labour force which renders such a wonderful service to the Republic of South Africa. For that reason, I express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister, the General Manager and his staff— to every member of our Railway service.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister very sincerely this evening. [Interjections.] I shall thank him in a little while for being prepared to transport sheep at a lower tariff. Now the Opposition will also be able to travel more cheaply. [Interjections.] A double-decker truck will suit those hon. members well.

The hon. the Minister made a very important announcement in his budget. Something which is not in fact realized too well, is that when the national serviceman enters the service of the Railways after finishing his national service, his period of national service is recognized by the Railways to such an extent that he may be regarded for all practical purposes as a person who worked on the Railways during the duration of his national service. This is an important matter. It immediately makes this young man, who has fought for South Africa, feel that he is working for a department which binds him to his country, which really cares for him and which really offers him a future. A boy who has passed Std. 6 or Std. 8 and who was perhaps not as well motivated before commencing his national service as he is today, is afforded an opportunity of receiving training in the service of the Railways while he is earning a wage.

This is something which is of exceptional importance to these young people. I represent a large section of the Railway community. When one takes into account the numerous telephone calls I received and the gratitude that could be seen on the faces of these people when I visited them, particularly after this budget had been introduced, one sees that a very real need for that existed. Many of the young men who came back after completing their national service were not immediately assimilated into the community.

I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and the Management of the Railways for paying attention to these young men. This sets an example to all other organizations and private companies. I think it is essential that they should also pay attention to this matter. Many of these young men have families to care for. When one of these young men returns to the community, that responsibility rests on him. He is being relieved of that heavy burden. His brother who goes off to do his national service after him, does not have to worry, because he is assured of a home when he returns to civilian life. Those of us in the House who own private companies ought to propagate this excellent idea.

I should now like to broach another important matter. If we look at the conveyance of Blacks from Soweto to Johannesburg today, we have to thank the Railways for assuming responsibility for a task which would be regarded as impossible in most countries. In two hours more than 206 000 people are conveyed, easily and in comfort by the Railways. Those of their own people who visited those projects with us, have the greatest praise and appreciation for the Government and the hon. the Minister. If one can satisfy a man in his work so that he can see that there is something tangible for him, he says: “These people are well disposed towards me.” He does not then experience a problem if a train should arrive late on one or two days.

Hon. members must pardon me, because one should not really crack a joke here. There was once an old man who went to the same cinema for six months on end to see the same film. When the people asked him why he went to see the same film every time, he said that there were people sitting in a certain place in the film and just when he was about to see what they were doing, the train passed. He said that he had worked on the Railways and he knew that sooner or later that train would be late, and then he would see what was happening.

The trains of the S.A. Railways do not run late. The trains run on time to such a degree that the Blacks know exactly what the time is when they see a specific train. They have special names for those trains too. They even set their watches by the trains. This is a fact.

Let us now take a look at the number of flights which are undertaken by the SAA and to the thousands of people who are conveyed every day. If there is one man who travels around abroad, I am that man. In other countries one sometimes has to wait for a connection for up to three or four hours. We do not appreciate what is done here. We do not always realize what the quality of our transportation services are. Just look at the SAA girls who serve one. Just look at the treatment one receives from the SAA. Just look at the food one receives.

Yes, plastic chicken.

One will not find an airline anywhere which can be compared with that I would not even give the people a dry biscuit on the route from Johannesburg to Durban, because I am a businessman, but the SAA serves meals tastefully.

I should now like to return to the hon. member for East London North. The hon. member must realize that the people of East London are ruining East London with their gossip-mongering. The representatives of the Progs have killed East London with gossip.

†It is a place where no White man can really put his foot.

*They are racists.

†It is a corridor down a dead end and we shall eventually be right in the sea.

Do not talk about East London.

This is the sort of story one hears there: “We shall be pushed into the sea. There is no way out from Berlin. The Transkei is on the one side and the Ciskei is on the other. All of us have to live in this country.” This is the way in which they gossip about East London. Even poor Kaunda is dragged into the matter. No, we have to discuss these matters seriously. The fact that that copper is off-loaded in East London and that no load is taken back from there, causes losses in that trucks return empty. Now the hon. member for East London North is objecting to the transportation of copper. He is objecting to the fact that we are transporting Zambia’s copper. [Interjections.] Because he does not want us to transport Zambia’s copper, he is now advocating containerization. [Interjections.] It is, however, being transported at profitable tariffs. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Berea should rather keep quiet now. We shall listen to him when he talks about pills, medicines and prescriptions. However, he has had enough medicine over the past week to teach him to keep quiet [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London North should not express his feelings so easily. Those racist feelings of his … [Interjections.] His view that the S.A. Railways should not render any services to Black people or to people outside our borders … [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if ever one had to look for an argument against this hon. House having Wednesday evening sittings, that argument would be provided by the hon. member for Langlaagte. [Interjections.] I do not believe he is capable of lasting out a full day’s debate. I do not intend compounding his vapourings by commenting upon them. [Interjections.]

I want to say something about the proposition that was about to be put by the hon. member for Green Point. I do not believe that certain hon. members close to me have the intelligence to follow what he was about to say. [Interjections.] The hon. member was not against the principle of private motor-cars being used by commercial men. What he was going to say—and this is evidently sensible— was that the hon. the Minister of Transport, in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance, could well have encouraged or promoted the idea that where a person uses public transport to get from his home to work and back, there is an argument that such expenses should be tax deductible. I believe it is a good idea. I believe that any idea that would tend to encourage the use of public transport in this time should be allowed to be aired and should be considered.

I now want to raise a subject which I touched upon last year and on which, I presume, the hon. the Minister and I have agreed to disagree in perpetuity. Last year I raised the question of the immense maritime disasters which, in fact, we have had along this coast and which, without any doubt whatsoever, we are going to have to live with for the foreseeable future. Last year the hon. the Minister refused to consider the possibility of forming a properly structured and disciplined South African coast guard. That is all right. The hon. the Minister does not want a South African coast guard. Therefore I will not go on pressurizing him. However, if he does not have a proper South African coast guard, I would like to know what form of monitoring is going on at the moment in South Africa in regard to the keeping of ships at a proper distance from our coastline.

Thirty-six hours ago there was a distinct— not a remote, but a distinct—possibility of the worst maritime disaster in history taking place off Cape Agulhas.

You should discuss that under the Transport Vote.

No, it has everything to do with the hon. the Minister. It has everything to do with his Administration. I shall tell him why it has. The hon. the Minister is being deliberately provocative, and he knows it.

No, I am not being provocative.

Who has to bear the brunt? His Port Captains have to bear the brunt. His tugs have to bear the brunt. The tug crews are the people who are called out in the middle of the night. They are the people who have to go off in south-easterly and north-westerly gales. They are the people who have to pull in these tankers. The Port Captain is at the horns of a dilemma. Right now in regard to the Al Rafidain a decision has to be made whether this tanker, which is immobilized, should be permitted to lie in False Bay, Table Bay or whether it should just be left to its own devices. It is the Administration’s officers in the harbour who have to deal with this problem. The actual monitoring does not have to be done by a Port Captain. However, I would like to know, because of the dire consequences on the Railways Administration, whether the hon. the Minister has in fact satisfied himself that there is adequate monitoring.

The problem is that if the Al Rafidain had been 200 miles out to sea when its engine failed, I can understand that. However, my information is that the Al Rafidain was approximately 16 miles off the South African coast when its engines failed. I find this situation unreal. The hon. the Minister has laid down certain rules regarding the use of sea-lanes in his capacity as Minister of Transport. However, I cannot believe that a fully-laden 317 000 ton tanker, filled with crude oil, can ever be permitted to come within that close distance of the South African seaboard. It is not right. Secondly, is the hon. the Minister satisfied that there is not a sort of hit-and-miss availability of a great salvage tug like the Wolraad Woltemade? If the Wolraad Woltemade had not been available yesterday, that tanker would have been ashore at Cape Agulhas. There is no doubt about that.

There is always one available.

No. I would like to know what kind of system is used in terms of which the Railways’ tugs as well as the private enterprise salvage tugs are meshed into a system in terms of which one or more are available at any given moment. I would like to know what agreement the Administration has with the private operators, if any; what the terms are, and is it required in terms of such an agreement that there must be one of these major tugs at any given moment in each major port?

We are very lucky in the sense that Durban has built a large number of good tugs for the Administration, approximately six or seven. However, private enterprise is responsible for tugs like the John Ross, Wolraad Woltemade, the Atlantic, the Albatross and the Causeway Adventurer.

The Albatross is around their necks at the moment!

Yes. There are several tugs capable of salvage work.

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister: When the Wolraad Woltemade and the John Ross are out to sea looking for work and when the hon. the Minister says that there is always a major salvage tug available, is he sure of his facts?

He is all at sea.

I am not so sure that he is. If he is sure of his facts, I would like to know what the terms of the agreement are with private operators. I do not want to be a prophet of doom. I do not want to be a Cassandra. But we live in apprehension off the western coast here. There is no doubt about that. I do not think Durban has a similar problem. You see, Sir, the temptation is to cut comers. Of course it is a tremendous temptation, and I do not expect the hon. the Minister, in whatever capacity, to have a whole squadron of Lancasters or Shackletons cruising up and down our coastline. That is not possible. However, I want to know how the hon. the Minister has satisfied himself that the Administration will be saved as far as humanly possible from the perilous consequences of these captains who try to cut comers.

There is another point I want to raise and I hope that I can do it in the time at my disposal. On an occasion not so long ago the former Prime Minister, Mr. B. J. Vorster, was dining at the restaurant in the Cape Town docks which we call the “Taj Mahal”. The hon. the Minister will know all about that because we have crossed swords about that dining-room on several occasions. I understand that while Mr. Vorster was there, a fire broke out, with the result that he and his company had to make a quick exit. What happened that night is that the signal lights which signal ships in and out of Table Bay were destroyed. For two years Table Bay was without those signal lights. There was no accident, no problem, and ships came in and went out again on radio. Despite that accident-free period and despite the fact that radios were used quite adequately, and that the lights do not operate in fog, the Administration solemnly went ahead and at a cost of approximately R40 000 put in new signal lights. Why? There was no need for these signal lights; there is no need for them.

When a ship comes into Table Bay, it calls the Port Captain by radio and asks for permission to enter the harbour. The Port Captain thereupon gives permission but the ship’s captain says the red light is signalling and therefore he cannot enter the harbour. This is what happens. The Port Captain then says: “Oh, I am terribly sorry. I made a mistake; I shall change the light”. This is all done by radio, and I therefore want to know why we spend R40 000 on a system like that. I simply do not understand that, and I can tell the hon. the Minister that the seafarers of Cape Town do not understand it either.

A third point that I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, is: Who on earth is responsible for the chaos that surrounds the new system of islands and traffic signs at the end of the south arm of the Table Bay Docks? The hon. the Minister must know what I am talking about. In the earlier days when the mail boat used to tie up there, there was a tremendous amount of traffic which moved without any problems. Now that there is less traffic, the most sophisticated and intricate system of traffic islands, stop streets and new traffic signs has been introduced. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the Railway study group but I do want to express my gratitude for the opportunity to be able to say a few words. Listening to the hon. member for Groote Schuur I was reminded, in the light of the many ridiculous questions those hon. members asked, of the national convention they want to hold, a national convention which will consist of a number of questions without replies.

The hon. the Minister of Transport has been accused a number of times this afternoon of not keeping his word, or of furnishing incorrect information. This has just happened again. The hon. member for Groote Schuur referred to the tugs, and when the hon. the Minister gave him the assurance that there was always a tug in service, the hon. member said: “I doubt whether he is speaking the truth.” It seems to me that the Opposition has sunk to the level where they simply do not wish to accept the word of a Minister of this calibre any longer. It is deplorable that we are faced with such opponents in politics.

In the second place, the hon. member referred to the oil tanker which, due to mechanical problems, was drifting helplessly near our coast. In this regard I want to agree with the hon. member that we must ensure—I take it that this is in fact done—that these oil tankers must travel on fixed and specified routes. If such an oil tanker breaks down, such a ship lacks the power to move. We should also be fair in this regard. He should rather have said this evening that he was paying tribute to the crew of the tug, the Wolraad Woltemade, which had that tanker on tow within a few minutes and towed it out of danger. In my opinion we should pay tribute to those people who, with their engineering skills, designed that tug. Because I have confidence in the engineering skills encountered in the Railways I believe that these people are very aware of the dangers which we as laymen overlook. I therefore take it that they foresaw these problems long ago, even before the hon. member for Groote Schuur or I became aware of them.

I also wish to associate myself with what my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, had to say about the use of artificial milk on our aircraft Last year I had the privilege of travelling quite extensively by air in Canada and America. While I was there it was summer and what struck me in particular that in the morning, cold fruit grown in the region concerned was served for breakfast. We did not, as was usual, get a sausage and an egg for breakfast, but instead cold, fresh fruit such as watermelon, sweet melon, grapes or whatever was produced in that region. I wonder whether our Airways could not serve fruit to passengers for breakfast in the summer months. A glass of fruit juice, a piece of watermelon, a piece of cold sweet melon and a bunch of grapes is very healthy.

What about a glass of wine?

One does not drink wine with breakfast Sir, I have a problem. I come from a very beautiful part of the world where very good wine is made. Now hon. members think that when I rise to speak, I have to speak about wine. I do so with pleasure, but at the moment I am speaking about breakfast on the S.A. Airways and at breakfast wine is not served. If the S.A. Airways could give their passengers cold fruit for breakfast in the summer months, I am sure everyone would appreciate it a great deal.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister who, many years ago, was MPC for my constituency and at present represents my neighbouring constituency—whether he can tell the House when it will be possible to move the shunting yard at Worcester. I am aware that the hon. the Minister is giving attention to this matter, but the south-easterly and north-westerly winds can blow quite strongly in Worcester and the pollution of the residential areas near the shunting yard creates a problem. However, there are two reasons why I cannot argue this matter too strongly. In the first place I know that the Department is building a new shunting yard for diesel locomotives which will mean that the existing shunting yard will be moved. In the second place, the present shunting yard already existed when the residential area was built. I therefore have sympathy for the Railways. I have experience of the sound cooperation of the System Manager of the Railways in Cape Town and the Railway staff at Worcester with regard to the combating of pollution caused by the shunting yard in residential areas. I do want to ask whether the moving of the shunting yard could not be expedited a little if the funds are available.

The S.A. Railways is a large organization employing many people. I do not wish to argue that in earlier years the Railways employed just anyone—far from it. However, it was true that in earlier years the Railways was the organization which had to employ people who could not be placed elsewhere. I am grateful to know that the Railways works with its staff in a very fine way with civilized discipline. Among such a large staff—just as is the case with other large organizations— one encounters people with weaknesses, people who are perhaps a little unfaithful in the execution of their duties, people who perhaps go to work a little the worse for wear on account of liquor, or whatever. But I am grateful that the Railways has said to that kind of person: “Old friend, I would like to continue to employ you, but if you do not do your duty I fear that I shall not be able to employ you any longer.” This is a good approach. If there is one thing which can solve South Africa’s economic problems it is certainly the increase in productivity. There are many other people giving advice as to how the country’s economy can be built. I want to maintain that there is one way in particular, viz. higher productivity. That is why I say that the Railways has set an example to many other bodies in the private sector, that higher productivity is the most important way of overcoming our economic problems.

I am pleased that the Railways has now broken away from the red brick houses which station masters and others lived in in earlier years when the UP was in power. I am grateful that the Railways has for years been providing houses for their senior staff which are not the typical red brick houses but fine houses which could stand in any residential area and compare favourably with the other houses there. Indeed, nowadays most other houses do not compare with the houses provided for our station masters and senior staff nowadays. I know that the Railway people in my constituency are contented because they are well-treated, well-paid and they know that they have good masters in the hon. the Minister and the General Manager of the Railways.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has said that his heart is in Salt River in the Cape. We take note of that but I know that his heart is also in the Transvaal at Jan Smuts Airport in Johannesburg, because together with the wonderful, outstanding management he is in control of the most wonderful and biggest organization there is. This evening we can only praise them. I know that the hon. members of the Opposition have been trying very hard the whole evening to find any imaginable fault but they cannot find anything positive. All they are able to do is make a lot of interjections and other things of no importance.

This evening I should very much like to ask the hon. the Minister something. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not here this evening. He asked me whether I would not please request the hon. the Minister of Transport whether he could get a new station at Delmas. [Interjections.] He said that not even a baboon with a walking stick could make his way on that station. He could perhaps have furnished further details but unfortunately he is not present this evening. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister and his General Manager could do something about Delmas my products and passengers could of course get to Rosettenville more quickly. Therefore it would help me in my constituency as well if Delmas could get a new station.

The matter about which I really want to speak this evening is the whole issue of steam locomotives. Looking at the annual report we find that there are 1 863 steam locomotives, 1 698 electric locomotives and 1 208 diesel locomotives. This gives us a total of 4 769 locomotives. I know that the hon. the Minister’s heart is in both the Transvaal and in Salt River in the Cape. Probably he still remembers the days when he worked in the workshops at Salt River. Perhaps he remembers a number of other things as well, for example the days when steam was the apple of his eye too. That of course also applies to the General Manager, whose late father was one of the designers of one of our steam locomotives.

Therefore they probably still long for the days of steam because where there is no steam there is no ash either, and and where there is no ash there are major problems for the Railways today. I say this because when there are floods, that ash has to be brought from elsewhere. Of course there is nothing like ash to counteract floods.

Ash is also necessary as a flux in the manufacture of bricks. Nowadays difficulties are being encountered in the brickmaking industry because there is a shortage of ash. Here we are not of course referring to the ash which remains of that Opposition. We are referring to the true ash which derives from coal. It is that kind of ash which is of importance to us.

I also wish to refer to the role played by the steam locomotive in attracting tourists to South Africa. Here I refer in particular to the role of the Railway Society of Southern Africa. It was with great pleasure that I brought the hon. the Minister and his wife to Heidelberg as my guests on a 16E locomotive on Saturday, 12 August. I know that he really enjoyed that day. We only have six of those 16E locomotives in South Africa and only one is still in running order, a locomotive with wheels six foot high. Do hon. members know how high six foot is? It is really a pleasure to see. [Interjections.] When I arrived at Heidelberg station with the hon. the Minister I had a fright because the engine driver was a little man, just a little taller than the height of my bench, and it was this little man who had to bring that valuable cargo of 335 passengers to Heidelberg. I must say that that train travelled fast! One could barely imagine such terrific speed! [Interjections.] It was wonderful when, at Heidelberg, we were able to inspect the machine which had conveyed us. This is the kind of thing which still happens today, because every now and again there are tours on such circular routes. One just has to take one’s picnic basket along. Often there are no dining saloons on those trains—I am not referring to that train now but to another train. They take picnic baskets along and relax at a picnic place. It is that kind of thing that will attract tourists.

From 12 April to 22 April, approximately 100 railway enthusiasts from the USA, Britain, Western Europe and Australia will visit the Republic. They are going to travel by train at a cost of R360. It is wonderful to see the route they will follow in those 10 days. From Johannesburg to Kimberley the train will be drawn by the same class 16E locomotives, although their engine driver may be a bigger man than the little man to whom I referred.

From Kimberley to De Aar a class 16DA locomotive will be used, from De Aar to Noupoort a class 12A locomotive and from Noupoort to Port Elizabeth a class 12R locomotive. From Port Elizabeth they will travel by “Apple Express”, that little train which runs to Avontuur. That train runs on a narrow gauge, but it can also go very fast. From Port Elizabeth to Klipplaat the train will be drawn by a class 15AR locomotive, but from Klipplaat to Oudtshoorn by a class 19DA locomotive, from Oudtshoorn to George by a GMAM Garratt, that big thing which runs back to front, from George to Knysna by a class 24 locomotive and then again, from George to Mossel Bay, by a class 14R locomotive.

From there, two locomotives in tandem will draw the train from Lootsberg to Noupoort. From Noupoort to Bloemfontein a class 16DA locomotive will be used, from Bloemfontein to Kroonstad a class 23 locomotive and from Kroonstad to Germiston a class 15CA locomotive. It is only a pity that Parliament is in session then because otherwise I, too, would have travelled by train and would have asked the hon. the Minister to join me again. However, this time he would have to help me pay.

I want to refer to the role played by steam locomotives over the years. From 1877 steam has played a tremendous role at the Hex River Pass. The Hex River Pass has its legends and ghosts, its sharp curves and fine views also lend something to the historic background of the Railways. There was often a race between the train and the people, where even the stokers jumped off to run with the others.

During the 1914-’18 war a troop train was derailed at Tunnel station and almost an entire regiment was killed. The train travelled down the mountain to Touws River across grey Karoo plains with little stations with names like Bloutoring, Hondewater, Plathuis and Vensterkrans.

Today steam locomotives are still used in that region. The class 7F locomotive with its long neck was cock of the roost until it was replaced by the class 24 locomotive. The lovable “Makadas”, with a character all its own, also ran there. Sometimes it was two hours early and sometimes three hours late. In those days one really needed an almanac. Where “Oom Skeelkootjie” was digging a ditch there the train would stop and the passengers would help to offload his cement. This was part of the character of the Railways. That kind of thing happened. It cannot simply be forgotten.

From Touws River northwards, the trains ran along Swartberg, Konstabel and Jan de Boer, past Tweedside with its manor house against the rise, its rows of bluegums and three entrances, to Matjiesfontein, Baviaan and Laingsburg. The train passed all those places. Eventually they arrived at Beaufort West where there were always the 15E rotary cam locomotives, those fast ones with smoke deflectors like blinkers and flat smokestacks. They were nicknamed “Mbongol”, the ass. With their short, sharp puffs they chewed up the miles and the stoker had to stoke like mad to keep the hot machines with their big fire boxes going. Between Beaufort West and De Aar one could see Gannaboslaagtes, Pruimbos, Wilde Granaat with its bright yellow flowers and grey ridges with fat sheep. At De Aar one sees today the old shunting locomotives, those wonderful museum pieces that are a feast to the eye. The bright copper work, bright black boilers, silver-painted bands and fine hand-made nameplates and ornaments on those locomotives must be preserved for posterity. Those locomotives must not be destroyed.

The stately class 25NC locomotives still run between De Aar and Kimberley today and the class 25 condenser locomotives also ran from Touws River northwards. Those trains could move, but today they cannot keep up with the new generation of locomotive. Nevertheless they could move at a tremendous pace.

It is in that regard that I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister and the top management of the Railways, men like Mr. Hennie Loots, Dr. Loubser and Dr. Grové, who controls the financial side. We know that he will obtain the necessary finance. Then we can preserve these locomotives for posterity.

Order! I regret that on this side line I must give the hon. member the red light.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was a pleasure to listen to the speech by the hon. member for Rosettenville. He reminded me of the old days when I myself was employed by the S.A. Railways. In the old days the Makadas, the Garretts and the other old steam locomotives still ran.

I now wish to come back to the subject of the discussion this afternoon when my time expired, namely the capital programme. Having referred this afternoon to the operating account of the Railways I went on to refer to the Capital Account. One of the objections advanced by the Opposition relates to the financing of our capital programme, which grows annually. This year the capital budget, as we know, amounts to approximately R1 407 million. I have just heard that the hon. member for Orange Grove is in fact the man who objects so strongly to the financing of this so-called vast capital budget. I would not say that is so very big, because it complies with the requirements of our times. This money has to be found somewhere. That hon. member is one of those people who, as I said this afternoon, digs in his heels when anyone wants to introduce services or establish an infrastructure. He is someone who digs in his heels when one wants to find capital resources. He is the man who objects when tariffs have to be increased. However, he is also the man who objects if no tariff increases are announced. He becomes so sour that his mouth is eventually on his cheek. That is so. Unfortunately this is one of the characteristics which he has cultivated for himself. Even when we speak about the investigation by the Franzsen Committee into the financing of certain socio-economic services, he says that the public must pay for them. I do not know whether he thinks that funds should fall like manna out of heaven.

However, I want to discuss the factual situation with regard to the capital programme. I want to repeat what I said this afternoon. I do so in order to put the matter into perspective. The hon. members for Orange Grove and Hillbrow must decide what percentage of the financing, in their opinion, must come from revenue. To them 40% is acceptable as far as the postal services are concerned, but 15% with regard to the Railways is not acceptable to them.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must not tell me anything of that kind. They use the same argument every time with regard to the Franzsen Commission.

One of them is stupid.

Who is stupid? Is it the hon. member for Orange Grove or the hon. member for Hillbrow? Somewhere there is a screw loose. The same goes for the NRP. The hon. member for Umhlanga and other Opposition members had no objection last year to the way in which 40% of the financing of the Post Office’s capital programme of R322 million was carried out. An appropriation of R65 million came out of depreciation and R32 million, almost half of it, was made available from the increases in the contributions for the replacement of assets. In the Select Committee this year, the hon. member for Orange Grove dug in his heels when we wanted to vote an extra 10% in regard to the replacement of assets. Now they must adopt a standpoint. Is the financing of the net investment of between 40% and 50%—as recommended by the Franzsen Commission—out of the capital budget only applicable to the Post Office, or is it also applicable to the Railways? Those two little parties together have a total of 27 hon. members. Four out of the 27 hon. members, believe it or not (“waaragtig”), cannot agree on the basis of the financing of the capital programme.

Order!

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, if the word “waaragtig” is not permissible I withdraw it.

I now wish to look at this capital programme. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti made a tremendous fuss yesterday about the capital programme, as it happens. He tried to apply certain criteria to prove that we did not get the necessary return on the capital investment of the Railways. He also drew certain comparisons and referred to the period 1973-’74 to 1978-’79. He said that the increase in the capital investment over that period was 98% if one worked it out per employee. He then put the question: What is the investment out of operations? He then took the depreciation, the interest and the utilization from the Revenue Account and said that it had increased by 191%. He said that if we looked at the revenue obtained by the railways per employee we found that it was really ridiculous to invest these global sums in the capital expenditure and not get the necessary return. The same percentages to which the hon. member referred, constitute in my opinion a compliment for the Railways, because there is more or less the same number of staff and the capital investment has continued to grow. Surely this shows that the industry has expanded. The Railways has expanded, the Airways has expanded, the Harbours have expanded, the Pipeline has expanded, but there is more or less the same amount of staff. Therefore one cannot say that because the amount per employee has risen, the S.A. Railways and Harbours functions inefficiently.

Do hon. members know what the hon. member went on to do? The ridiculousness of it all! He took the period from 1973-’74 to 1978-’79. This is the period in which the S.A. Railways created a tremendous infra-structure in South Africa. It was in that time that South Africa built Richards Bay. It was in that time that a railway line was built from Broodsnyersplaas/Ermelo to Richards Bay. It was in that period that the Railways took over the Saldanha Bay scheme after a railway line of 861 km had been built from Sishen to Saldanha Bay. It was in that period that they expanded the Saldanha Bay harbour. It was in that period that containerization was introduced. It was also in that period that the fleet of the SAA was expanded. While that capital was spent, surely revenue was lacking. That hon. member who told us he was an engineer, ought surely to know far better. If anyone invests while he builds, surely he does not have the revenue. He only receives revenue a few years later. The hon. member measures while expenditure is still taking place and then he wants to calculate from revenue. What is the picture today? The picture is quite different.

Now I should like to refer to another aspect, and this is the last aspect to which I want to refer. As I have already said, the Franzsen Commission has recommended that the Railways spends 40% to 50% of their revenue on capital works. With reference to the amount of R1 407 million, the hon. member for East London North says that the capital programme has been expanded by 29%. The hon. member has not yet tumbled to the fact that the format of the Brown Book has changed between last year and this year. At present the capital programme is being expanded by something more than 1%. The amount of last year’s capital programme was R1 387 million. This year the amount is R1 407 million; an increase of 1,5%. Then the hon. member wants to tell one that the increase in the capital programme is more than 29%. The hon. member is incapable of analysing the Brown Book, but nevertheless he makes that statement. What does the Railways finance out of the total capital investment of R1 407 500 000? R133 million is a mere 15%. When we come to the Post Office, then one can spend as one likes. However, when one discusses the Railways one encounters the lack of logic in that party. Why does that Opposition, which was once a party with 107 members, look as it does now? There the whole lot of them sit; not even 30 members. It is the result of their double talk.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.