Mr. Chairman, at this juncture we are drawing towards the end of the Committee Stage of this Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill. I should therefore like to take the opportunity of complimenting the hon. the Minister on the steps he has taken to assist the ship repair industry to face up to international competition. Until this time there has been a constant complaint from the industry that wharfage and other harbour charges were excessive, despite the fact that our ship repair industry felt itself quite capable of facing up to competition as far as the work itself was concerned. Dock charges were not only far higher than in many ports elsewhere in the world, but they were so high that South Africa was being priced right out of the market. Millions of rand of much-needed foreign currency were being lost as a result.

As the hon. the Minister knows, I have on several occasions during the last two years made strong representations both to him and to the General Manager about the situation which, I felt, was completely unsatisfactory. I am therefore very grateful that he has at last taken steps which should enable the industry to operate more competitively.

I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for Von Brandis is in the House.

You are the only one who is glad.

Well, on this occasion I am pleased. It is not often that I am pleased to see that hon. member. However, I should like to come back to a speech made by the hon. member for Von Brandis yesterday. In that speech he saw fit to attack me because I had interjected at some stage during an earlier speech of his by saying that what he said was untrue. I now want to quote from his Hansard so that hon. members will be able to remember exactly what he said (Hansard, 14 March 1979)—

To begin with, I never used those words. I should like to challenge the hon. member to produce proof from my Hansard showing me as saying anything of that nature at that time.

[Inaudible.]

Well, I have just read it I was referring to the hon. member’s accusation in regard to inefficiency, nonproduction and non-productive time on the Railways. Then he goes on—

My reply to the hon. member at that stage was: “I remember that speech. Quote it in full context.” Then the hon. member went on to say—

I now want hon. members to remember this. I now want to refer to the actual speech from which he was quoting. I should like to read this, because the hon. member for Von Brandis has obviously been researching all my previous speeches on Railway matters. He has been delving back into Hansard, reading all these speeches. One hopes that by reading all those speeches the hon. member got some sort of intelligent thought into that thick skull of his. [Interjections.] However, I regret to say that I do not think it is at all possible, owing to his somewhat limited mental capacity. [Interjections.]

I should now like to quote the actual text of the speech which I made here in the House on Monday, 8 March 1976 (Hansard, 1976, col. 2710)—

Now, having read that, it is quite clear that when the hon. member said that I was implying that the railwaymen of South Africa were loafing on the job, he must have known that he was misrepresenting the true situation, having read my speech which he was quoting. That means that he was deliberately misrepresenting the truth. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, although I am certain …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, it has been ruled in the past that words such as these …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw those words on the basis that the words are unparliamentary.

Order! I am warning the hon. member for the last time that he must withdraw those words unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Have you asked the hon. member to withdraw the word “misrepresentation” or …

I told the hon. member to withdraw the words “deliberate misrepresentation”.

Well, then he has to withdraw one word only.

No. The hon. member must withdraw the words “deliberate misrepresentation”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “deliberately”. Perhaps the hon. member for Von Brandis has not read the full text of my speech. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to another matter which the hon. member for Von Brandis saw fit to comment on yesterday. I asked a question in connection with the turn-round time of trucks. I will now address myself to the hon. the Minister, because I find the hon. member for Von Brandis very tedious indeed. [Interjections.]

Why are you interfering?

Order! If the hon. member for Yeoville wants to make a speech, he must get up and do so. He cannot sit there and shout across the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of explanation: The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is the offender, not I! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville was the one who was shouting across the floor of the House. I ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs please not to shout across the floor of the House as well.

I inquired about the turn-round time of trucks because it appeared to me that over the last 20 years there had been a steady deterioration. I checked the General Manager’s report for the year ending on 31 March 1958. The turn-round time of trucks in 1958 was 8,56 days. The following year it went up to 9,01 days. Each year between 1958 and 1978 the fluctuation grew steadily to approximately 11 days. The Administration has invested very heavily in complicated and expensive computer machinery. After this major investment, one would have thought that one would have been able to see some sort of improvement in terms of the statistics for truck utilization. If one looks at the graph, this is not evident at all. The deterioration has been small, but nevertheless it has been there. I would like the hon. the Minister to comment on this. We talk of productivity as being the yardstick of efficiency and yet in spite of assistance from computers we do not appear to improve, although I am fully aware of the fact that the level of traffic has considerable bearing on the statistics.

Finally, if there is still any time at my disposal, I would like to raise the matter of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. It is running under capacity at the moment and I appreciate that the reason for that is a slump in the world demand for iron ore. Competition from other countries in the world is fierce. If we are going to be able to get a greater share of the market for our ore, it is vitally important that the cost of railage on the ore to Saldanha, should be kept as low as possible. It could in fact be argued that a special rate should apply if that could be justified by cutting costs on that railway line as far as possible. I must say that I have an immense respect for the Railway servants in that system, for the System Manager, Mr. Le Roux, and his staff. I am sure that they are operating as economically as possible under present circumstances. The rate per ton from Sishen to Saldanha at the moment is R4,05. We have to compete with the lower rates of mine-to-coast transport in countries like Australia where the rate is approximately R3, depending on how far away the mine is. From Brazil the rate is almost half that rate. I believe that the rate in Liberia is also very low. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should not like to reply to the argument of the hon. member for Orange Grove, particularly not with regard to the private quarrel which he has entered into with the hon. member for Von Brandis.

I should like to refer to one item in the hon. the Minister’s budget speech. I think it passed somewhat unnoticed. It concerns the question of staff savings bonuses amounting to R25 million paid by the Administration at the end of 1978. As far as I know, this amount went to approximately 10 000 of the lower paid railway officials. If one bears in mind that this savings campaign only extended over a period of approximately nine months, one reaches the conclusion that whereas the money amounted to R31 million over nine months, it could easily amount to between R40 million and R50 million over a year. With regard to the hon. the Minister’s intention of ordering two large new aircraft, I quickly made a calculation, and in view of my finding I want to ask the Administration whether they do not want to link the whole saving effort to something practical, for example, that the staff of the Railways Administration should co-operate as a team to purchase one of these 747 aircraft for the Administration. This will set a target, cultivate healthy competition and in my opinion is a fine idea to work towards. Therefore, not only will it be expected of them to save money, they will also in effect be striving to achieve something constructive by means of such a savings scheme.

In my opinion one cannot praise these officials enough for their motivation. In this regard I have in mind, for example, the clerk or station master at Heuningspruit, the one at Clocolan and the one at Arlington, too, who can swop ideas with each other on methods which could be applied to increase this savings factor. These people can give each other hints. In this way a team spirit may be cultivated, the spirit of a team of men who are striving for an ideal and specific circumstances, apart from working just to receive a salary cheque at the end of the month. They are working for something more and something better. I want to congratulate the Administration in particular on the originality of this effort and on the measure of success they have achieved in this regard. I just hope and trust that it can be announced at the end of the next financial year that this Railways team has succeeded in acquiring one of these big Boeings for the Railways, as a result of their specific, personal thrift campaign.

I now want to refer to another matter, and in this regard I want to test the hon. the Minister a little. It may sound a little ambitious and perhaps we are not prepared for this at this stage, but I want to refer to the transportation to our urban areas, with specific reference to Pretoria and Johannesburg. According to a survey carried out in 1977,. it appears that the number of vehicles entering the city centre of Johannesburg daily, was no less than 183 280. The number leaving Johannesburg daily, was 180 680. The number of vehicles entering Pretoria per day, was 153 989 in 1975, whereas 155 884 left Pretoria regularly every day. This is a total of 673 000 single journeys to the city centres of Johannesburg and Pretoria daily.

In view of the times we are going through and the circumstances that may be awaiting us, one wonders whether, in the long term there ought not to be a thorough investigation and consideration to the possibility of the establishment of circle routes around the large cities Johannesburg and Pretoria and around the Vaal Triangle. These circle routes can have spoke branches from particular stations or places to the areas where most of the passengers that make use of this work. As a practical example I want to mention the route from Tarlton in the direction of Olifantsfontein, via Halfway House. I am of the opinion that a vast number of these people who drive by motor-car between Pretoria and Johannesburg daily, can be drawn off in this way.

In these less concentrated parts between the large urban areas, which tend to develop towards each other, land is not yet so expensive and the capital outlay will not yet be disproportionately high at this stage. Since we foresee that the urban areas will develop towards each other, and since we are going through a period of energy conservation, I wonder whether this is not an idea which can be gone into and which should be given due consideration. If a railway line is too expensive, the possibility of railway buses could be considered. I know that there have been a number of curtailments in this regard between Krugersdorp and Pretoria due to a lack of support, but I think that the necessary support will be there in the near future. The idea I want to put to the hon. the Minister for his consideration is whether, in the long term, one should not give some consideration to this possibility.

Mr. Chairman, in the short time at my disposal I should like to bring four matters to the hon. the Minister’s attention. In the first place I should like to make use of this opportunity to determine from the hon. the Minister how far the Sick Fund has progressed with the possible arrangement that officials of the Administration may consult the doctor of their choice in each medical field. I am aware that this opportunity has received the attention of the Administration for some time now and it would be appreciated if the hon. the Minister could provide more information on this matter.

In the second place I should like to ascertain from the hon. the Minister how far the Committee of Investigation into the Disciplinary System has progressed in terms of the provisions of the Railways and Harbours Service Act. The hon. the Minister knows that this is a matter which I have always had at heart and I would particularly appreciate it if he could furnish us with more information on this matter.

In the third place I should like to make representations for the married officials of all grades doing section work in the service of the S.A. Railways. I do not want to mention all the specific grades here, but I have in mind in particular the plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, painters, etc., who render essential services to the Administration. They render these services away from their homes. There are cases that I know of in my constituency and elsewhere of married officials having had to do section work for periods of two years and longer. I do not think that anyone will object if an unmarried person has to do that work, but when one is dealing with married officials who have to do section work for long periods of more than two years—it is essential work—it should be borne in mind that their family life suffers. In this respect I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter and, if practicable, to limit section work to be performed by married officials to the minimum. In the fourth place I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the air travel concessions granted to Railway pensioners on the internal and external services of the S.A. Airways. This is a matter I raised two years ago in this House. On behalf of the Railway pensioners I want to thank the hon. the Minister for these air travel concessions granted to them. However, there is just one plea I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider. I want to ask him in a friendly way whether he is not prepared to extend those concessions so that the widows of Railway pensioners can also benefit from them. I should particularly appreciate it if this matter could receive the hon. the Minister’s sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address my remarks to the hon. the Minister. I do not believe I have to remind the hon. the Minister that we do not belong to a very large party in this House. We have a small party.

Quality, though!

I go along with that interjection. We may be a small party, but we have quality. This small party, the NRP, has fought many battles in debates in this House, and even in the face of many interjections we have, I believe, debated constructively, and I also think we have made a contribution to the debates in this House. We have done this, as I have said, in spite of interjections which could, at times, have been very hurtful to hon. members in these benches, especially interjections which are not necessarily picked up by the Chairman, or by Hansard for that matter. We are accustomed to such interjections coming from the area popularly known as the “kitchen” of this House.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “kitchen”. I think there is one thing on which hon. members will agree with me, however, and that is that hon. members in this party have learned to take it. We do not squeal when such interjections come from that side of the House. I therefore find it difficult to understand why the hon. the Minister reacted the way he did to an interjection made by the hon. member for Berea earlier on in this debate. It was, however, not only the hon. the Minister who reacted, because other hon. members in the Government benches also referred to that interjection. On Monday of this week the hon. member for Berea made an interjection and the hon. the Minister, when he rose to speak, launched a bitter attack on the hon. member for Berea. He said he did not want to talk to him again and he said that the hon. member for Berea owes the Railways Administration an apology. I now want to quote briefly from Hansard. At the time the hon. member for Witwatersberg was speaking and was referring to a journal, The International Railways Journal. He went on to say—

I interjected by asking “Who said that?”, because I wanted to know who had said it. The hon. member for Witwatersberg replied by saying—

It was about then that the hon. member for Berea said—

At no time did the hon. member for Berea refer to the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Witwatersberg or to the Railways Administration. He merely made what I believe to have been a valid interjection.

In the Railway budget debate?

He was, in fact, merely commenting on a fact.

In a Railway budget?

There was a time when Rhoodie was considered an expert. The hon. member for Witwatersberg was, however, actually referring to the editor of the International Railways Journal, but I wanted to know who that person was. I therefore believe that the hon. the Minister’s attack on the hon. member for Berea was uncalled for, and if an apology is required, I believe that an apology should be made to the hon. member for Berea. [Interjections.] I know that hon. members on that side are extremely touchy and sensitive at the present time, but that is their problem. We in these benches will not allow even a senior frontbencher to take it out on one of our members, especially if the member happens to be a new backbencher. [Interjections.]

If I may I should now like to sail into the more tranquil waters of Table Bay. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether any action has been taken in connection with a matter that was raised in 1974 by the then member for Green Point, Mr. Lionel Murray. I refer to the hon. the Minister to cols. 662, 663 and 664 of Hansard of 12 February 1974. At the time the then member for Green Point asked the then Minister of Transport whether any consideration had been given to the development of an international standard marina in Grainger Bay. He went to great lengths to motivate the need for such a marina or yacht basin for ocean-going boats in the Cape Peninsula. In his reply, the then Minister said (Hansard, 13 February 1974, col. 721)—

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in that regard and whether we can expect such a yacht basin to be constructed in the near future.

I should like to go on to talk about the passenger services of the Railways, which I believe is going to become a major talking point in the near future. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to page 15 of his memorandum. There is something there that bothers me. We obtain all these reports, memoranda and so on from the department and also from the hon. the Minister and we are guided by the information provided therein. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the revenue earned and the journeys travelled in respect of passenger services. There are an awful lot of them, but I should like to refer to one specific type of journey, viz. the long-distance first-class journey. Looking at the figures, one finds that in 1977-’78 the revenue earned amounted to R4 674 000. Further down one sees that there were 354 000 long-distance first-class journeys undertaken in that year. If one then divides the revenue earned by the number of journeys undertaken, one finds that the average journey earned R13,20. This is the figure that bothered me. It bothered me to think that the average long-distance journey, first-class, in the year 1977-’78 earned the Administration only R13,20 in revenue. I therefore asked the Administration yesterday for some figures. I asked for the average distance travelled on a first-class main-line journey. The figure I got for November 1978 was that the distance travelled was 909 km. I also asked what the cost per kilometre was and the figure I got was 4,43c. If one then multiplies the average distance by that cost, one finds that the revenue earned on such a journey was R40,27. I should like to know wherein the difference lies between the amount of R13,20 earned per journey overall, as shown in the memorandum of the hon. the Minister, and the amount of money the passenger paid.

The only answer I can come up with is that there are an awful lot of people travelling on the Railways without paying. We have talked about the Franzsen Committee and its investigation into the subsidies on socio-economic services. In this regard I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he charges the journeys undertaken by his staff to the Railways and exactly how much this is costing the Administration.

Those facts have been given to you.

They may have been given to me, but I should like to know what the exact figures are. I have been told— and I hope to refer to this briefly in the Third Reading—that it is costing the Railways some R20 million to transport their own staff. I should like to suggest, however, that it costs a lot more than that and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have an in-depth study made of this particular problem.

Mr. Chairman, when the boat is sinking, every straw in sight is clutched at. This is why the hon. member for Amanzimtoti carried on so about the fact that one of the members of his party was rightly called to order. Similarly the hon. member for Green Point—unfortunately he is not in the House this afternoon—said the other day that the Railway Administration should make its services as attractive as possible. It is a great pity that the hon. member did not enlarge on what he had in mind. Incorrect conclusions could be drawn from what he said. I maintain that the services rendered by the Railways are attractive. However, I want to leave it at that. It is true—no one can argue this—that the S.A. Airways manages most of South Africa’s internal as well as its external transportation. South Africa has established a proud and impressive record with regard to the transportation of passengers as well as the transportation of freight. One can only note with appreciation the speed with which the service is rendered, the standard maintained and the safety measures complied with.

In the past 15 years, passengers and freight traffic has increased almost tenfold. This has meant that the old type of aircraft had to be replaced by the new aircraft, which of necessity entailed heavy expenditure. We have taken cognizance of the new purchases. They represent a major step forward. However, to be able to maintain this proud and impressive record and to improve on it, staff are required.

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to speak as a client of the S.A. Airways. As far as the courtesy of the staff and the service they provide is concerned, I do not believe that anybody could surpass the readiness to serve of this staff of the Railways or that this service need take a back seat in any way to any other service in the world. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to see whether it is not possible under present circumstances to grant a concession to the staff members of the S.A. Airways. These people receive a free pass once a year, but they cannot just reserve a place on any aircraft. They have to wait until such time as a place is available on an aircraft. It has already happened that some of those staff members have to sit at the airport from the morning at 07h00 till the evening before a seat is available on an aircraft. The hon. the Minister can consider the matter.

There is another matter about which I am concerned, and that is that there are no study leave opportunities whatsoever for those people who are acquiring further academic qualifications. If they want to write an exam, they have to do so during their holiday or even between flights—some of them arrange it in this way. For that reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister to go into this matter to see whether this staff of the S.A. Airways cannot be assisted, since they want to acquire additional qualifications. Some of them are already doing this, but they are not afforded the opportunity to do it as they would like to.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to associate myself with the fine tribute paid by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to the S.A. Airways.

I should like to broach a subject which I discussed in my maiden speech in this House nine years ago. I have subsequently referred to the same matter on a number of occasions, made representations about the matter and tried to promote the idea. When I spoke about it for the first time, the building of the Sishen/ Saldanha railway line was still just a dream. However, when I went to see the hon. the Minister yesterday to tell him that I should like to discuss this subject today, he told me: “Man, you are flogging a dead horse, but go ahead and state your case.” He did it in such a friendly way that I decided that I would do it. I accept that if the S.A. Railways examined my proposal in strictly their own interests, they could possibly make a case for shooting down my request. The hon. the Minister could tell me: Guarantee the line; then we will build it. He could also say that it would not be economical, that there would not be enough freight or that it would not be in the interests of the S.A. Railways. I now want to make a very urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister and his top management: Don’t examine my proposal from a narrow point of view reflecting the interests of the S.A. Railways, but look at it in the interests of the broader development of South Africa.

I now want to ask hon. members to examine the map of the railway lines served by steam, diesel and electrical power, a map which is in the 1977-’78 annual report. They must look at where the new railway line is shown from Saldanha Bay to as far as Sishen. If we look north-east from Sishen, we see a small place called Pudimoe. From Pudimoe three alternate routes run to the Pretoria/ Witwatersrand/Vereeniging area. One runs from Pudimoe through Mafeking and Magaliesberg to Pretoria and Johannesburg, the second from Pudimoe through Vermaas, Coligny, Welverdiend and Johannesburg. The third route runs from Pudimoe through Veertien Strome via Klerksdorp to the Rand.

All roads lead to the Rand.

The only difference between that hon. member and the piano is that a piano makes music and he makes me sick.

My request to the hon. the Minister today is to link the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, from Sishen via Kuruman, to Pudimoe. That is 180 km of new railway line that would have to be built over absolutely level terrain, resulting in a new north-south route, a short cut from the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/ Vereeniging area to the most natural harbour on the southern point of Africa, Saldanha Bay. It is a short cut from our neighbouring States Botswana and Rhodesia to Saldanha Bay. It is a short cut from South West Africa via Upington, Boegoeberg, Kuruman to the Pretoria/Witwatersrand area. In the military strategic sphere this connection could play a very important role in the near future. However, what I consider most important, is that it could be the vital artery pumping life into this part of South Africa, but particularly into the Cape, which has the potential to assist in accommodating the growing population of South Africa of the future.

I should like to focus attention on the area for which I am advocating this new rail connection, namely the Kuruman/Postmasburg/Sishen/Hotazel/Danielskuil complex, the mineral treasure chest of South Africa. I just want to touch on one point. In 1960 mineral sales from this region amounted to R48 million, and increased to R363 million in 1976. A few years ago between 4 000 and 4 500 truckloads of livestock from the Kuruman district alone, left for the controlled markets of the Rand. What is most important about this area is that it borders on our neighbouring State Bophuthatswana. Labour is abundant and available. The raw materials iron ore, manganese, limestone, diamonds and asbestos are available. The Oog in Kuruman supplies enough water to provide a city the size of East London with water.

If we want to prevent further crossroads in South Africa, if we want to prevent the influx of Black people from homelands and independent neighbouring States to our metropolitan areas, there is only one solution, viz. to have development take place in regions which (a) have potential for development and (b) regions where the Black man can live in his own country and can sell his labour on a daily or weekly commuting basis to neighbouring White areas. This region to which I have been referring, has all these things.

I should now like to quote to hon. members from the Benbo and Plural Relations Commission report, which reads as follows on page 11—

The report goes on—

I should also like to quote from page 14 of this same report—

When I make this request to the hon. the Minister, I want to add that just as the railway line between Sishen and Saldanha Bay, which was a dream nine years ago, has become a reality today, a reality of which we in the Northern Cape are proud, similarly I can already see Saldanha Bay as a flourishing harbour city, the gates through which the wealth of the North and North Western Cape will earn foreign exchange for South Africa abroad. In the second place, if this rail link becomes a reality, I see in my imagination the development and growth of the mineral-rich North West, where the hon. member for Namaqualand comes from. I foresee that if that were to happen we should not just go to look at Namaqualand’s beautiful flowers, but would also go and see how the mineral wealth and potential of that area were being developed as a result of this vital artery which would be opened.

Then too I foresee a growth pole in the region of Kuruman, a growth pole which, in the first place, will mean employment opportunities and prosperity for the White man and the Tswana who live there as good neighbours alongside each other, each in his own fatherland. In the second place I foresee the creation of employment opportunities for the Tswana of Crossroads. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would be able to follow the hon. member for Kuruman intelligently if I knew where this place was that he was talking about. I do not know where the place is, but I think it is called Pudding Moer. [Interjections.]

The name of the place is Pudimoe.

No, the hon. member is not helping me at all. In fact, I do not think the hon. member even knows how to spell it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if only the hon. member for Groote Schuur will look at the map I have here in my hand.

Mr. Chairman, does Pudimoe appear on that map?

Yes, it does.

Well, I am very pleased to hear that. I would be very surprised …

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

No, I am putting a question to the hon. member for Kuruman. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon. member another question. Is there anything at Pudimoe at the moment?

Yes, pudding! [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member for Groote Schuur asking questions or is he making a speech?

Mr. Chairman, are you referring to me or to the hon. member for Kuruman? [Interjections.]

I am referring to the hon. member for Groote Schuur. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I asked a rhetorical question which I am going to answer myself. I think we should get into calmer waters. All I want to do is to finish off some of the specific local points I tried to raise yesterday, but which I could not complete owing to a shortage of time which cut me short in my tracks. I do not want to make a great mountain out of a mole-hill.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Groote Schuur asked whether there was such a place as Pudimoe, did he intend it as an insult to the principal town of the Taung district of Bophuthatswana?

Mr. Chairman, it is such a long question I do not have the time now to reply to it. The hon. member should rather table that question at some other stage. [Interjections.] I should like to deal with the question of the reorganization of the traffic islands and the sign posts and everything at the end of the south arm of the Table Bay harbour. I understand that the object of this was to prevent accidents. However, I think the hon. the Minister should go down there and have a look for himself, because this place has not been improved by these new methods. One can ride round and round in circles, and it is dangerous. I see no reason why these changes should have been brought about.

This raises the whole question of the place of the Harbour Advisory Board in our system. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Harbour Advisory Board in fact advised affirmatively on this new set-up at the end of the South Arm or negatively. Whatever the answer is—and I do not war to cast aspersions on people who may have given public service and spent time in public life—I believe that the system of Harbour Advisory Boards needs a good reviewing. In the old days, before one had a sophisticated, computerized and centralized Administration with top-skilled people, one probably needed an advisory body of some kind. However, these days I fail to understand why these boards should be present. They have no powers. If our Harbour Advisory Board was responsible for the mess at the end of the South Arm, then the sooner that Harbour Advisory Board is got rid of, the better.

Finally, on the question of local specific issues, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister again whether he is not prepared to reconsider the extraordinary rule that we have in Cape Town that the inhabitants of Cape Town may not go to the Cape Town docks without a permit on Sundays. Why must we continue with this? I have failed to get a reasonable answer from the authorities. If Sunday were the most difficult day from the point of view of the Railways Administration because all the trains were operating and stevedores were operating, I could understand it. However, Sunday is the quietest day of the week and this is the day on which people would like to take their families to the docks. After all Cape Town is called the Tavern of the Seas.

If the hon. the Minister’s heart is in Salt River, as he said it was, then he will know that it is not very far from the Tavern of the Seas as well. I really think that the hon. the Minister should take our history into consideration. We have a tremendous fishing and shipping history. I find it very difficult to understand why the ordinary Capetonian has to get a permit in order to go and see his harbour on a Sunday. I cannot understand that.

It does not happen in Durban.

The hon. member says it does not happen in Durban. Well, I thought it happened there as well. Of course, they do all sorts of funny things in Durban on a Sunday. [Interjections.]

Durban has got a real harbour.

I think the sooner we return to the Natal way of life, the better.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Groote Schuur will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument. At this late point in the Committee Stage of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill I think it is desirable to thank the hon. the Minister for some of the concessions made by him in his budget speech and which I think passed unnoticed during these four days.

Firstly, the surcharges on goods conveyed in mechanically refrigerated trucks and on express goods traffic will be reduced from 25%, 33⅓% and 50% to 15%, 20% and 25% respectively. This means a reduction of approximately 50%. I think this will be to the advantage of the industrialist, the consumer and the farmer. For the cattle farmer in the South West Africa region the surcharge on refrigerated carcasses will be reduced from 25% to 20%. In our fishing industry the surcharge is reduced from 25% to 20%; yeast from 25% to 15%; fruit from 33⅓% to 20%; and vegetables from 50% to 25%. In the second place an investigation into the extension of the free period allowed on trucks, particularly in the case of customers situated a reasonable distance from the station, can also lead to a reduction in the production costs of especially the farmer. I hope that these reductions will be passed on to the consumer, and I want to assure the hon. the Minister that this effort to curb the inflation rate and the cost of living, is a very welcome concession in this budget.

*We spoke a great deal in the recent debate about the possibility and the desirability of the Franzsen Committee publishing a positive report, in terms of which the central Government will compensate the S.A. Railways, particularly for services rendered in the socio-economic field. In this regard I should like to be positive and accept that compensation of this nature will be introduced. I base this on research which has been done into this matter in various countries. When we examine the contributions made by European Governments to their Railway systems, we find that the Dutch Government pays over an amount of R557 million to the Dutch Railways. The German Railways receives R5 717 million in this regard. The Italian Railways receives an amount of R741 million, the British Railways R852 million, the Belgian Railways R945 million and the French Railways R2 084 million.

I want to accept that as far as the S.A. Railway system is concerned, the amount cannot be of a magnitude similar to that of other countries. Today I should like to advocate that if the Franzsen Committee were to decide that it was desirable for compensation to be paid to the S.A. Railways, that amount be applied in a way which would result in certain sectors deriving special benefit from it. The first sector which, to my mind, should derive benefit from any anticipated system of compensation is the Railway official himself. This year these people succeeded with a virtually superhuman effort to move an increased tonnage and to carry a larger number of passengers, despite the smaller number of labourers employed. They did this in a way which earned them a bonus. In this effort these people showed their loyalty and their co-operation, and we should like them to be the first sector to derive benefit in the event of any such amount being paid out in additional compensation. We realize that the hon. the Minister is anxious to raise the salaries of Railway officials, and one realizes his dilemma, because he has to do so without his increasing rates. If funds could be obtained in this way, I should like to advocate that the Railway official be first in line.

Secondly, I should like to refer to a sector for which all of us have much compassion. In this regard I am thinking particularly of the aged pensioners. I myself have advocated a reduction in the number of long-distance passenger trains or, if necessary, the discontinuation of that service. There are, however, a large number of our aged Railway pensioners who make use of that service because of their travelling concessions and free passes. Now I should like to advocate that, if we were able to reach a situation when we would have additional funds available in consequence of the report of the Franzsen Committee, the department consider affording those Railway pensioners who do not have 30 years’ service, the opportunity to make use of flights, particularly on our internal air services, even if this were to be done by way of levying an additional surcharge. For those of us who have the privilege to make frequent use of these air services, it is nothing new anymore to travel by aircraft, but I believe it would be an experience for those in the twilight of their lives, one which would have pleasant memories for them in their last days.

In my opinion one will never reach the stage when the socio-economic service of the S.A. Railways can be abolished altogether. Whereas the emphasis used to fall mainly on the development of the rural areas on the one hand and the development of the mining industry on the other hand, I think the emphasis should now be shifted to our homelands and to homeland development. In this regard I should like to try and break a lance for an investigation into establishing a rail connection with the small homeland, Qwaqwa. I quote the following passage from Qwaqwa—Ekonomiese Revue published by Benbo—

I am afraid that we shall not create any interest in Qwaqwa among the industrialists by means of all our endeavours if there is no rail connection. I realize and accept that it would be a socio-economic service, but I ask that sympathetic consideration be given to the construction of such a line.

We have now virtually reached the end of a four-day debate on the Railway budget. I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to express on behalf of this side of the House, and I believe, on behalf of the Opposition as well, a few words of sincere appreciation to the hon. the Minister, the General Manager of the S.A. Railways and his officials here. They have been listening very patiently for four days to the debating of hon. members interested in the S.A. Railways. We should like to assure the hon. the Minister and his officials that their patience has not passed unnoticed and is highly appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, now that we have come to the end of the Committee Stage, I want to thank the hon. member for Bethlehem for his words of appreciation. In the short time available to him he discussed a variety of subjects, and since it is not humanly possible to reply to them at once, I just want to tell him that they will receive the necessary attention. Other hon. members who have raised matters to which I shall not be able to reply on this occasion will be answered in the customary way. I think hon. members have become used to the fact that hardly any matter is discussed here to which we do not furnish a reply. If it is not done by way of discussion in this House, it is done by correspondence.

My problem in this discussion is time. Unfortunately, there are so many interesting subjects which can be discussed during the Railway debate that time is always a problem. This applied particularly to the Committee Stage. Nevertheless, I shall try not to take up too much of hon. members’ time and to comment as briefly and concisely as possible on the various matters which have been raised here.

When I was speaking yesterday, I indicated that I would reply later to the remarks made by the hon. member for Von Brandis concerning Park station in Johannesburg. Having obtained more information, I should like to bring the following facts to the attention of hon. members. It would appear that the bus terminus there is the greatest problem. The solution probably lies in constructing a deck over the railway line. This deck would adjoin the present station complex, from North Street, on Wanderer Street and the northern boundary of the railway line. The matter is still being investigated, but indications are that the deck alone will cost approximately R5 million. The problem at the bus terminus seems to be that the bus transport services cannot convey the passengers away fast enough.

The hon. member for Vasco gave a very interesting exposition with regard to the energy problem and technological development, and there is no need for me to elaborate on that. The hon. member for Kempton Park, whom we have come to know as an expert on the S.A. Airways, furnished some very interesting information. We appreciate his praise for the S.A. Airways.

The hon. member for Newton Park mentioned a matter to which I want to reply briefly. He made representations for members of staff of the Administration who want to make additions to their houses to be able to do so by means of additional loans at the lower interest rates. I think hon. members will agree with me that there is a difference between essential and non-essential additions. From the nature of the case, the funds available for housing loans are not unlimited. For that reason, a distinction is made between essential and non-essential additions. In the case of essential additions, such loans can be obtained at lower interest rates, but this does not apply to additions which are not essential. When members of staff want to make additions to their houses which are not essential, the loans have to be repaid at the higher interest rates. This is unfortunately the way things are. I think this is a fair and reasonable arrangement.

The hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Hillbrow raised certain matters relating to the Airways, and I shall try to discuss the points they raised together. The hon. member for Constantia asked me certain questions about the distance from Cape Town to London and the distance from Cape Town to London via Johannesburg. The hon. member said that although I had indicated the distance from Cape Town to London via Johannesburg as 11 302 km, it is actually 13 180 km. However, I just want to point out to the hon. member that the figure I gave was in respect of the average distance as calculated and accepted by IATA. In other words, I indicated the average distance and not the actual distance. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into any further detail in my reply to the hon. member’s question, because there are other aspects which I should like to deal with in connection with the comment made by those two hon. gentlemen. I want to react more specifically to what they said about the cost of air travel.

†They suggested a Freddie-Laker-type of operation to South Africa which, it was suggested, could result in a considerable reduction in fares. On the North Atlantic route, where these services operate, i.e. between London and America, the fare works out at 2c per km. South African Airways’ Apex fare from Johannesburg to London works out at 2,1c per km, only 0,1c per km more than the Freddie Laker fare. The Laker-type of operation accepts no bookings and gives one no guarantee that one will get a seat. In fact, people often start queuing the night before.

The same applies on the return flight, and during the last summer season many travellers were stranded overseas with no money and no accommodation, having had to sleep in the airport building. Seating is 10 abreast in the DC10, which is the equivalent of 11 abreast in the 747, whilst the S.A. Airways seat only 9 abreast, and its pool partners 10 abreast. The pitch of the seats, i.e. the distance between rows, is also less and cabin service is virtually non-existent. The Margo Commission which has, as its terms of reference, to investigate the adequacy and efficiency of the international air services, will submit its report in due course. It has, however, been the Government’s policy, through its national carrier, to establish the lowest possible fares on all its routes, e.g. the Apex fares to London and New York and excursion fares to Australia, etc.

I must, however, say that I am somewhat disturbed at certain tendencies that have occurred lately, and I should like to comment on these tendencies. I am disturbed at the tendency of some airlines, travel agents and certain organizations to sell or buy travel at reduced fares, unauthorized commission rates or kick-backs of some kind or other. All airfares to and from South Africa have been approved by the South African Government and the Government of the foreign country to or from which reciprocal air travel is operated. Therefore, it is a violation of the terms of an international treaty not to observe the agreed fares. The airlines have tried to adhere to the rules and have formed a clean-up committee, but its hands are tied without its having the means of taking action against those not observing the fare structure. I am therefore now considering issuing operating permits to all carriers operating air services to South Africa. These permits will simply contain the basic agreed terms of the operation as provided in the bilateral agreement. It will include a condition that, if any of the terms, including the fares as agreed on, are violated, the permit could be withdrawn for a period of time. I believe it is in the interests of travel agents, the airlines and the travelling public that all should operate within the professional code of conduct and with discipline. The S.A. Airways, as the national carrier, is being directed to observe the fares agreement, and I am sure that all airlines operating to South Africa will co-operate to stamp out the malpractices which have crept in.

The hon. member—I think it was the hon. member for Constantia—also mentioned that the number of passengers has hardly increased whereas air-fares have increased considerably. This is incorrect. Over the past five years the number of passengers has increased by an average of 12% and 9% per annum on the overseas and domestic services respectively. Increases in fares over this period have fallen behind the inflation rate. Both the Springbok and domestic fares have increased by an average of only 8,5% per annum, which means that in real terms they have decreased. The fare to New York has decreased by 30% since 1976 and the fare to Australia, by 45%. The S.A. Airways markets group-inclusive tours at very competitive rates and they are very popular. The only problem at present is the shortage of hotel accommodation in South Africa. This refers particularly to the remarks made by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

*Mr. Chairman, I think I have now said enough about the matters those two hon. gentlemen raised here. The hon. member for Boksburg raised two matters. In the first place, he asked for parking facilities at stations, and secondly, he commented on a housing complex. As far as the parking facilities at stations are concerned, I want to say that we regard this as a matter for the local authorities. Here and here, where the Railways has land available, it is made available to local authorities at a nominal rental so that they may provide parking facilities there. We are in favour of that. I foresee that with the introduction of the legislation on urban traffic, particulars of which we have already submitted to this House, the question of parking facilities will play a very important part. According to the scheme of the Driessen Committee, it is the intention that large parking areas should be provided at specific places. Such areas should not be too far from residential areas, so that people may park their cars there and then travel to the city centre by public transport.

As far as the other matter is concerned, I want to say that the hostel at Delmore to which the hon. member referred was taken over from a mining company in 1964. It is within walking distance from Knight station. From the department’s point of view, it is very well situated as far as emergencies such as derailments, etc., are concerned. It is also easily accessible by road. A survey has already been made for obtaining a suitable site elsewhere. The department owns a piece of land which could perhaps be used. The problem is that there are several large housing projects for Blacks where the need is greater and which will naturally have to receive priority. Therefore funds will not be available for this project within the next few years.

The hon. member for Heilbron asked whether we could examine the possibility of building double-deck wagons for conveying young cattle as well. All I can say to the hon. member is that we shall go into the matter to see whether this can perhaps be done. At the moment, of course, we are working on the development of the three-deck wagon for the transportation of small stock.

I have already replied to the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. members for Hercules and Gezina spoke about the same subject, i.e. the Mabopane/ Belle Ombre development project. These hon. members, whose constituencies fall within the Pretoria complex, take a great practical interest in this project. We have had many discussions in this connection, because it is regarded as a very important development for the transportation of people around Pretoria. For that reason I should like to furnish certain information to the two hon. members who raised the matter. Belle Ombre station is a new station for non-Whites. The physical construction of the station has not yet commenced, but the planning has all been done and it is expected to be completed by the end of 1983. Of the second project, the new Winternest/Mabopane electrified double railway line, which will be approximately 20 km long, about 50% has already been completed and it will be finished by the end of 1980. Ten per cent of the first stage of the Hercules/Winternest project has been completed. This will be ready by the end of 1982. I also want to point out that it is expected that we shall spend R17,3 million on these three projects in the coming financial year. These three projects are progressing according to plan. The intention is to introduce a regular train service between Mabopane and Bosman Street in Pretoria by the end of 1980, while it is expected that it will be possible to introduce a train service between Mabopane and the new station at Belle Ombre by the end of 1983. This is all I want to say in connection with the matters raised by these hon. members.

The hon. member for Hercules also asked certain questions about the Daspoort station. We are examining the question of extending the platforms, etc. I do not think I can say too much about that now, because there are quite a number of other matters which have a bearing on it.

The hon. members for Hercules and Gezina asked for the appointment of a committee. I want to point out that the interdepartmental committee for the co-ordination and change-over from interim bus transport to train transport has decided to appoint a technical working group to make a detailed transportation study of the conveyance of non-Whites between the Pretoria complex and the Mabopane area. The working group is expected to be appointed today or tomorrow. This technical working group naturally consists of technical people. I have the names of the people who will be appointed to this working group, but I do not want to burden the House with that. I just want to say that I think that because of the nature of the investigation and the work of this committee, it is not practicable for MPs to serve on it. I can also say that this working group is not a Railway committee, but will fall under the Department of Transport, and will also be under the chairmanship of an official of the Department of Transport.

The hon. member for Durban Point mentioned two matters here. I do not think it is necessary for me to dwell on what the hon. member said, because his comment on what I am supposed to have said last year is not really relevant to my accusation against the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. His objection is that I tried to compare two things which were not comparable. It is a matter of opinion whether they are comparable or not. In any case, I defined it very clearly, but that is no justification for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to accuse me of misrepresentation, let alone for the newspapers to publish reports, with reference to what was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, which reflect on my integrity. That was what I was objecting to, and in saying that, I must speak on behalf of the entire House. I think that reflections on our integrity—no matter whose—by means of Press reports should now cease.

The hon. member for Durban Point then spoke about the question of pensions. There are only two remarks I want to make in that connection. Firstly, the hon. member for Durban Point, with his wide experience of Railway matters, will agree with me, as regards these pleas for the department to increase the pensions and not to deduct the 2%, that there are thousands of Railway employees who take horn less than R300 a month. A year or two ago there were more than 30 000 White employees of the Railways who took home less than R300 a month. How does the hon. member think those employees, who work hard in the service of the Railways, will feel about that salary they get every month if they get a 10% increase and the pensioners with more or less the same income as they get a 12% increase? That is what hon. members are asking for.

That is no comparison.

Now the hon. member says it is no comparison. I have to live with those people and it is my responsibility and my wish to be able to face them all, to take them all into consideration. Now I want to correct something. In reply to a question on the proposed adjustment to pensions which was put to me yesterday, namely why we were not making it 8% instead of 10% less 2%, I made a statement which was not quite correct, and I should like to rectify it. We discussed the whole matter in those terms when we were formulating those payments. However, we came to another conclusion later, i.e. that everyone who was getting the 2% would be paid the 8%. Everyone already receiving the annual increase of 2% would, together with the 8% increase, therefore receive a total of 10%. Pensioners who have retired in the past few months and who have not yet received that additional 2% now get the 8%, and in two or three months’ time, say, when they have been retired for a year, they get the other 2%. Pensioners who do not get the 2% do in fact get a 10% increase now. For this reason I cannot say that this group of pensioners will get 10% and that group of officials will get 8%. That is why we spelt out the whole matter the way I did in my speech, i.e. 10%, on the understanding that those who get the built-in 2% increase will have their increase reduced by 2%. I think everything should be quite clear now.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East made a very fine plea for people to travel by train more often. That will help me. The fuller the trains are, the smaller are the losses on our train services. I appreciate his plea.

The hon. member for Humansdorp said that we should not be so quick to cancel the road transport services. I should like to assure the hon. member that when we cancel those transport services, all the organizations in the area affected by the cancellation of such road transport services are first consulted. Only then is it considered. Ultimately it comes to me, and the MP is notified in every case where such a road transportation service is to be cancelled. We only do it when, for economic reasons, we really do not see our way clear to continuing with that service.

The hon. member for Prieska confronted me with a very difficult problem. He said that the co-operative had bought big trucks for transporting small stock. According to him, these people are now saddled with those expensive trucks, while the private haulier obtains a concession from the Road Transportation Board by means of which he deprives the co-operatives of their legitimate transactions. It seems to me that the hon. member expects me to do something about the matter. It is a difficult question. Naturally, because the Road Transportation Boards are autonomous bodies, I as a Minister cannot interfere with their decisions. Anyone is free to apply for exemption in order to engage in road transportation. I can only recommend that those co-operatives should lodge an objection. Naturally, however, they must be prepared to provide the same services as the private haulier, otherwise they will not really be able to object. That, unfortunately, is all I can suggest.

The hon. member for Green Point wanted to know from me when the railway line from Mitchell’s Plain to Strandfontein was going to be extended. The extension of that line does form part of the whole scheme. At the present moment, however, there are no plans yet for the extension. Therefore I cannot give any date whatsoever in this connection. Furthermore, I want to point out to the hon. member that that line does not fall in his constituency, but in the constituency of the hon. member for False Bay. Now it is true that the hon. member for False Bay is asking me for the same particulars. I would have thought that the hon. member for Green Point would have enough problems in his own constituency. [Interjections.] Never mind, he will experience that one of these days.

The hon. member for Green Point also mentioned—and this is something I appreciate—that there is such a high degree of safety on our trains. I believe that we can break a lance for the Railway Police in this connection today. They really do very good work for us. Formerly, the S.A. Police also served at the airports. Police duties at the airports have now been taken over completely by the S.A. Railway Police, however. The hon. member also wanted to know whether we could not ensure greater safety at railway stations. It is physically impossible to patrol all railway stations. Patrolling is done whenever it is possible under the circumstances.

The hon. member for Klip River made an inquiry about the two hostels. I want to tell him briefly that the whole question is now being investigated. Provision is made in the Brown Book for the building of these two hostels, but there is a whole series of problems involved. I do not want the hon. member to go off at a tangent now. Hon. members, as well as hon. Senators of the NP in Natal, have already requested me to have talks with them about this matter. These talks will take place. I shall also have serious discussions with Management and keep them informed about the proposed hostels and the developments in that connection. Therefore we should rather leave the matter at that for the moment.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg made an inquiry about the difference in remuneration between servicemen in the Public Service and servicemen employed by the Railways. I must concede that there is a difference at the moment. However, negotiations are taking place with a view to achieving uniformity in this connection. I believe, of course, that the procedure followed by the Railways is the correct one. However that may be, negotiations are being conducted and we expect to achieve uniformity between the S.A. Railways and the Public Service in due course.

An hon. member wanted to know more from me in connection with a crossing near Verwoerdburg. I can tell the hon. member that there have been certain delays regarding the development of this area. However, the particulars of the scheme have now been obtained and are being submitted to consulting engineers with the instruction to proceed with it.

The hon. member for East London North asked me to grant concessions to servicemen who want to travel by air. I do not want to reject that request out of hand, but the days when the Railways was a welfare organization are truly past, because of new economic circumstances.

I do not think that is the point.

If there now appears to be a need for such concessions to be granted to a serviceman, what responsibility does the Railways have to do it? We should like to transport them, but the Railways is a business organization which wants to be rewarded for the work it does. In the light of this, since we have restricted these concessions to a minimum, we simply do not see our way clear to opening the doors again and allowing any further concessions.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether in view of the fact that the Railways operate with many concessions in any event, such as Apex, Saturday concessions on domestic flights, etc., and the whole purpose …

Order! The hon. member must put his question.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he does not believe that the concessions that he might give to national servicemen would in fact increase the traffic and would therefore not be unprofitable.

If one increased the traffic, an extra aircraft would soon be necessary. That is just the way it works. We are now giving certain concessions to our own officials, and hon. members are aware of this. Those concessions began on a stand-by basis, i.e. if they could not get a seat on a flight, they had to wait until the next day. However, our own people made representations again, and it has been decided—now I am also answering the question asked by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—that where they used to enjoy these privileges on a standby basis, they can now book their seats 72 hours in advance. However, we cannot make this unlimited, and that is where the problem lies. The moment one flight begins to fill up, I have to introduce additional flights, and in the end I have to buy additional aircraft. This kind of patronage, even if it is paid for in part, means that I need more aircraft.

It appears as if the hon. member for Klerksdorp does not want to be classified under the Cape Province. He falls under the system management of Kimberley. However, the hon. member says that he would prefer to fall under the Western Transvaal. I am afraid that he will have to continue breathing the fresh air of the Cape Province. [Interjections.] It is simply more convenient for Klerksdorp to be classified under the Kimberley system management.

An hon. member made a very fine plea on behalf of widows. I always have my doubts when pleas are made for widows. In fact, I am making a mark behind the names of those hon. members who plead for widows! In any event, the hon. member pleaded for the widows of Railway officials.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 75.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to see that for a change a Minister at the end of a Committee Stage ran out of time. We as ordinary hon. members on this side of the House always find that our time is so limited that it is very difficult to fit in everything we should like to say. In any event the hon. the Minister has indicated that he would answer the other points raised during the Committee Stage during this Third Reading debate.

There are still a couple of items which I have not raised before and which I wish to raise now during this Third Reading debate. When I spoke last, I raised the question of Sishen-Saldanha and when my time expired I was saying that Sishen-Saldanha was running under capacity at the moment. I think it is being run extremely efficiently, and I have tremendous respect for the System Manager, Mr. Le Roux, and his staff. I think they are doing their job very well. But they are facing international competition of considerable magnitude, specifically from places like Australia and Brazil, where railage to the coast is very much cheaper than it is here. In the light of this I believe a case could be made out for special rates on the Sishen-Saldanha line in order to make our ore more competitive. On that basis I believe that what could be done in order to run the line more economically, should be done. I wonder whether one can in fact afford the extravagance of having a separate system on the Sishen-Saldanha line. I know that a lot of the equipment there is not standard, due to the fact that the line was built by Iscor, and I know the reason why we have a separate system on the Sishen-Saldanha line. We now have the same situation with regard to the Ermelo-Richards Bay line where similar trains are being run to those on the Sishen-Saldanha line. In the light of that I wonder whether it would not be an idea at this stage to put the Sishen-Saldanha line under two systems, i.e. the Kimberley system and the Western Cape system and then saving the money on the special Sishen-Saldanha system. The hon. the Minister will know that this has already been done in regard to the Ermelo-Richards Bay line, which—if I remember correctly—actually goes through three systems. The implementation of such a change would certainly make our ore very much more competitive on the world market.

We already have the advantage that our ore is already of a higher grade than the competitive ores elsewhere in the world, but if there is anything the hon. the Minister can do to bring down the cost of railing our ore to the coast I am sure that the ore sales business would pick up and that we in South Africa would benefit from it. In view of the new planned line to Aggeneis, one tends to wonder whether the right decision was made to take the line from Sishen to Saldanha rather than from Sishen to Boegoe Bay. It is quite clear, however, that the line needs greater justification and more traffic at this stage. By “more traffic” I am not only referring to ore. I think the time has come for the line to carry as much general traffic as it can take. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister how he sees this matter.

Another matter that has caused a bit of worry at the back of my mind for some time now, concerns the new marshalling yards at Bapsfontein. I have always been a little worried about the siting of those marshalling yards, because it seems to me as if the greatest concentration of trucks in that area is south of Johannesburg, in that triangle. It seems to me that there are not sufficient avoiding lines leading to Bapsfontein, and that the danger of a considerable bottleneck at Germiston exists. It has always appeared to me that probably the best place for that marshalling yard would have been south of Johannesburg, perhaps somewhere between Midway and Natalspruit. But obviously people who know far more about this than I finally pick the site.

Yet it seems to me that a lot of future spending will have to go into the building of more avoiding lines to get to Bapsfontein. Obviously this is going to be a very costly business. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he anticipates that a considerable amount of money will still be spent on the building of avoiding lines to get to the Bapsfontein marshalling yard.

I was grateful to hear from the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Committee Stage, of the progress on the Wintemest-Mabopane-Belle Ombre complex. I have been told that the finishing date was much later. I am glad to hear that it will be finished so soon, because according to the hon. the Minister, the last section will be finished in 1982.

Only the length that I mentioned.

Certainly. As the hon. the Minister knows, at the moment Wintemest to Mabopane is being served by a tremendous number of buses daily. A lot of the Black commuters in that area is suffering a great deal. The situation is almost as bad, if not worse, than at the worst time of the Soweto difficulties. One can only admire the way the Railways handled the Soweto troubles. At one time people in Soweto had to get up at unbelievably early times in the morning, and there was considerable congestion on the stations. This situation has much improved. I think that the Railways have done a good job there. The situation now exists where commuters have to get up at 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning and only return home at 9 o’clock; so the faster this line can be put into operation, the better it will be for those Black commuters.

We have virtually reached the end of this debate on the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill. As far as I am concerned, it has been an interesting debate. We have had some very nice speeches, even from the other side of the House, but at the same time counter-balanced by some very unpleasant speeches from the other side of the House. I want specifically to mention one of the last speakers in this debate, the hon. member for Kuruman, who made a very nice little speech about the Pudimoe area. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Klip River on a section of his speech. The part of his speech concerning family accommodation, instead of hostel accommodation, came as an absolute revelation from that side of the House. I was glad to hear from the hon. the Minister in his reply that reconsideration is being given to this matter, but that there are problems. But I was impressed with the philosophy put forward by the hon. member for Klip River, because here for the first time we have had some talk from the other side of the House about how much more desirable it is to provide family accommodation for Black workers instead of putting them in great impersonal hostels, which are really unpleasant and provide no sort of life for a married man. It is all very well to talk about hostels for single people and young people working in industry for the first time. But I must commend the hon. member for Klip River because I think his speech showed that there possibly is new thinking in the Government benches.

It is not new.

The hon. member says it is not new. Perhaps I have had my ears closed, because it certainly is new to me. I am congratulating him because I think it was a very good speech. [Interjections.] It was very good indeed.

You are embarrassing him!

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I am embarrassing the hon. member for Klip River by praising him. It is, however, nice to see a smile on his face, because it was a good speech. Another good speech that I can remember off-hand, was a speech by the hon. member for Bellville. The hon. member for Bethlehem made a plea for the possibility of some sort of rail connection to Qwaqwa. I must say that the Qwaqwa homeland has so little, that if it was ever an economic possibility that a rail connection would go up into that little area nestling in the mountains round about Harrismith, it would be a very great advantage and certainly would help it to become viable. I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Bethlehem has just entered the House, as I am in the process of congratulating him on a very good thought and a good speech. If one is serious about the development of homelands, one has to build up infrastructure in the homelands. I think it would give an indication of just how serious one is about the viability of homelands if one was prepared to provide infrastructure for a homeland like Qwaqwa.

I want to come back to a subject which was raised by, among others, the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Umbilo. It seems to have generated a great deal of heat. While I do not want to generate any more heat, I would nevertheless want to come back to the subject of pensions.

Are you going to calm down now?

I am very calm now after that run-in with the hon. member for Von Brandis. All I want to say to the hon. the Minister about pensions is that it is all very well to say that he has looked after the pre- 1973 pensioners by keeping the pensions in line with the consumer price index. The trouble is, however, that unfortunately those pensions were initially too low before 1973, so even keeping them in line with the consumer price index, on a percentage basis, does not allow those people enough money to live on. In an inflationary situation pensioners have a very hard time because a bigger percentage of their income tends to be spent on food, merely to keep them alive. The section of the consumer price index which evidences the greatest increase, however, is specifically that involving food, so people who have to spend a larger part of their incomes on food suffer more than others. All I can say, even at the risk of upsetting the hon. the Minister, is that he must please try to see what he can do about that problem. I see him shaking his head, but that is not really good enough because a great many people are in considerable distress in the situation we find ourselves in today. They simply cannot survive. I am trying to put my case as dispassionately as possible because I do not want to run the risk of upsetting the hon. the Minister at this stage.

Why?

Because I hope that we can rely on him to go and ask his financial advisers to take a serious look at the situation of pensioners and see what they can do about it.

Having listened to this Railway debate, we are confident that the Railways is now really going to make money. At least that seems to be the case, judging from the speeches by hon. members on the other side of the House.

Are you not happy with the 10%?

No, I am afraid 10% is not enough. I do not want to get involved in the quibbling about whether 2% is added on to the 10% or whether it is not, or whether the hon. the Minister should announce an increase of only 8%. That is immaterial as far as I am concerned. The real issue is that these people simply cannot survive. We have also been approached numerous times by Railway pensioners who are really in desperate straits, and so I do ask the hon. the Minister to do something about the problem.

I now want to come to another problem to which I have had to give quite some thought. I am referring to the new Durban station. Obviously in a developing city area the new Durban station is going to be of considerable use, but it is situated at Greyville, and when one looks at its location, one realizes that commuters are going to have to walk quite a long distance to get to the centre of town. In fact, many commuters who are not quite as mobile as they might be, are going to find it tremendously difficult to walk all the way to town. I know that there is the other commuter station at Berea Road, but that is also a long way away. I think I am right in saying that the old 1938 Pirow plan suggested that the new Durban station should be erected where the central workshops were located. I wonder whether it would not be possible for a commuter station to be built in Durban on the site of those old workshops. If a commuter station could be built there—I do not know whether it is even possible so I am merely making a suggestion to the hon. the Minister—it would certainly make life very much easier for thousands of commuters in Durban. It would certainly prove very helpful indeed. Obviously, if this is going to be astronomically expensive, it simply cannot be done, but I would ask the hon. the Minister to put his mind to it and see what he can do about the problem.

Having come to the end of this Railway debate, I think I must make one final plea to the hon. the Minister, and that plea once again concerns tariffs. The hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech to this budget debate that he would keep tariffs down for as long as he possibly could because he realized the economic consequences of tariff increases to South Africa, realizing as he does that it would do damage to the South African economy to have tariffs increased. As hon. members know, it has always been my contention that transport cost escalation is one of the main components of inflation. In fact, I think that a study being conducted at present at Stellenbosch University seems to indicate that there are certain people who hold the theory that transport contributes about a third to the overall inflation rate.

So I think the hon. the Minister must recognize that his responsibilities are very great in this regard. He must do everything possible to keep tariffs down and not to introduce tariff increases. If he does increase tariffs, it is going to have serious economic consequences for South Africa. I realize the hon. the Minister’s difficulties. I realize he is going to have a tough time in terms of fuel prices and electricity prices—certainly Escom does not help in this. I realize that the cost of all materials is going up, but I am confident that the Railways Administration will be able to exercise the necessary financial discipline as well as to apply the imagination which in my opinion is needed now to come up with new ideas on how to run more economical services. I am sure the Franzsen Committee will produce results and that the information they put before the hon. the Minister and the Administration is going to be of considerable interest. I would ask that the think-tanks in the Administration must do their absolute best to ensure that we are not subjected to further tariff increases at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He must pardon me for not doing so.

That is not necessary.

. Yes, it is not necessary. He congratulated some speakers on this side of the House on the quality of the speeches they made. Surely I cannot argue with him on that score. On the contrary, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. I do not want to say anything about the pensioners either, except that I have sympathy not only with the Railway pensioners, but with all pensioners. I believe that, if it were possible for the Railways to give the pensioner an even better dispensation, it would be done. However, if it cannot be done, I reconcile myself to that.

I should like to discuss the oil and energy crisis and the part the S.A. Railways is playing in order to cope with that extremely urgent and ever-threatening crisis. Experts throughout the world agree that by 1985 the available oil will be insufficient to supply world needs, and that between 1985 and the end of the century it will gradually be depleted. Consequently crude oil will not only become scarcer, but we should accept that it will of necessity become more expensive. In South Africa we are in a very fortunate position to have inexhaustible coal reserves. Thanks to the Government’s farsightedness we were able to begin in good time with the process of manufacturing fuel from coal. When Sasol 2 is in full production by 1980, South Africa will be approximately 33⅓% self-sufficient. With the announced Sasol 3 or the enlarged Sasol 2 we shall be approximately 50% self-sufficient by 1985.

This brings me to the Railways which principally utilizes diesel. If we examine the diesel consumption in the various sectors in South Africa, we see that agriculture consumes 20%, industry 19%, the Railways 11%—the Railways is the third largest diesel consumer—fleet owners 6,5%, transport contractors 5%, heating 7,5%, shipping 7%, mining 4,5%, the Public Service 6,5%, and last but not least the ordinary citizen, you and I, a mere 3%. The Department of Environmental Planning and Energy has just released a report to the auxiliary committee of the Energy Policy Committee under the title “Beginsels van Energiebesparing”. From this report it appears that 66% of all energy inputs are lost and do not become available for utilization. The necessity for exhaustive efforts to achieve greater energy utilization and conservation cannot be emphasized enough. Energy conservation is defined in the report as follows—

I think, therefore, that the Railways can save as follows: In the first place, by eliminating the wastage of energy and fuel; in the second place, by increasing energy and fuel conversions to efficient units; in the third place, by increasing the efficiency of the final energy and fuel consumption; and in the fourth place, by a change in lifestyle. By this I mean that every official—all of us, in fact— should be made aware of fuel and energy conservation. We should all change our life-style to ensure the better utilization of fuel and energy. I just want to point out an example. This morning three of my colleagues and I drove from Acasia Park to here in a small bus. We specifically observed that only one motor-car on the way to Cape Town had four occupants, whereas all the other motor-cars, had at most two, but mostly one occupant.

I now want to point out that all the methods of conservation which I suggested with regard to the Railways, are already being applied by the Railways. The hon. the Minister has already referred to the electrification programme which in the ’eighties will make the Railways only 20% dependent on imported fuel for its tractive power as opposed to the present 35%. This will mean, inter alia, that 80% of the Railways’ ton/kilometre traffic will be moved by electrical traction within the next few years. Reference has already been made to the improved double-deck truck for the conveyance of small stock, as well as to the possibilities of the three-deck truck. It has already been proved that this truck, designed for the conveyance of wood, is a great success. Reference has been made to the airbrake system which makes the conveyance of larger and heavier loads possible. Reference has also been made to a number of other examples of direct and indirect energy and fuel conservation methods. I do not want to refer to all of them again.

The Energy Research Institute in Cape Town has converted a Volkswagen Passat to run on a mixture of diesel and methanol. Over 200 km this converted motor-car utilized 40% diesel and 60% methanol. City Tramways, the Cape bus transport company, asked the institute to convert one of its double-decker buses and carry out similar tests on it. The Railways are so interested in this matter that they have asked the institute, after the tests on the bus have been completed, to convert one of its diesel locomotives so that tests can be carried out on it using a mixture of methanol and diesel as fuel. We may proceed on the assumption that if the tests succeed—and there is no reason to believe that they will not succeed—at least 40% diesel fuel can be saved on the bus and diesel unit; in the case of the motor-car the saving is 60%. This could give rise to a total revolution in the utilization of diesel. It could save South Africa astronomic amounts in foreign exchange and could also save the Railways millions of rands and millions of litres of fuel. Last year the Railways consumed 557 million litres, or 3 million barrels, of diesel fuel, just for the diesel units, and consumed a further 78 million litres, or 400 000 barrels of diesel fuel for road transportation; a total, therefore, of 635 million litres of diesel. If these tests are anything like as successful as on the converted Volkswagen Passat or approximately 40% as successful, it means that a 40% saving on the total utilization of diesel by the S.A. Railways will be 254 million litres. Converted to rands and cents, I do not know—it is too much—but it ought to be many millions of rands.

The Railways has been carrying out scientific research programmes for many years now to keep the utilization effectivity figure for energy sources as high as possible. I should like to single out a few methods of fuel conservation to be used by road transportation. In the first place I want to mention the Kilo King attachment. During the past 11 months this fuel conservation attachment has been tested over a distance of approximately 45 000 km at an average fuel consumption of plus-minus 36 litres per 100 km. Before the utilization of this attachment the fuel consumption of the same vehicle was plus minutes 50 litres per 100 km. That is a saving of 25% to 30%. It should be borne in mind that this saving was achieved mainly in city traffic. The Railways has already purchased 10 of these Kilo King attachments for further tests.

Thermostatically controlled fans have been tested and a saving on fuel of 3 to 4% achieved. At present there are 75 vehicles that were put into operation for containerization purposes during 1976-’77, which were fitted with thermostatically-controlled fans. Now may I just perhaps explain what the thermostatically controlled fans are. If a motor-car’s engine becomes overheated, the fan automatically switches on and cools the engine. As soon as the engine has cooled, the fan switches off again and this means a saving of between 3% and 4%.

There are also the high torque engines. Vehicles purchased in 1975 were fitted with this type of engine. Examples of this are the Oskosh and Mac containerization vehicles that were put into operation during 1976-’77. In comparison with the conventional type of engine the high torque engine has a fuel saving capacity of between 7 and 8%. At present tests have been carried out with the wind deflectors.

Another interesting aspect is the exhaust analyser. This exhaust gas analyser is an instrument which is used to tune the engine of a vehicle for the best fuel mixture. All petrol-driven vehicles are tuned with this instrument so that the engines can be maintained on an economic working level. The question of speed is also being thoroughly examined. I think that the speed restrictions imposed for trucks could be even lower than they are at present, particularly in the urban areas.

Another interesting aspect is radial-ply tyres. The road resistance of radial-ply tyres is considerably lower than that of the ordinary cross-ply tyres.

Why do you not electrify your speech?

Consequently a fuel saving of 6 to 8% can be achieved through the utilization of radial-ply tyres. In the present annual report we see that 811 battery-driven platform vehicles and mechanically handled appliances are in service. Tests have already been carried out, inter alia, on nine battery-driven motor-cars.

With regard to non-income producing vehicles it has been laid down that before a vehicle is replaced, a complete motivation must be requested whether it would not be better to purchase a smaller vehicle, a lighter pick-up or a smaller motor-car. In all new tenders which are applied for for the purchase of new vehicles the vehicle which is offered by the firms is tested for fuel consumption with an electric petrol-flow meter. The apparatus can determine the fuel consumption to a high degree of accuracy. This aspect plays an important part in the awarding of tenders because only vehicles with a good fuel consumption are considered. The training of drivers for road transportation, delivery service and container services also receive the necessary close attention. Despite this, I do feel that this is perhaps the real Achilles heel of the overall savings effort, and this because it is concerned with the human factor. Notwithstanding this 24 drivers of the Railway Administration reached the semi-finals of a recent country-wide competition organized by the National Road Safety Council. In the final round the Railway drivers won all five events in all five categories in which they competed. This, therefore, leaves no doubt that the Administration, has contributed more than its fair share in this regard as well.

The next aspect is receiving attention at the moment with a view to future fuel saving. Stricter control is envisaged over petrograph charts with a view to eliminating exceeding of the speed limit. A lowering of the maximum speed limit of 90 km per hour to 80 km per hour is also being considered. The utilization to a greater extent of the Kilo King fuel-saving apparatus is also being envisaged. I sincerely hope that when we reach this stage of the Railway budget debate next year there will not be a single vehicle in the S.A. Railways which has not yet been fitted with a Kilo King fuel-saving apparatus.

Probably one of the most exciting and successful achievements of the S.A. Railways is in the field of solar energy. Various test projects for the installation of solar energy units for water heating and air-conditioning purposes in washrooms and dining-rooms is at present receiving attention at various centres. The Signals and Telecommunications Division has recently carried out successful tests with the introduction of solar energy in operating signals and points. Such point systems are at present being installed on a permanent basis between Burgersdorp and Springfontein, as well as north of Pietersburg. In the Cape Midlands section solar energy is being utilized in a set of warning lights at a rail crossing. It works very effectively.

If one considers those aspects to which I have referred, it is clear that the Railways can indeed be held up to the rest of South Africa as an example of a large company which is doing everything in its power to cope with the fuel crisis in all spheres. Therefore, one cannot but thank the hon. the Minister, as well as the Railway Administration, the top management of the Railways and all other people in managerial posts, even the ordinary truck drivers most sincerely for the judgment they have displayed in making fuel saving their number one priority.

Mr. Speaker, one of the features of this debate has been the discussions which have taken place in regard to the fuel crisis and in regard to the role the S.A. Railways can play in assisting South Africa and its economy in meeting the challenge that is now facing us. I believe this part of the debate has culminated in the speech delivered now by the hon. member for Kimberley South. He has certainly presented to this House a clear picture of the great role the Railways can play in this regard. I think it is particularly noteworthy that this House should have taken up so much time talking about this subject which, I believe, should be on the minds of most South Africans today, the question of the need to save our valuable energy resources, and especially our liquid fuel supplies. However, this debate is after all a debate on the budget of the S.A. Railways, a budget which is now approaching R5 000 million a year.

Another feature of this debate I have observed has been the number of hon. members on that side of the House who have taken the time to study speeches made by hon. members on this side of the House as they are found in Hansard, and particularly my own speeches. I think at least five hon. members on that side quoted from previous speeches of mine in Hansard. I have a sneaking suspicion that hon. members there and especially the hon. member for Von Brandis, who is regrettably not here, expected me in particular to debate the need for budgetary control, which has featured in many of my speeches in budget debates in the past. I think the hon. member was a little disappointed when I did not raise this again. I would like to ask the hon. member why I should have debated this particular subject this year. I feel that hon. members on that side of the House do not really understand the role the Opposition plays in a debate such as this. I think the hon. member for Von Brandis said we see ourselves as “pruning”, potential general managers of the Railways, but I think he meant we see ourselves as budding general managers. However, we do not see ourselves as budding general managers as the hon. member suggested. Rather, we see ourselves as representatives of the South African public on this giant board of directors of this vast national, public transportation corporation known as the S.A. Railways. As such, we are just as proud of our national transportation organization as any hon. member in this House. We want the S.A. Railways to be the most efficient and most economically operated system in the world. In fact, we would like to see it as an example to the world, and I am sure that in many respects it is that at the present time.

Therefore, we look for ways and means whereby we feel these objectives can be achieved. We set ourselves certain objectives. When I first came to the House five years ago, the hon. member for Durban Point was chairman of the Railways group on this side and, since I have been in business, he asked me to have a look at the budget in depth. I made this my task. Each year I would look into the nitty-gritty of budgetary control or the control of the Railways budget. I would study the deviations and I kept on talking about the need for this to be pulled up tight.

Hansard will reveal the approach of and criticism from this side of the House. Now that the hon. the Minister and the Administration have presented us with a budget which, when it comes to budgetary control, is one of the tightest that I have come across, I must say that we are extremely satisfied and feel that this is a wonderful achievement.

However, hon. members on that side of the House seem to have reacted like a group of proud peacocks, as if they were responsible for this. They seem to forget that when we were calling for this, they were criticizing us for it. Such is the role of the Opposition in Parliament. However, having achieved that objective, we will not lose sight of it, but will continue to watch it, as I said during the Second Reading debate.

This year we set ourselves new objectives. As I have said, the first objective is that there should be a greater utilization of the assets, both human and material, belonging to the S.A. Railways in order to make the S.A. Railways far more viable economically. The second objective we set ourselves in this debate was to appeal to the hon. the Minister that he and the Administration should start to market the Railways’ services in a dynamic commercial way. That is what we are after now.

The budget shows that there is a tremendous capital and human asset present. This asset must be marshalled in the interests of the economy of South Africa. That is what we are after. We intend to continue to push for these objectives in future debates. We hope that in a year or two, or in three or four years’ time, I shall be able to stand here and repeat what I have already said about budgetary control. Of course we shall expect the same negative, defensive type of criticism from the Government benches, and a lack of objectivity about what the Opposition is really trying to achieve.

In the time remaining to me, I should like to give hon. members on that side of the House some idea of the sort of achievements we should like to see, during the next few years, on the part of the Railways Administration. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the S.A. Railways has a comprehensive asset register. I see the hon. the Minister nodding his head. Yes, I am quite sure the Railways would have one, being such a large organization and being as advanced as it is. Every major company today has a register of all its assets. This is even easier to keep today, in the case of a large organization such as the Railways, because of computerization. In the light of the fact that the hon. the Minister has agreed that the Railways does have such a register, I want to refer to the fact that in these reports we see graphs showing productivity indices of the improvements in work already done, figures constantly reported to us by various hon. members on that side of the House. I do not doubt for one moment that there has been a vast improvement in the productivity of tons moved per truck because I have the figures with me and I have analysed them thoroughly. There has been a vast improvement in the transport of goods in South Africa. I believe, however, that the Railways Administration must now look into the economic viability of the Railways and the cost benefit ratio of its investments, especially when one considers the tremendous capital that is invested in the Railways. I do realize that there are different types of assets, i.e. buildings, desks, etc., and that these assets are overheads and non-revenue earning. On the other hand, there is also the rolling stock which is a revenue-earning asset; and I am led to believe that it is easier to analyse the cost benefit ratio of such assets. In this respect I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would ask the Administration to try, in future reports, to give this House some idea of the improvements in the cost benefit ratios of the various assets of the Administration.

I think that this economic evaluation can be done as it is being done in other types of business. Therefore I believe that the hon. the Minister can do this, and if he cannot, I should like to hear the reason why, because this is, after all, good business practice.

In giving some idea of the aspects of the budget which give me cause for concern, I want to preface my remarks by saying that I realize that we are going through a recession and that there is consequently not the amount of traffic one would have during a boom period in South Africa. Let us, however, just take a look at the goods trucks owned by the Railways. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how many are standing idle at present. Is the figure 10 000, 15 000 or 20 000? The figure I have is close to 20 000. What is the value of these 20 000 trucks? In the budget we see that the Administration has planned to construct nearly 16 000 trucks at an average cost of just more than R25 000 a truck. If we take the depreciated value of a truck at R10 000, we see that trucks to the value of R200 million are standing idle at the moment. What is the cost of the down-time of idle trucks valued at R200 million? We know what happens in business when a truck is delayed and demurrage costs are incurred. What are these non-productive trucks costing the S.A. Railways Administration?

Let us take a look at concrete sleepers. How many have been made during the past eight years, and where are they today? Have they all been installed?

There they are; 135 of them.

The hon. member says that there are 135 of them across the floor of the House. Perhaps this is so, however, there are a lot of concrete sleepers lying about in South Africa. [Interjections.] Has the hon. the Minister analysed the situation, and can he tell us what this is costing the Administration?

In so far as staff housing is concerned, I should like to say that last year we budgeted more than R50 million for home-ownership schemes and this year we budgeted another R50 million. This is an admirable project.

One hon. member praised the Administration for the fact that today Railway workers were no longer living in those red face-brick houses. But what is the cost to the Railway Administration of empty houses today? How many are standing empty? Does the hon. the Minister know how many Railway houses are standing empty? Is it a thousand? I have been told that it is in excess of a thousand. What is the cost of those houses? At R10 000 each there is R10 million worth of housing standing empty. Can these houses not be used for some other purpose? I am just putting these questions to the hon. the Minister.

Let us look at the passenger traffic. We hear that passenger traffic has not increased as it should have. In fact if one studies the figures, one finds that between 1973-’74 and 1977-’78 the number of journeys has increased only by 3,3%, yet the number of coaches has increased by 16,2%. Now, what is the cost of these coaches? One finds that had the number of coaches increased at the same rate as the passenger traffic, there would have needed to be an increase of just on 300 coaches. Instead, an extra 1 250 coaches were constructed during this period and went into service. What is the cost of one of those coaches? The order book shows that 3 000 are budgeted for in the future at an average cost of R124 000 each. If one takes 1 250 coaches at an average cost of only R100 000 each, then it means that another R125 million has gone into passenger coaches during the period 1973-’74 to 1977-’78. These are some of the figures which cause us in these benches some concern. The objective which we on these benches would like to see the Railways Administration accept as its own in the near future, is that they should put to work all the assets of the Railways, regardless of whether they are steam locomotives, diesel locomotives or old Railway houses. Perhaps some other staff members, pensioners or social welfare cases could be accommodated in these houses. I do not know. I am only asking that a study be made of this and of everything else, sleepers included. That should be the first objective.

The second objective should be to market the service. In this regard I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley South. There is a need for the public to use our public transportation system. Has a study been made of the needs of the travelling public?

They are driving people off the trains.

This could be. Maybe the policy of the department has driven people off the trains. I have travelled overseas. As recently as 1977 I travelled between Bologne and Paris on a little tourist train. This train did not consist of expensive motor-coaches that, according to my figures, cost nearly R400 000 here. They were simple diesel-powered motor-coaches, which are far less expensive to construct. A little trolley was pushed down the aisle of these coaches by a fellow selling beer and sandwiches. This is the sort of thing that I would like the hon. the Minister to get the Administration to look into. They must be asked to study in-depth the market needs of the commuter in South Africa. If the hon. the Minister does this, I am of the opinion that he will start bringing people back to rail and in so doing will save South Africa a lot of money, which we now use to buy the oil which we have to import.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti must not complain if extracts from his speeches of the past are quoted. One does not run away from one’s past; one only runs away when one is afraid. If the hon. member made certain statements in previous debates which he himself does not like now, he cannot blame this side of the House if those speeches of his are referred to. At a later stage in my speech I shall return again to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and, with his permission, quote from speeches he has made in the past.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Orange Grove is not in the House. In his Third Reading speech last year that hon. member referred to the Railway budget as “remarkably poor”. He also spoke of “sycophantic speeches” on this side of the House. He stated, inter alia (Hansard, 1978, col. 2677)—

I am not ashamed of having conveyed my thanks and that of my constituency to the hon. the Minister last year for the way in which he handled the Railway budget under the economic conditions prevailing last year. This year we are reaping the fruits of the sound vision of last year. I shall come back to this statement later.

Over the past few days I have been listening to most hon. members opposite. As a result I should like to put a question to them, particularly to the hon. member for Orange Grove. Where is their acknowledgment of the fact that positive dividends can be reaped this year as a result of the realistic, responsible budget of last year and the previous years? Hyenas howl if they smell prey but cannot get at it. However, the official Opposition should not howl even before they know whether there is prey. They must first ascertain whether there is something to prey upon. I have heard very little acknowledgment—in fact none—from the official Opposition of the fact that last year’s budget introduced the necessary measures to make this year’s fine budget possible. On the contrary, the hon. the Minister had already foreseen this position last year when, at the end of his reply to the Third Reading debate, he said the following on 9 March (Hansard, Vol. 72, col. 2718)—

These were the words of a far-sighted and responsible Minister who did not act with political gain in mind, but who, in the interests of the country, implemented certain measures last year so that through this revival of the economy this year, when stimulation is of the greatest importance, the country could reap the fruits and the Railways would be enabled to make an important contribution in this regard.

In any management structure, particularly in an economic structure, the correct interpretation of economic indicators is of the utmost importance in view of advance planning and advance estimates. A budget is part of every household because planning for the future is a sound financial policy. It is a pity, and also irresponsible, that in times of economic pressure the official Opposition oppose and dispute any measures which envisage the increase of tariffs merely for petty political gain, as if such measures constituted deliberate exploitation. The resistance of the official Opposition, when certain tariff increases were announced last year, must probably be seen, in the first place, as the result of a lack of financial insight and intuition. In the second place they were, I believe, playing the popular game of scoring political points. In the third place, I believe, it was pure and blatant wilfulness. This year they almost began to sing along. They applaud, as it were, as if they had a share in this budget. They are carrying on almost as though it were they who introduced this budget.

There is something I must say to them tonight, to the hon. member for Orange Grove in particular. The official Opposition has no part at all—I repeat; no part at all—in the success of this budget. On the contrary, the hon. members of the official Opposition and the NRP continually harped on one string during this debate, viz. that the Minister would come to light with further tariff increases in the coming financial year. It is true that if the anticipated growth does not take place, if an economic revival does not boost the revenue of the Railways and there is no increase in the volume of traffic on the Railways, it could happen that the hon. the Minister would have to look at tariff adjustments. We do not wish to flinch from that possibility.

However, I should like to know from the official Opposition what they are doing to stimulate the anticipated revival in the economy. I will tell you, Sir, what they are doing: They are already hoping that the expectations spelled out by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech, will not be realized. That is why we get pronouncements such as that from the hon. member for Orange Grove who initially tried to be responsible by describing the budget as a “good news budget”, but said only the following day: “I very much regret that this is one of those good news, bad news stories.”

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti described the budget as a “gambling budget”. The hon. member for East London North who, in the brief space of time that he has been in this House, has shown that he is one of the true fellow-travellers of the Progs, said, inter alia: “The increase in the expenditure of the Railways has reached a scandalously high rate,” and added that it was as high as 29%. This testifies to a total and absolute ignorance as far as the budget is concerned.

All these speeches are aimed at breaking down the confidence in our country’s economy. Financial and economic progress in South Africa is anathema to the Opposition. They reject it; they do not want it.

Rubbish!

It is not “rubbish”. This is how they view the economic progress in South Africa. They see it as a danger to themselves and for that reason they want to wreck and destroy any economic progress taking place in South Africa.

I feel sorry for you, if you really believe that.

Are those statements of theirs their contribution to stimulating the economy and instilling lasting confidence in our economy? Sir, they are incredibly weak, they are economically unpatriotic.

Incidentally, I want to say that the hon. member for Orange Grove can really keep to himself the uncalled-for commentary and criticism he expressed yesterday and today concerning the railway line from Belle Ombre to Mabopane. What is more, I want to advise him to keep his nose out of Pretoria’s affairs. We are man enough to manage our own affairs. He must not come along and stick in his nose there and bedevil negotiations which are already at an advanced stage. There are not even sufficient Progs in Pretoria to fill a full-sized cattle truck; and then that hon. member comes along and wants to prescribe to us what we should do in Pretoria.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also advanced another ridiculous argument: When a deficit of R241 million was budgeted for last year, the hon. the Minister introduced a tariff increase of 8,6%. This year the anticipated deficit is approximately R270 million, and now he shouts and carries on because the hon. the Minister has not introduced tariff increases. Last year the economy experienced a slump and the only way in which that deficit could be supplemented, was by the introduction of tariff increases. Those hon. members do not know the economy and are not aware that we are now experiencing a boom. For that reason they want to put a spoke in the wheel. If the hon. the Minister places his confidence in it, it is certainly the duty of this House, including the official Opposition, to support the hon. the Minister in this. In this Third Reading debate it is appropriate—and I do it gladly—to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister once again for the fine budget he has introduced. However, I thank him not only for this year’s budget, but also for the budgets of the past, because they laid a solid foundation on which to place the finances of the Railways. At the same time we must convey our thanks—and we do so gladly—to the General Manager and the top management of the S.A. Railways for their sustained and dedicated work. This is a team effort which has made these achievements possible. We on this side of the House should like to convey our thanks to them.

The management by objectives that the Railways is engaged in at present, has been mentioned in this debate during the past few days. By means of this management by objectives they have succeeded in reducing the number of staff from 269 000 in April 1978 to 263 500 in January 1979 despite an increase in the volume of traffic. I wonder if we really realize what is happening here. This can only be done successfully if there is an effective increase in productivity. For years now we have advocated the increase of productivity as a method of coping with inflation and increasing the growth rate. Working less has already become a disease in South Africa. This is a cancer in our national economy which we must eradicate. Now the Railways is demonstrating to us in a practical way that this can be done and that it can work. The Railways comes forward with this major effort to stimulate and encourage growth by management by objectives. Increased productivity is of extreme importance for an upswing, not only in the S.A. Railways, but also in all the sectors of our national economy. I think that all sectors can make an even greater contribution to the increase in productivity.

The Railways—as well as the Post Office—have furnished ample proof that it can be done. I think it is appropriate that other sectors take cognizance of this. Our Public Service initiated it, but I think it can be taken further and that by effective management by objectives, success could be achieved in establishing a more effective and productive Public Service. However, I also believe that the private sector can play an extremely important part in this regard and that its contribution in this regard, viz. the increase in productivity, has not yet fully come into its own. However, I think that in the interests of the country the private sector will also contribute its share in this regard. We must not be obsessed with the so-called unemployment, and out of fear of that, be unwilling to encourage high productivity. It is not in the interests of the country merely to provide employment for the sake of the idea of giving everyone a job. Work must be done, one must accomplish something to justify one’s post. For that reason and, I believe this House, are grateful that the Railways has succeeded in handling the larger volume of traffic with a reduced staff.

There is one facet of the budget speech which causes me concern and which I do believe should receive the undivided attention of this House. I refer to our passenger services. We have already debated this during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage and have most probably discussed it ad nauseam. However, this is an extremely delicate and important facet of the S.A. Railways which one cannot simply pass by. The Airways, as one leg of the transportation system in South Africa, has, I believe got off the ground and is gaining momentum. We are grateful for that. However, when we examine the rail passenger services, I think there is cause for serious concern. The Railways is in the critical position that that leg of its activities is not a financial proposition. This has been the case through the years, but what I am concerned about is that it is weakening annually.

We are entering a time of crisis as regards our fuel position. The time of irresponsible motor-car traffic when ease-loving and irresponsible people could drive to work alone, has passed. The sooner we realize this, the better it will be for all of us and our country. Mass transportation, linked with the development of an effective transportation system to convey people quickly and comfortably, will have to be accorded increasing priority. We shall have to rely increasingly on mass transportation and in this regard rail transportation will inevitably have to play an increasingly important part.

We are concerned about our main-line services and one obviously thinks of the withdrawal and curtailment of such services as a result of the uneconomic way in which they are operated. However, I want to predict that high fuel prices could lead to more people turning to long-distance rail transportation. May I, therefore, in all humility, make an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to be too quick to make a start with the withdrawal and suspension of those services? Let us give it a chance for a little while longer so that we can first test the impact which the fuel crisis will have on our transportation, to ascertain how necessary rail transportation will remain.

The transportation of the commuter remains a further headache which will have to be examined. I referred to this in the Committee Stage yesterday. I just want to single out certain facets. The railway user cannot continue to pay more and more for the maintenance of this service. A formula will have to be found to involve the commuter himself and the employer in the financing of this service. The employer takes it as a matter of course that his worker has to arrive at his place of employment. This is a matter of course which has entered our labour structure and has apparently become something generally accepted. This problem is irrelevant to him. In other words, the problem of conveying the worker to his place of employment is not his problem. I think the time is ripe for us to consider a type of levy to be paid by the employers, particularly as far as Black commuters are concerned. A levy of this nature could be a contribution to the Railways’ effort to maintain this service. For that reason I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Bethlehem—he stated this very clearly yesterday—when he said that the Franzsen Committee that had been appointed would carry out an in-depth investigation into this matter. On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I want to wish the committee success in the major task they have to undertake and which, we believe, they will complete successfully.

It is important that there should be a real breakthrough, perhaps even a totally new approach, in passenger services. The deficit on this service during the past financial year is R268 million. In the coming financial year the deficit is estimated at R350 million. This is certainly no insignificant loss. The logical step would be to increase rates. We are grateful that the hon. the Minister saw his way clear to not doing this. This could have meant that the Railways as a supplier of passenger transportation would have contracted out even further.

In view of the increased fuel price—I really believe this—rail transportation will have to be used to an increasing extent. I therefore want to make an appeal to all potential users, to become involved in this in the interest of the country. This will enable the Railway to operate this service more economically. This is not only in the interests of the Railways, but also, I believe, in the interests of our country.

On behalf of the Railway pensioners in my constituency I also want to express my thanks in regard to the concession relating to pension benefits. We are grateful that the hon. the Minister was prepared to grant a further increase of 8%, plus the fixed 2%, to our pensioners. In that way they at least remain linked to the inflation rate. It is of course also true that our pensioners are struggling. If, therefore, further relief could be granted to them in future, we would gratefully appreciate it.

Finally, I want to convey my thanks to the S.A. Railways for a very sound financial year behind us. I also want to thank the Railways Administration for a sound, efficient and fine service rendered to the public of South Africa. I am sorry that I have to say that the public of South Africa does not appreciate the value of mass transportation. I think this could be ascribed to the fact that we have become spoilt, that we can drive around whenever we want to in our motor-car in comfort and ease. I think the time has come for South Africans to be made aware in some way of the fact that mass transportation will be the means of transport of the future and that the Railways will play a very important part in this regard.

May the S.A. Railways prosper in the year ahead. May it also be true that tariff increases are not around the comer.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gezina had some unnecessarily unpleasant things to say about the official Opposition. However, I think the time has come at this late stage of the debate for us to turn the other cheek and get back on the track.

I think we have witnessed a very interesting phenomenon in the Railways debates in recent years and again this year. It seems to me that the S.A. Railways has taken unto itself a new dimension. I do not have to remind the hon. the Minister that in the Union of South Africa Act and the Constitution Act the parameters of the operations of the S.A. Railways were set down: It has to be a business enterprise and has to serve the community. By and large I think it is done fairly well, and I do not say that in any arrogant sense—far from it. I think the S.A. Railways in fact has won a particular place in the respect and affections of South Africans in general. The hon. member for Kuruman was cross with me earlier today because I pretended not to know where his hometown, Pudimoe, was. I think he would have been very pleased to have met a great friend of mine who knows where every single railway station in South Africa is. He can place it at once and knows what the next station is and the one after that. He also knows how high above sea level it is. In fact, he is so preoccupied with this hobby of his that he does not read The Cape Times at breakfast but the S.A. Railways time-tables.

Is it true?

It is absolutely true. He should go on the SABC quizz programmes. Unfortunately he has a slight speech impediment, otherwise he would be absolutely marvellous publicity for the S.A. Railways. I once asked him what he thought of the film Dr. Zhivago. The hon. the Minister may remember that dramatic scene where a train swept across Siberia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. He said it was a great film, but that the train scene was a fraud. He said that while it was supposed to be a 1917 Bolshevik train, it was in fact made in Finland in 1922.

Therefore, I think we have some experts outside the House who very much respect and admire the S.A. Railways. However, I was talking about the new dimension. What I find interesting is that the S.A. Railways in the past couple of years seem to have accepted that they have another task to perform in South Africa to help the economy and to assist with social problems. I want to deal with some of these in passing during the short time at my disposal. I am extremely interested that the hon. the Minister should be pursuing the path of making certain concessions to certain categories of passengers in this country; and also to certain categories in regard to employment on the Railways. I think it is interesting that the hon. the Minister now seems to have grasped the idea that the S.A. Railways can in fact legitimately be used as an instrument of social and economic reform if not of upliftment. I think it is very interesting that the S.A. Railways should now have come into the conservation of fuel scene and that the hon. the Minister should have pitched his argument on the basis that the Railways will in fact help to conserve our resources. He is therefore using the Railways as an instrument of economic improvement in this country.

I think it is very important that South Africa in general should react to the need for the encouragement of an increased use of the services provided by the Railways. I think the hon. the Minister should, in a professional manner, seek to use the talents of this country in order to find new avenues for encouraging the use of his services. As an example I should like to refer to a magnificent month that I spent in Europe in September 1975. I bought a Eurorail ticket—I think I bought it here in South Africa, but cannot remember— for about R120, and for that price I was able to travel all over western Europe by train. This is a marvellous scheme. If it is raining in Zurich, one simply boards a train heading for Geneva, or vice versa. This is magnificent. I think that so far, however, there has been no idea of South Africa participating in, or taking over, such a scheme, and I cannot imagine why this is so. In western Europe one does not even have to book a seat on a train, except perhaps on some of the major express trains. On other express trains and on ordinary trains once certainly did not have to book. All one had to do was to get to the platform, board the train and sit down. If the hon. the Minister feels that the transport scene in western Europe is different from the one we have here, he might well have a point. I agree that a few adjustments and adaptations might be required.

I have here a very interesting document, however, which indicates that in a country like Australia, where I would have thought the transport scene was very similar to ours— and by that I mean as regards the vast distances—there is a very flourishing system called Austrail-rail, which is similar to the Eurorail system. According to this system one pays approximately $150 (Australian) for 21 days unlimited first-class rail travel. I think one has to be an overseas tourist to enjoy this benefit, but whatever the conditions are, it seems to me that some system like this is worth investigating in this country. Tourists do not like it all that much to pre-book all their travel arrangements because they like to have a little bit of leeway so that if the weather is bad, and they do not wish to play tennis or swim at a particular place, they can travel somewhere else by train. I think that all sorts of other avenues of promoting the use of the railways should be explored.

I am, for example, concerned about the fact that all the major daily newspapers in the country have a very interesting shipping column, and some of them also have an airways column, but I am not aware of one of them that has a regular railways column, and I mean “railways” in the pure sense of the word. I think that the Publicity Department of the S.A. Railways should therefore encourage our newspapers and journals to stimulate an interest in the railways amongst the general reading public. There is a great deal of interesting history and development which could be promoted through our newspaper columns.

I think that the Railways Administration, for example, must be one of the few institutions in this country that has not got itself onto the philatelic scene. I know that there was a series of two stamps on Saldanha Bay and Richards Bay, but that was really a harbour promotion. I think that the S.A. Railways could well be promoted by both a stamp series and by the stamped advertisements one sees on our envelopes. These are merely a few ideas, but I think the hon. the Minister knows what I mean. I think the people support him in his idea that because the S.A. Railways is a business proposition, it should therefore be run at maximum capacity. The Railways should also realize, however, that because of the times we live in, it has a special need to attract or draw some of the traffic away from excessive fuel-consuming transport systems.

There are just a few other small issues I should like to raise. I think it is also very interesting to note that the Railways has moved into another field altogether, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to this. The Railways has suddenly found that it can, in fact, be an international friend to neighbouring countries which would otherwise presumably be basically hostile. In this regard the Railways has a tremendous part to play. I think that if some of the politicians on that side of the House could make some of the pleasant sounds that have eminated from senior Railway spokesmen at times, they could make a much bigger contribution to peace and stability in Southern Africa. I think that some of the statements which came from certain senior quarters in the Railways did a tremendous amount of good for our relationships in Southern Africa. I happen to know this first hand. Not that I walk around the garden with Mr. Machel, but I have heard it quite authoritatively. I think the hon. the Minister might well consider suggesting to some of his colleagues that they play it a little bit cooler in some respects than they have done in the past. I think the Railways have done a good job in keeping contacts with our neighbouring countries on a sound basis.

Finally, I want to say something about the services provided on a personal level by the Railways. I do not want to boast but I had a great-uncle whose prize possession was a photograph of himself as a station master. I forget where he was station master. It was not Pudimoe, but it was close to it. He was dressed in the most marvellous garb. I think they used to wear striped trousers, a frock coat and a wing collar. I remember this photograph which was taken many, many years ago. This was his prize possession, and he was actually one of the bigwigs of the town, together with the magistrate and the dominee. What I am getting at is that perhaps the elegance of the Railways has gone, probably forever. The days when one used to have those dining saloons with carved wooden columns and all that are probably gone. I am not sure, but I have not seen them for many a year. On the whole, however, the service provided by the S.A. Railways, considering that times have changed and that there is more of a rush and a bustle, has been maintained quite adequately.

I do think that the hon. the Minister must keep an eye, at all times, on the legitimate needs and grievances of the ordinary user of the Railways. He must not just brush off criticism which appears in the newspapers. Sometimes I get the impression that when an ordinary citizen writes to the newspapers and says that he has had bad treatment from an inspector, or asks why the tariff is so high, or what have you, he tends to get a rather curt reply from the Railway authorities. It tends to be a little curt, a little bit holier-than-thou. I am not casting aspersions on any particular system manager or any particular officials but I think it is important that the hon. the Minister should instruct his authorities— which is what Railways officials are—that they are in fact servants of the S.A. public and should act as such. Subject to these reservations, and subject to the problems that we have in regard to the possibility of a higher tariff, I think that, on the whole, this tends to be a “good news” and also perhaps a “bad news” budget.

Mr. Speaker, you can understand how pleased I am that I am rising to speak for the last time in this debate.

So are we!

If hon. members on the opposite side of the House are also pleased, I shall not take long. It has been a long haul from Monday until now, but it was a very interesting debate. If I may say so, I do not think that this debate produced the major debating points we have had on previous occasions. I think the reason for this must be sought in the budget itself. A quick glance at the budget will show that the expected expenditure for the coming year will be increased by 14,5% and that the envisaged capital spending will remain more or less the same as last year. We can look back upon a reasonably successful year with a surplus, as we now expect, of approximately R53 million, which will push up the Rates Equalization Fund to approximately R115 million. The past year has also been reasonably accident free. In fact, the Railways has a very proud record as far as accidents are concerned. In respect of all these matters, for which one is in fact grateful, no substantial criticism was levelled at the course of the activities of the Railways during the past year. Despite this additional expenditure of 14,5%, which includes, inter alia, the good news of salary increases, increased pensions and certain concessions to Railway users, there is also the good news that there are no tariff increases, in any event no tariff increases which will be announced at this juncture. I think that if one looks at this success story, if I may call it that—I am not doing so out of vanity, but with a measure of humility and gratitude—we shall realize that it testifies to self-discipline. It can indeed be said, with a view to the future, that what we have achieved during the past year could in fact serve as an example to the private sector. All these things are inherent in the idea that we should work harder and that greater demands should be made on everyone in South Africa, for we have indeed, during the past year, seen the advantages of working harder and saving wherever possible.

During the Committee Stage certain matters were raised here which I was unable to dispose of earlier this afternoon, and therefore I should like to devote the minutes at my disposal to the essential matters which I think warrant further discussion, matters which were raised in the various speeches made here.

Of course we are very careful not to create the wrong impressions. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South called my attention to the fact that a misunderstanding could arise in regard to a certain matter, and I should therefore like to rectify this matter. Yesterday, when I was discussing the slaughtering costs of livestock, I said it cost R29,92 to slaughter an animal. Of course I did not mean—and the hon. member also understood it in this way when he brought the matter to my attention—that that is what it costs to flay the hide off an animal. It also includes a great diversity of other costs, for example agency fees, abattoir fees, insurance, etc. Consequently the amount does not refer to one aspect only. It covers quite a few items, and I candidly admit it.

Various hon. gentlemen raised matters here to which I should like to refer. Firstly, I should like to refer to certain matters raised by the hon. member for Groote Schuur. I think he raised various aspects concerning the harbours yesterday already. The hon. member referred to the lights which we are having attached to the building known as the Lourens Muller building. He said he had certain reservations about it. He wondered whether those costs should be incurred. I think it may be said that the harbour traffic signs in the various big harbours are standard—not only here in South Africa, but everywhere. They are there to ensure the safety of vessels. Despite the existing radio communications to which the hon. member referred, the pilots insist that there be traffic signs as well. They say the signs are essential; for particularly for the smaller vessels which do not have radio communication. Apart from the reservations which the hon. member might have we regard this investment as a safety measure which has been effected and which is worthwhile from the point of view of safety. The hon. member also referred to the road signs which we have erected in the vicinity of the building to which I have just referred. These are also being erected for the sake of safety in that vicinity. Previously there were only yellow stripes, but it was felt that kerbstones should be erected to ensure greater safety at railway crossings. I am quite prepared to invite the hon. member to join me in carrying out an inspection there and discussing the matter for a while to see whether we cannot reach a greater measure of unanimity on this matter. But I do wish to assure the hon. member that this is only being done with a view to greater safety at railway crossings.

The hon. member also referred to pollution along our coasts, and particularly to the huge tanker which was in difficulties a few days ago. I said by way of interjection that it was actually a matter which was more the responsibility of the Department of Transport. However, the hon. member correctly asserted that our harbours are involved in that matter. I then said by way of further interjection that one of the tugs should be on standby here at all times. The hon. member expressed his reservations in that regard. The tugs are of course operated by Safmarine in terms of an agreement between the Department of Transport and Safmarine. The Department of Transport in fact makes good any deficits which may occur in respect of the maintenance and operation of the tugs. An agreement has been concluded in regard to the operation of the tugs, and one of the articles of that agreement reads as follows—

One of the provisions in the agreement with Safmarine is therefore that one of the two tugs to which the hon. member referred should always be available and in readiness here. As far as I know, that condition is being complied with.

The hon. member for Worcester put a question to me in regard to the relocation of a shunting yard. I can inform him that it is not the intention to relocate that shunting yard. However, we expect that the dieselization process will have been completed there by the end of the year, and we hope that the smoke and soot nuisance to which the hon. member referred will be eliminated in that way.

The hon. member for Rosettenville painted a very colourful picture here. It was worthwhile listening to him. He boarded a train drawn by a steam locomotive and travelled from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth. From there he went all along the coast and stopped at every station. It was clear that he is a person who loves steam locomotives. Last year he invited me to accompany him on a train journey from Johannesburg to Heidelberg. The train in question was drawn by a steam locomotive. It was a beautiful locomotive.

With the big wheels.

Yes, it is the locomotive with the big wheels. They are really impressive. Yesterday hon. members laughed when the hon. member for Rosettenville spoke of those huge 6 ft. high wheels. If one stands next to the locomotive it is not so impressive. However, it is only when those wheels are in the workshop and one stands next to them there, as I often did, that one realizes how big they are. They are 6 ft. high, as tall as I am, and they are only 3 ft. 6 in apart. Hon. members will understand that since the wheels are 6 ft. high and only 3 ft. 6 in. apart, it has rather a clumsy and awkward appearance. Be that as it may, it is a beautiful locomotive and we spent a wonderful day in the company of the excited people who travelled on that train. The train stopped in the veld and everyone got off with their movie cameras. The hon. member as well. He ran up the track until he was about a kilometre away from the train and stood waiting there with his camera. The stoker threw a large shovelful of coal into the firebox, causing the locomotive to produce thick, black smoke. It must produce smoke, otherwise the steam enthusiasts are not impressed. Then the locomotive came chuffing round the bend and the hon. member recorded it on a film. He arrived back drenched with perspiration and said “That’s nice! It is really running well now!” I just want to thank the hon. member for his enthusiasm. I hope that he will inspire more people in this regard.

I do not want to go into too many details, but the hon. member for Orange Grove referred in his Third Reading speech to the rates which apply on the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. In this connection I just want to remind the hon. member that in respect of those rates we are bound to an agreement with Iscor. From the nature of the case, Iscor is responsible for all the deficits, as I have explained before in this House. Iscor is responsible for covering all the deficits on the operation of that railway line. The hon. member will realize that it is consequently not easy to lower these rates, particularly not at this stage where, as I have already said, a deficit in respect of this railway line is expected for the coming financial year owing to the economic situation in the world, as was also the case during the past financial year.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg discussed the possibility of constructing railway lines around the big cities, in the same way as roads are being built around the big cities. This is a good idea, of course, but as hon. members will understand, we do not construct railway lines today if we are not convinced that they will be economically viable. In other words, if we are asked to construct such railway lines, the costs of such lines are guaranteed and it is in the national interests, we shall do so. It is always said: “There is never an engineering problem; only a financial problem.” In this case it is also a financial problem. If the financial aspect of the matter can be solved, we do not foresee any problems.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the free passes which we make available to our people. I do not want to elaborate on this too much, I merely want to say that we have calculated that the value of those free passes is approximately R7,32 million per annum. I have the particulars of the first-class, second-class and third-class free passes which we make available.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether that figure includes the allowances in respect of travelling on duty or does it only pertain to free passes.

No, I am only referring to the free passes.

*I have already replied to the question of the Airways staff, a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member for Kuruman made an almost emotional speech on a rail link between Pudimoe and Sishen. This matter has been referred to all afternoon. The same comment which I made in connection with the proposal by the hon. member for Witwatersberg I can make in this connection as well. If one looks at the map it seems as though this could be a very desirable rail link and as if it could constitute enormous advantages. The fact that it appears to be a suitable undertaking from a geographical point of view does not mean, however, that it will be viable. Indeed we have previously investigated the possibility of such a project and I take it that it will be investigated again in future. Only when there is sufficient traffic to justify a rail link between Pudimoe and Sishen and make it viable can we give serious consideration to it.

The hon. member for Orange Grove put a question to me on Bapsfontein this afternoon. He said that he had had a quiet misgivings, almost an intuition—as women call it—that that is not really the best location. It was not on the basis of intuition that that place was determined. Bapsfontein was chosen after an exhaustive study had been made by experts, a study which took years to complete. Physically it is a suitable area because it is reasonably level. I understand that the bypass lines will be expensive, but effective. These railway lines will be electrified and will be both effective as well as conducive to the rapid flow of traffic.

The hon. member, as well as other hon. members, referred to our passenger services. I just want to give hon. members the assurance that we are constantly scrutinizing the efficiency of our passenger services. The hon. member for Groote Schuur expressed ideas in connection with Eurorail, etc., but I welcome from the bottom of my heart the standpoint of the hon. member for Gezina that we should not simply abolish certain passenger services simply because they are uneconomic. We listen eagerly to suggestions on how to improve these services. I should not like hon. members to think that because I do not comment on all these proposals, we do not bear them in mind or that we are not interested in operating our passenger services as economically as possible. Hon. members must accept that we operate the service as economically as possible. We eliminate trains where it is absolutely uneconomic to allow those trains to operate. The fact of the matter is that this is difficult because the fares have not kept pace with the inflation rate. Surely that is an accepted and acknowledged fact. That is why the losses on passenger services are becoming heavier and heavier. On the part of the Railways I can give the House the assurance that we shall do everything in our power.

†We calculate productivity by having as input cost plus labour and as output ton kilometres. As the relationship of the output improves on the input we accept that there is an improvement in productivity. This might seem a simple calculation of productivity, but we believe that it is indeed an effective one.

*Consequently I should like to tell the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that if this is accepted as basis on which productivity is measured, viz. the method whereby the ton kilometres ratio of our transportation improves on the cost plus labour input…

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the cost input is just for that particular operation or does it include the total Railways’ overhead costs as well?

It is for all services.

*On that basis we then measure the productivity of the services. When I speak of the Railways, I include Airways, the Harbours as well as the pipelines. I think I am correct when I say that the productivity of the Railways increased by an average of 2% for the past few years according to the basis of calculation which I have now presented.

The hon. member went on to discuss trucks, sleepers and so on. It depends entirely on the circumstances of course. Whether the maize trucks are empty or not depends on the weather. It also depends on the quantity of maize which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture gives us to transport to the harbours. The same applies to the ore trucks, etc. The use of the general service trucks conveying our high-rated goods, depends on the circumstances of the economy. To the best of my ability I estimate that there are perhaps between 10 000 and 20 000 trucks which are from time to time not in use. But as the economy improves it is quite likely that all these trucks will again be put into full operation.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur ended on a very pleasant note with the recommendations which he made in regard to Eurorail, and that type of thing. It is unfortunately the case that our people in South Africa are obsessed with comfort. If we should say that it is not necessary to book, and they turn up there everything is taken they become difficult. I think South Africans in general have been spoilt by comfort. They would like to have their comforts. The other problem is of course that our population density is not such, at all the various places along a route, that we can make such an idea a viable one. Nevertheless I do not want to reject it. We shall see from time to time whether we cannot perhaps make our services more effective in that way.

The hon. member also requested that newspapers should give more publicity to the services offered by the Railways. They write about the harbours and about the Airways, but very little about railway services. This is probably because our railway services have become part of our lives, over more than a century, and are now accepted in the same way as we accept the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. The General Manager of the Railways announced a few days ago that the Railway was sponsoring a prize for journalists who wrote the best article on transportation. I do not have the details of the prize available now, but I think it is R500, or a free ticket for two on the Blue Train, or something similar. Nevertheless, we want in that way to encourage the idea of giving more publicity to transportation. We sincerely hope that the parties concerned will participate.

The hon. member for Kimberley South made a speech on the consumption of fuel and on methods of saving fuel. I appreciated that tremendously. I believe that the whole of South Africa should be aware of what is being done and what can be done in regard to the conservation of fuel.

Finally I just want to point out that this is the sixth Railways budget which I have dealt with here in this House, although I have not been Minister of Transport for five years. Yet this is my sixth budget. My first Railway budget I introduced here during the second half of 1974. Subsequently there was of course a Railway budget every year; as there is this year. I do not want to draw comparisons now, but it is true that handling the affairs of the S.A. Railways is really interesting. It is really stimulating. We are talking here about realities in which all of us are interested and which all of us see every day, things which all of us use in some way or another whether they be train services, Airways, Harbours or Road Transport, it makes no difference. It is part of our everyday social life. That is probably why I can say thank you very much today for all the good speeches made here. Hon. members participated generously in the discussions of the affairs of the Railways. The debate lasted for four days and dealt with stimulating and interesting subjects. I wish I could mention names, but it is too dangerous to do that. However, there were speeches from hon. members on both sides of the House giving indications of intensive study of the activities of the S.A. Railways in all its ramifications.

Looking at the hon. member for Uitenhage, it strikes me now that I have not replied to the four questions he put to me. I shall gladly do so now. I think there are still a few minutes left. The hon. member put a question to me in regard to the Sick Fund and the choice of a doctor. Actually, the reply to that is “no”. However, I shall rather write to him in that connection. Then he also put a question to me in regard to the disciplinary system of the department. The committee of inquiry disposed of its task in connection with disciplinary system of the report and copies were sent to the Federal Consultive Council on 9 November 1978. This Council appointed an ad hoc committee to study the report and to comment on recommendations with a view to the formulation of standpoints and consultations with the General Manager of the Railways. The report, together with the comment of the General Manager and the opinions of the Council, will subsequently be submitted to me. At present the reply of the Council in regard to this matter is being awaited.

The hon. member also put a question in regard to those people who do section work. Of course this is something of a dangerous word. It means that they go out, that they do not remain at their base. Naturally this is a difficult problem. We are trying to act sympathetically and relieve people of district work where this is justified.

Finally the hon. member put a question in regard to air travel concessions. The air travel concessions granted to servants with at least 30 years service, and their families, on the internal services of the S.A. Airways have also, with effect from 1 April 1978, been granted to Railway pensioners who have completed 30 years service, and their spouses. The concession was extended from 1 March 1979 to include all pensioners’ widows whose spouses had completed at least 30 years’ service. That is the reply to that question which the hon. member put to me.

If I have omitted to furnish replies to certain aspects touched on by hon. members, I apologize. However, I shall do so later in writing, in the customary way. I have already said that excellent speeches on interesting subjects were made here. It was clearly apparent that thorough studies had been made of various subjects. I want to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to hon. members for their contributions. On this occasion I should also like to thank the General Manager, the Management and every servant of the S.A. Railways, Harbours, Airways, Road Transport, Pipelines, etc. Each one of them, whatever his position, made his contribution. Under this new dispensation we definitely expect greater responsibility from each S.A. Railway servant, whatever the task entrusted to him. I should like to thank everyone very sincerely for their cooperation. Then, too, I should like to convey my particular appreciation to the Railways Board. Hon. members will not realize how valuable this body is to me. I am thinking only of the discussions which I am able to hold with them, of the counsel and advice they are able to give me, the experience they have at their disposal, the contacts which they make with certain aspects of the Railways which I never get to deal with. I appreciate this tremendously.

In conclusion, and I believe that I am speaking on behalf of everyone in the S.A. Railways, I want to point out that they have been inspired to give effect, from 1 April of this year, to those wishes and desires which were expressed here in this House. We are motivated to increase the efforts which we made in the past, efforts to increase productivity, to effect savings, etc., and to build on and improve what has been achieved, if this is in any way possible. What we are endeavouring to achieve, I feel, interprets the feeling of this House in its entirety and that is, for the sake of South Africa, to postpone any increase in the rates as long as possible. I hope we shall succeed in doing so.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is merely a consolidating measure and the necessary certificate has been submitted by a State Law Adviser.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate we on this side of the House dealt with the question of the take-over of State-aided schools by the Government. We also dealt with the fact that the amending legislation provides that the only notice that has to be given of such a take-over, is the notice served upon the person in charge of the school. The actual definition in the original Act does in fact indicate that this notice need only to be served on a single person in a number of cases.

The hon. the Minister said in his reply that this would of course not happen in practice but that in practice a notice would be served on the school principal who would then discuss it with the parents’ committee or the body running the school and that that would be adequate notice. However, I found the reply of the hon. the Minister unsatisfactory. There seems to be no reason at all why, in addition to serving notice on the person in charge of the school, a notice should not also appear in the Government Gazette and, as the amendment I intend moving indicates, in a local newspaper. I dealt with the particular situation relating to schools which serve the Indian community. A large number of these schools are in fact State-aided. It would be interesting if the hon. the Minister could perhaps supply us with some figures on the number of schools which are fully paid for by the State and the number of schools which are State-aided. I believe that, in the case of the Indian community, probably about 50% of the schools are State-aided. Therefore, we are dealing here with a large number of State-aided schools and, if the Government intends taking over any one of these schools, I think there is a need for particular care to be taken to ensure that the widest possible notice is given to the community which the school serves.

As far as the Indian community is concerned, many of these schools came into being through the community’s efforts; they are community schools. Therefore, I think it behoves the Government to be prepared to give the widest possible notice of any intended take-over. I can see no reason why the hon. the Minister was not inclined during the Second Reading debate to accept this principle. That is why I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave tried to create the impression, during the Second Reading and now again, that this clause actually provides the opportunity for a transaction to be concluded between the State on the one hand and one specific person on the other. I think, however, that we have to look at the practical situation under the present Act. The position at the moment is that when a State-aided school is taken over by the Government, a notice must be published in the Gazette. However, that notice is in point of fact published for general information when the take-over is already an accomplished fact. Therefore it is not a case of interested parties being notified of this in advance. At present a notice is only published in the Gazette for general notification to indicate that such a take-over has taken place.

In the second place it is important, to my mind, to remember that there was never a question in this regard of a take-over on the initiative of the Government, as the hon. the Minister stated very clearly during the Second Reading debate. Therefore we are dealing with school buildings and institutions established by certain groups within the Indian community. These schools were established as a result of the labour, industry and finance of certain groups within the Indian community. I do not want to repeat this, because we know that the Indian community in Natal in particular, have shown a tremendous interest in the education of their children and have made tremendous sacrifices in this regard. These schools were in fact private schools which gradually, as a result of subsidies, became known as State-aided schools.

As the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate, it is true that these schools are not being taken over on the initiative of the State. Therefore, the situation does not arise where clandestine negotiations could take place between the State and one person. These schools are taken over by the State when an offer is made to the State by the school administration, the controlling body, or the individual appointed by the controlling body.

Therefore, it is surely logical that if, for example, I offer a certain article to the hon. member for Musgrave, he has to notify me that he accepts the offer: not the whole world. I believe that this clause should be regarded in the light of the fact that the party that 'lakes the offer should be notified of the acceptance of the offer; and that will be that. To my mind the whole complicated procedure as laid down in the Act at the moment, is unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, I followed the argument of the hon. member who has just sat down, and while it is true that in most cases the initiative would perhaps come from the governing body of the school—and this may well be the practice in a number of cases—the fact remains that we are busy making a law during this Committee Stage. I think one must return to the elementary situation that where the effect of the amendment is that there has to be notice in writing given to the governing body of the school the Act itself, in defining “governing body”, says—

The legal situation, with which we should be concerned at this stage during the Committee Stage where we are making a law, would mean that it is possible for the Minister, simply by giving notice to a person such as the principle of the school, to take over a State-aided school. I maintain that that is not sufficient. I can see no reason why the hon. the Minister is reluctant to accept the principal of advertising for the benefit of their wider community. Even on the basis that the initiative comes from the community or the people who are running the school, there might well be a conflict of interests within that community. A section of the community might not want the State-aided school to be taken over. I believe that those people who might have contributed to the construction of the school, are entitled to some notice as to what is being intended by the Government in the taking over of such a school. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is so reluctant to accept that wider notice should be given. To me it seems to be a perfectly reasonable request.

Mr. Chairman, we wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave. I want to point out to the hon. member for Umlazi that in no way are we suggesting that the State wishes to act in any clandestine manner. This is, to my mind, the furthest removed from our minds. What does concern us in these benches, as the hon. member for Musgrave has outlined it, is that the widest possible publicity should be given to any change that takes place in respect of a State-aided school within the Indian community. After all, we enjoy many “mod-cons” in the form of our newspapers that are delivered to us daily. To talk about the Government Gazette is, quite frankly, as I said in my Second Reading speech, totally inadequate. When one considers the Government Gazette as such, just who reads the Government Gazette in the Indian community? Therefore I am not exactly enthralled with the idea of notice being published in the Government Gazette. However, I wholeheartedly support the thought that it should be published in a newspaper circulating in that particular area so that everybody concerned will have every chance and every possibility of seeing such notice.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there is going to be a conflict in respect of Sastri College. He is definitely going to have a problem with Sastri College. I think there are people in the Indian community who are going to be most upset by the fact that it is intended Sastri College is going to be moved and is going to become part of the M. C. Sultan College. This is a take-over. Has this take-over been given the widest possible publicity? I do not believe that it has. The only way this can be done in a proper and effective manner is through the medium of a newspaper that circulates amongst the Indian community. This is not an onerous thing we are asking of the hon. the Minister. After all, other Government departments do this in some fashion or form. Surely, it is correct to say that the intention should always be made known to every single person who may be affected. I take the point made by the hon. member for Musgrave, that there may be a conflict of interest within the community. One may have a group of people who at one stage governed or administered a school. This school has since found its way into the hands of another group of people and this latter group now feel that the ownership of the school should pass out of their hands completely. This may be in conflict with the original group who founded or initiated the establishment of the school.

Then there can be no agreement.

The hon. the Minister says then there can be no agreement, but if the hon. the Minister makes an announcement, as he presently envisages to do, it is only going to be the second group that is going to be aware of the situation. How does the first group get to know about it? There is no public announcement whereby the group who is going to feel aggrieved will get to know of the intention to take over the school. If it is properly advertised in a newspaper circulating in the area, the first group will have no argument as the notice would have been published and they would have seen it. Surely the hon. the Minister can see this is an argument with foundation.

Mr. Chairman, I would understand the difficulties that the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Umhlanga have with this if it were in fact the practice or the intention of the Government to take over schools on its own initiative and override roughshod the wishes of the communities concerned. But one should take into account that the practice has been that no school has ever been taken over on the initiative of the Government. It has always been done at the request of the school’s governing body of the community concerned, because, as members of the Indian Council have expressed it, that particular school is backward in relation to Government schools. It is also important to note that all these amendments to the existing Act have been discussed with the members of the Indian Council. Most of them have their approval and are made even at their request …

Not this particular one.

I discussed it this afternoon with certain members of the Indian Council, including the spokesman on education of the Indian Reform Party. After discussion he could quite see the point that it has never happened and that this is not the intention. There is also the assurance of the hon. the Minister that the Government will not do so on its own initiative. Under the present practice, by the time that the takeover is agreed to by the Government, it is purely a formality and at that time there is no point in advertising any more in the Government Gazette or any other publication. I quite agree with the hon. member for Umhlanga that from this point of view advertising in the Government Gazette would indeed serve very little purpose, because ordinary members of the public who would possibly be interested are not the sort of people who read the Government Gazette.

What about the newspapers?

Now, since this is done at the request of the governing body of the school, who after all know who the patrons, donors, etc., of the school are, surely the onus to let these patrons, donors and the Parent-Teachers Association know that it is going to request the department to take over the school, lies with these people who are going to make the request to ensure that the people who ought to know, are informed. They can do that by whatever means they wish. They can write to the various donors, patrons and the Parent-Teachers Association, they can call a meeting of all these people or they can advertise it on their own accord. If they fail to do this before making the request they do not take the wishes of their community into account and surely that is a matter between them and their community. I do not think that this is the right way to do it as the amendment suggests because that seems to me to be a rather patronizing way of doing it. Surely this whole Bill is designed to bring about a greater measure of equal advantages for the Indian community vis-à-vis the White community and with that goes the same kind of responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Benoni makes the whole thing sound much too simple. Not one hon. member in the Government benches, although we still have to hear the hon. the Minister, has given a reason as to why they are afraid of advertising in a newspaper while they advertise in the Government Gazette. It is not a question of what the intention might be. There may be the best intentions in the world, but the clause we are dealing with says—

take over a school. The clause specifically states that the Minister may take over the school. It may be the practice that the request comes from the authorities governing the school. That may well be the practice. I can see that in a number of cases. But the fact is that this clause is giving the Minister the power to take over State-aided Indian schools. We on these benches believe that it is a simple enough request that there should be wider notice given to the community at large. I have yet to hear the reason why that should not be done.

Mr. Chairman, there are two issues here which I believe we are losing sight of. Firstly, we are dealing with human beings. Secondly, through this amending Bill we are making a law. Surely, it behoves us, in dealing with people and in making a law to ensure that the best law possible is made. This is what is debated across the floor of this House when legislation is discussed. When we talk about amending legislation, we in the Opposition benches look at it and if we feel it is an improvement we support it Here we are attempting to improve what the hon. the Minister has proposed. We are attempting to improve the situation. We do not see any spooks in the cupboard, we do not see any clandestine arrangements or anything of that sort happening. We are only trying to improve the situation. Let us do it now, because it will be better that way.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting little discussion. I am particularly grateful to the hon. members for Umhlanga and Benoni for their contributions. I think they have made the matter perfectly clear. There is very little for me to add, except to emphasize that I appreciate the problems the hon. members for Musgrave and Umhlanga have in this regard. If their problems were founded on facts and a correct interpretation of this Bill, I would immediately have conceded that they had a case and would have accepted their amendments. The hon. member for Musgrave has told us that a notice to the principal of the school is not a notice to the community. I agree with him whole-heartedly. After all, teachers of the Indian Affairs Department are employees of the department and if we were to give notice to the principal of the school, we would be giving notice to ourselves. That would be rather ridiculous. That is why the Bill provides that notice should be given to the chairman of the governing body. That is what it amounts to.

What is the definition of a governing body?

The principal is not a member of the governing body.

Who is the person in control of the school?

In this sense the person in charge of the school is the chairman of the governing body. The hon. member must accept my word for it. The principal is the employee of the Department of Indian Affairs and he is not the man in control of the school. He is in control of the staff. The governing body is a different body, and the chairman of that body is the man who gets the notice.

You must change the definition in the Act.

I am sorry, but there seems to be a complete misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member. That is why I said that if his interpretation were correct I would have agreed with him. The same applies to the hon. member for …

Umhlanga.

… Umhlanga. My Zulu is a bit rusty. I am not the White Zulu in the House. The main problem of the hon. member for Umhlanga is that I am going to be in terrible trouble with an institution such as Sastri College particularly, but this Bill can never be applicable to Sastri College. This Bill deals with State-aided institutions. Sastri College is an institution which is fully owned and controlled by the Department of Indian Education and is not State-aided. If the problem which the hon. member fears, arises, it will not fall within the ambit of this Bill, but will have to be provided for separately under other legislation.

I used it as a hypothetical example.

No, the hon. member stated it as an actual fact. He even warned me that I would have trouble in respect of the Sastri College. He was adamant that this was a case in point. My difficulty is that I am debating against two hon. members who misunderstand the Bill. If their misunderstanding were correct, I would have agreed with them, but now I cannot agree with them.

There is another misunderstanding on their part, although they do not say it. They argue that people must have the widest possible knowledge so that they can object to the possible take-over of the school. However, the practice has been, according to the law, that we do not give advance notice. This particular notice to which we are referring, is a notice which appear in the Government Gazette after negotiations have taken place. In terms of these new proposals notice is now given to the chairman of the governing body again, after negotiations have been completed. It is merely to advise that negotiations have been completed and that the school will now be taken over. It does not call for objections to be lodged. I therefore do not understand what the argument is about. I am here to try to assist and to accept amendments which serve a purpose. So I really feel, with great respect to those two hon. members and with gratitude to the two hon. members on this side of the House who have put the case so well, that this amendment is not necessary as it cannot serve the purpose they wish it to serve and as it cannot deal with the problem they have in mind. I should like to ask them that perhaps we should go over to the discussion of another matter.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the explanation given by the hon. the Minister as to why he is unable to accept this amendment. Part of his argument is that we on this side of the House interpret this provision incorrectly. He said that in any case, as far as he was concerned, the notice would be sent directly to the chairman of the governing body after negotiations had taken place with the governing body and agreement had been reached. Even if the governing body is quite willing to allow the take-over, we on this side of the House go out from the assumption that it is fundamental that a school does not just belong to the governing body as such, but also to the community. The community at large may be totally unaware of the difficulties and the circumstances which have forced the governing body to enter into negotiations with the hon. the Minister for the take-over. This is the one point. On the other hand the community may just be slightly aware of it, but does not fully appreciate or realize the importance of it.

This is such a reasonable amendment that I cannot see why the hon. the Minister is reluctant to accept it. All this amendment does it to create a closer link between the community and the governing body. Even if the hon. the Minister is correct in saying that in practice it is done on the initiative of the governing body and that notice is sent to the chairman, we still feel that wider publicity should be given to it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member persists in asking me to do something which is not necessary. I am not here to take the taxpayers money and to pay it to newspapers. During this session we have had a long argument about the fact that it is not the function of the Government to subsidize newspapers. [Interjections.] It is unnecessary to put these advertisements in newspapers. I want to ask hon. members to listen to me when I read this particular clause. Clause 4 of the Bill reads as follows—

1. (1) The Minister may, in consultation with the Minister of Finance and after negotiations and agreement…

It only happens after negotiation and agreement—

Not with the principal—

Now read the definition of “governing body” in the Act.

Surely, that is perfectly clear. I do not give notice before agreement has been reached. If I give notice after agreement has been reached, it serves no purpose except to let people know that an agreement has been reached. It does not give people an opportunity to object or take any

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not agree that in terms of the existing Act the definition of “governing body” may imply one person and one person only?

It may consist of one person, but because of the very nature of the governing body he still has to be representative of the body of people who are responsible for the existence of that school. It does not just happen. He does not, like Venus, jump out of the surf. He is elected by the people who are responsible for that school. He represents them. He is in the same position as the public officer of a public company. I really cannot see why hon. members persist with this amendment. I do not think I have to give anymore answers. I really think we have exhausted this point.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 8, in line 12, after “question” to insert:
   , provided that no other posts within the service are available to him
2. (2) on page 8, in line 19, after “question” to insert:
   , provided that, unless such person has been found guilty of gross misconduct, the Minister shall second or transfer such person to another establishment under his control.

I should like to motivate my first amendment by saying that we feel that this is for the protection of the teacher, because it has to do with the person who may be discharged from the department by the Minister. Subparagraph (b) deals in particular with the person who is discharged by virtue of the fact that his post has been abolished or because there has been a reduction, a reorganization or rearrangement of the staff of the school in question. It appears to us that an unnecessary situation is being created here in that there could be a victimization of an individual by virtue of circumstances that are beyond his control. He could find himself out of work because of circumstances that pertain at particular schools. And it is for this reason that we add the words “provided that no other posts within the service are available to him”. We wish to add these words in order to protect the teacher and to ensure that he is not left without a job because of something that is completely beyond his control.

The amendment which I have moved to subparagraph (d) deals with a slightly different case in that it has to do with the discharge by the Minister of an individual who may, by virtue of his actions, be detrimental to the efficiency or the economy at the school in question. This may be due to the fact that an individual who has been placed in a position that he cannot really hold down. He does not have the qualifications, or he may have the qualifications, but does not have the know-how to really hold it down. It is just not in his make-up. This poor chap has to be put off by virtue of the fact that he is simply not suitable for the job. Here, too, we feel that he should be protected; and hence my amendment that “unless such person has been found guilty of gross misconduct, the Minister shall second or transfer such person to another establishment under his control”. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will see the validity of the request and realize that we are not asking for anything untoward. We are merely asking for something that will protect the Indian teacher because, after all, he deserves it. The hon. the Minister may argue that this is not in the existing legislation applicable to White or Coloured teachers, but we counter that with the observation I made earlier, namely that we have to seek at all times to improve the legislation. This is what we hope to do with the two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, it is said that a word to the wise is enough. With the greatest respect to the hon. member for Umhlanga, I do not think he read this legislation properly. Clause 8 deals very clearly and thoroughly with the question of the discharge of people at some stage of retirement. If one looks at the reference to a person of the age of 65 years, as contained in the proposed section (1) as well as the reference in subsection (3) where specific reference is made to a person of 60 years and a person of 50 years, surely it is logical that the Act is not dealing here with ordinary circumstances, that the Act is not dealing arbitrarily with a person at a stage when he is at the height of his career and is then discharged for the reasons set out in subsection (4)(a) to (e). This is not applicable at all. The legislation here deals specifically with a person who has already reached a certain stage of his life. The logic of this whole matter is simply that the Minister will, after all, not discharge or retire a person on pension if there is still work for him in the department. Surely it is only logical that that person will still be utilized. It is a waste of money to simply discharge a person on pension, to make no further use of his services and give him a pension without his having to work for it, while he can still render years of good service. I can in no way see or support the logic of the amendments, and nor do I think that they have any merit.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the discussion and the hon. member for Roodepoort gave a comprehensive reply to this particular matter. However, I should like to explain it once again. The first statement I want to make, is that it appears strange to me that the hon. member for Umhlanga chooses these two subsections to object to, because they are not part of the amendment of the original Act. It is nothing new. This is something which has been in the existing legislation for a long time. If one looks at section 15 of the original Act, Act No. 61 of 1965, one will see that subsection (1) reads—

†This is for several reasons, and reason (c) is—

and (e)—

I want to suggest that if hon. members want me to take their amendment seriously— seeing that this Act has been in effect for 14 years—I would have expected them to bring me one example of where an injustice was done in terms of this section, one example where things went wrong. If in 14 years in dealing with 9 000 teachers one never experienced such a difficulty, then surely there is no justification for the amendments.

I would also like to say that it is quite self-evident that if a teacher loses his position because his post is abolished or there is a reduction, re-organization or re-apportionment of staff, as is common practice in the Public Service, one would first attempt to place such a person somewhere else, taking into account his qualifications and his comparative deserts.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.