intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by placing on record my thanks and appreciation for the contributions by hon. members who participated in this long debate. I wish to state that it is often frustrating for Ministers to have to reply to contributions in debates of this nature. In the nature of things, the time limit makes it imperative that one should devote one’s attention primarily to the criticism levelled at the budget by hon. members on the opposite side of the House. I say this is often a frustrating experience because one would also like to deal in greater detail with the speeches made by other hon. members in such a debate, speeches that bear testimony to a close analysis of the budget, concrete and positive suggestions for the improvement of the various services, and also appreciation for what is being done for the country by the various main and subsiduary operating branches of the Railways. In this respect I could refer appropriately to the very interesting and effective overall picture which the hon. member for Witwatersberg painted of the activities of the S.A. Railways and its associated services. I wish to thank him for the scientific way in which he made this analysis, particularly since he applied the correct norms in determining the success or failure of the activities of the S.A. Railways, namely those which were in the interests of the country and promoted national objectives.

Similarly, I could refer to the contribution made by the hon. member for Von Brandis, and his analysis of the objectives and the operating activities, financing, and determination of priorities of the S.A. Railways and the motivation of employees, and also to his plea in respect of the more extensive employment of people of other race groups on the S.A. Railways. I could also refer to the contribution made by the hon. member for Kimberley South, particularly in these times in which the world finds itself in respect of energy in general and liquid energy in particular. I wish to tell the hon. member that I have great appreciation for the thorough-going study he has made of the subject, and also for the way in which he presented his case here. As regards his request with regard to solar energy installations in homes I wish to give him the assurance that funds for the installation of such units could be approved in the form of loans to the home-owners in terms of the scheme.

What was also particularly interesting, was the lesson by the hon. member for Langlaagte, a real object-lesson, when he explained to hon. members opposite how one really calculates depreciation. I agree with him, and I am pleased that he was able to provide the professional advice for which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti made such a moving plea. Now that hon. will be able to consider and analyse documents effectively in future. The hon. member also referred to the question of the situation of industrial complexes in close proximity to Black residential areas. In this particular respect the hon. member is of course correct, but he will appreciate that this is a planning function that can more appropriately be dealt with by the department concerned. In any event, I support the idea that we should keep the distance which people have to travel to and from their work as short as possible so that they can get home more easily and so that their productivity can also be increased.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North also made a very interesting speech and I wish to congratulate him on it. He made the point that the S.A. Railways, in its planning, should meet the demands and often those of the future as well. He noted with appreciation the increase in productivity levels over the past few years, the fuel conservation, as well as the activities in the workshops, and the skills displayed there. Let me tell him in this particular connection that I, too, was surprised to see the extent of the skills in the various branches of technology and sciences in our workshops. I also wish to thank him for accompanying me on a visit to the workshops in his district. The more often we avail ourselves of the opportunity of visiting the employees of the Railways—which is, after all, a national institution—in their work situation, the more it will motivate these people to do even better than in the past.

The hon. member for Kempton Park has the Jan Smuts Airport in his constituency and that was of course his subject. He referred to the high standard of our Airways, and particularly to the high standard which the people in the Airways are maintaining. He referred to the part which they play as ambassadors for South Africa abroad. Furthermore, he referred to our safety record and also to the need for the training of pilots. I shall come back to that later.

In my opinion the hon. member for Umhlatuzana dealt effectively with the argument that we should discontinue the catering service because we would in that way be saving on staff. The staff on our aircraft are not there primarily to act as stewards, but to render other services to the passengers, in emergencies as well which, as he also stated, have on occasion arisen.

The hon. member for Tygervallei dealt very sympathetically with the working conditions of the Railway officials, and with the conditions of Railway pensioners, and I wish to thank him for that. He furnished this House with full details—which also served as a reply to the hon. member for Simonstown in this regard—of what has already been done for these people in the recent past.

This hon. member, as a person who has become the spokesman for the industries of the Western Cape, also noted with appreciation the decrease of 20% in the unit container rate on imported and local traffic. I wish to tell him that his own representations in this particular regard made a by no means insignificant contribution to what has happened in this respect The hon. member also asked whether it was not possible for my department to assist the private sector with advice on the packing of containers. The marketing division can do that. I shall deal a little more fully with the request in a moment.

I am experiencing very real problems with the hon. Opposition, for it seems to me that they did not discuss their approach in their caucus, and I am only now addressing the official Opposition. The hon. member for Musgrave said the budget was “dull” and the hon. member for Orange Grove said it was “shocking”. Well, it cannot be shocking and dull at the same time. Hon. members can ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she thinks that is possible. [Interjections.] I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Musgrave on the restrained manner in which he formulated his case.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Durban Central is just like a finch in a willow tree. He just makes noises which make no sense. I find that strange things have happened in this debate. One hon. member advocated that we should dispense with refreshments, while another hon. member said we should improve the quality of the breakfast. It is difficult to reconcile the various standpoints of members in the same party.

I wish to proceed to reply at once to a question which the hon. member for Orange Grove put to me. His question relates to a report which appeared in The Argus, and in other newspapers of the Argus Group as well. In the process this report was also taken up by other newspapers. I am pleased the hon. member drew my attention to this particular report. The reason for that is in the first place that it is my standpoint that when the Railways budget is presented to this House and it forms the subject of a debate, hon. members of the House are in the first place entitled to be informed in this House of developments on the S.A. Railways itself. Secondly it is also my standpoint that for this particular reason, information should not be furnished outside Parliament which has not been furnished to Parliament itself in the first place. I take it I have the hon. member’s support in this specific connection. It is important that the S.A. Railways should maintain good relations with the Press at all times. In fact, any business undertaking has to do that. However, I went into the report and the alleged facts that appeared in it, and I think I owe it to the hon. member to furnish the facts. I wish to deal with the various aspects of the report. The first is the allegation that the General Manager of the Railways made a statement to the newspaper concerned. According to the assurance I obtained from the General Manager of the Railways, he did not conduct any interview at all with the Press on this particular subject. Nor did he, in respect of the subject discussed in the report, provide the Press with any information. What does happen from time to time is that reporters do their own research on developments, in this particular case on the Railways itself. Over a period of time they make enquiries from Railway officials on such developments. The information obtained from spokesmen for the Railways in this process is normally released—and this is also relevant here—with the terminology. “The General Manager has instructed”, although he himself was never involved in the matter. I think hon. members will appreciate that this could cause the General Manager of the Railways to find himself in serious trouble, as in fact happened in this particular case. Consequently, I have issued the following instructions which will apply in future: That during the Parliamentary session and during the consideration of the budget of the Railways and its associated services here in the House and in the Other Place, the people who express opinions on the subject of the budget—and that implies all the activities of the S.A. Railways—shall be limited to members of this House. Secondly, that when information is or has to be supplied by the Railways’ public relations department, the name of the spokesman who supplies the information should preferably be stated so that no embarrassment shall be caused to other spokesmen or other people.

In respect of the amount of R2 000 million that was linked to the new visionary views of the reporter, I wish to be quite canded with hon. members. It was not possible for me or my department to ascertain, in this connection, where the figure of R2 000 million actually came from. I wish to give the assurance that hon. members are not committed to that figure as a result of the report. To me it seems to be the kind of figure which an ambitious reporter would suck out of his thumb as an aggregate indication of a finite order figure. I wish to give hon. members the assurance that the amount does not represent any planning or management figure of my department. Nor is there any specific plan or scheme which should have commenced on or with effect from a specific date in the past, or will in future, and to which a fixed amount could be linked. As hon. members know, the renewal and modernizing of passenger services is an ongoing process, and new technology is constantly being applied as and when it becomes available and its implementation is feasible.

Now let us look at the question of the super main-line coaches also referred to in the report. What are the facts? A few years ago, as part of a management objective, the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Railways ordered an investigation of the lay-out of main-line passenger coaches. As a result of various developments and adaptations, it was possible to design a coach which would contain one more compartment. In respect of first-class and third-class coaches it would merely mean an increase in the carriage of passengers, whereas in the case of second-class coaches it would be divided among extra passengers and a shower cubicle, something which second-class carriages have not had up to now. A considerable number of third-class carriages of this design are already in the service of the S.A. Railways. It is therefore not a development involving “scrap all and start anew”. We have now invited tenders for the first-class and second-class carriages which I have referred to. These tenders will be considered and submitted to me in the usual manner.

I also wish to say something about the super suburban trains which have been referred to. The design of our present suburban trains dates from the early ’fifties and new designs have been under consideration since as long ago as 1970. I hasten to add that a design of this nature is not something which we could undertake lightly, and for a simple reason. The acceptance and the practical implementation of the design, means that should be retained for the next 20 years or more since it has to be used over that period. That is from an economic point of view. I want to refer the hon. member to what already appears in the Brown Book. He will find that during the 1971-’72 financial year, against item 1151, provision was made for three prototype electric suburban train sets. As a result of the work done in consequence of this appropriation, the evaluations made and the information gained, the requirements became clearly apparent, and item was changed from year to year so that it appeared as item no. 1177 for the 1978-’79 financial year—the past year—and indeed for 11 suburban electric train units of a new design—the so-called “new generation suburban train sets”. Although research and investigation of this nature, can never really be concluded—because there are always interesting and new developments—it has already been decided to invite tenders in this regard.

Then, finally I am referring to the “top level” committee with instructions “to scrap everything and start afresh”. That is what the hon. member is worried about. It might be good advice for him in another sense of the word.

You are probably looking at the NP.

I hasten to say that the average speed of trains is influenced by various factors and in the case of suburban trains in particular there has not been any noticeable improvement in this respect over the years. One of the major factors that was, and indeed still is, responsible for this, is the increase in the number of stations with connected points which of course limit the speed. Approximately a year ago, a multidisciplinary group was constituted to give attention on an ad hoc basis to all the factors that have a detrimental effect on the speed of suburban trains. Its instructions were to free itself from existing assumptions—not from existing rolling stock—to tackle all problems from scratch and to bring out a report on whether or not an improvement could be effected.

I also wish to refer to the high speeds which would shortly be reached, according to the report. Parliament has long been aware of the fact that certain work is being done by Mr. Scheffel and others, and also that members of the Select Committee made a trip together on a high-speed pilot train a few years ago.

Yes, I was on it myself.

The hon. member for Orange Grove was present. So this is nothing new. The fact of the matter is that it is technically possible to reach higher speeds. However, the implementation of a higher speed is problematic. When the same railway line has to be used for all stations, for both express trains and for all-stations trains, one can appreciate that the slowest train determines the speed of the fastest one. That is related to the foregoing and has to be viewed against that background. In this connection, it is intended to start with the first tests in the near future, and it is envisaged that there will be test speeds of approximately 150 km/h within approximately two years. That disposes of the report.

Since it is not possible for me, because of the time limits, to deal with all the speeches by all the hon. members in detail and to reply to them as I should have liked to have done, I have decided to follow a different procedure for purposes of reply. That is namely to deal with the subjects which hon. members dealt with in their speeches.

†Mr. Speaker, before I do so, I think I should give hon. members some indication as to what I consider the basic elements in the budget are and also to give an indication as to how I suggest the objectives that we as a country would like to give priority to, are being served in the budget. Let me say immediately that for the first time a Minister of Transport had in-depth discussions on his level with the members of the private sector and also with representatives of the private sector organizations. This was for the simple reason, firstly, to establish what their requirements are from the S.A. Railways and, secondly, to establish what their projections are for the future. In line with Government thinking and policy I have tried to endeavour, after consultation and after discussion with the private sector, to put the emphasis on the most important economic priorities for this particular year. Let me immediately concede that in many cases economic priorities are conflicting and that it is therefore a case of choosing between these priorities, but I am quite prepared for all members to test the extent to which we have succeeded in trying to synchronize the objectives of the S.A. Railways with those that are considered to be essential for the country as a whole. Before we can do this we must get clarity for ourselves as to what these priorities are for the purpose of our discussion today. I suggest that the priorities are the following: Firstly, to stimulate growth without sacrificing price stability; secondly, to create job opportunities for a growing number of people in the labour market and, thirdly, to counteract or to curb inflation. In the assessment as to whether we did, and if we did, to what extent, succeed in attaining these objectives, I contend, firstly, that I believe that the budget reflects the Government’s confidence in the economy of the country in the short term and also in the long term. Secondly, notwithstanding the criticism that has been levelled against the budget, I submit that the relatively small tariff increases—and I shall explain this in a moment—will not have a severe or a retarding effect on the predicted growth rate for this year. Thirdly, I believe that the further concessions, justifiable concessions, to the workers in the S.A. Railways will stimulate growth by the mere fact that there will be more money that can be spent on consumer goeds and also durable goods. Fourthly, I believe that adequate investment in the transportation infrastructure will ensure that the greater demand for transport services will be met by the S.A. Railways. There is not a single hon. member who will not subscribe to the principle that adequate service in this regard is a prerequisite for economic growth and development. On account of the Railways’ relatively high credit-worthiness no problems are being anticipated or experienced in finding the necessary funds either on the external or the internal capital markets. In view of this I should like to give hon. members the assurance, in particular the hon. member for Musgrave and the various other hon. members who have posed this question, that the budget will not retard economic growth. Indeed I submit in all fairness that there are many positive aspects in the budget aimed at stimulating economic growth. I shall deal with that very briefly.

As I see it, the S.A. Railways will make a contribution to stimulate growth mainly in two areas. Apart from the fact that the staff, who have given their full support to the efforts to minimize expenditure and therefore to curb inflation while over a long period they themselves have experienced a decrease in real salaries, are entitled to these concessions, the increased labour bill will increase consumer spending. These concessions, in the form of a parcel in respect of which I have given an explanation when I introduced the budget—concessions amounting to more than R300 million per year—would certainly give stimulus to an economic revival.

I want to refer to a second aspect in this regard, and that is the question of additional purchasing power. It is the policy of the S.A. Railways to purchase only those goods overseas which are not locally manufactured—for instance aircraft. As the Railways Administration is as a result of all its activities a large purchaser of a wide range of consumer and capital goods, it is, as I see it, only logical that domestic demand for both these ranges of commodities will be stimulated. In fact, almost the entire amount of the operating budget and the major portion of the capital budget will flow directly or indirectly to the domestic market during the year 1980-’81 and should therefore not only stimulate the economy by way of increased consumer spending, but should also lead to increased fixed investment in industry.

I now want to have a look at the question of unemployment and the objective of creating job opportunities. What is the position in this particular regard? An increase in economic activities leads to more work opportunities, especially when there are increases in fixed investment. I think it is therefore only natural and logical that the efforts of the Railways to stimulate economic revival will have a favourable effect in regard to work opportunities. I submit it would have that effect in two ways. Firstly, it is common knowledge to all hon. members that the S.A. Railways, being the largest single employer in the country, by itself creates additional working opportunities for people. Because of the expected expansion in traffic, it is expected that the approximately 363 000 employees, which were in service in December 1979, will during the next financial year increase to slightly more than 268 000, an increase in the staff of the Railways of some 5 000 people. I submit this increase is within the framework of the Government’s policy and objectives to create opportunities. This increase will consist of approximately 3 000 non-Whites and 2 000 Whites.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister to repeat the figures in respect of the number of employees in service in December 1979, as they did not sound accurate to me?

I indicated that at the end of December last year 263 000 employees were employed by the S.A. Railways.

You said 363 000.

I am sorry. It was a slip of the tongue. It is believed that the ratio between labour input and total input should be on a sound footing and that capital should only be spent when necessary. I wish to assure hon. members that economic justification studies are therefore—and they are necessary—undertaken for all major projects undertaken by the S.A. Railways.

I want to say that although this is a very vexed question and although efforts are being made to create as many jobs as possible for people, it must not be done at the expense of productivity.

*If hon. members would now refer to page 7 of the General Manager’s report, they would find that the levels of productivity have been increased by an average of 2,11% per annum in recent years, something which I claim to be a very good performance taking into account the general situation in the country, because in our country, in any event, there is not a very favourable record as far as productivity is concerned.

†Let me assure hon. members in this regard that the calculation of this increase is based on scientific principles which have been approved by the National Productivity Institute and that it is a reliable reflection of the increased productivity. Let me come to the question of inflation and to point out to what extent we counteract inflation.

*The hon. member for Orange Grove as well as the hon. member for East London North, levelled the accusation that the budget was inflationary. I shall come back to that in a moment. The hon. members will remember that I stated—and this is confirmed by the President of Assocom—that in the nature of things the Railways is affected by the problems in the economy. That is undoubtedly true. It is also true, however, that the Railways has an influence on the trend in the economy. It is impossible to introduce a budget of approximately R6 000 million and to think that it would not have an effect on the economic life of the country. Of course, it has. That is self-evident.

†Let me come to the first point in this regard. The hon. members will understand, in fact they will know, that in respect of Railway input, cost has increased dramatically since the last tariff increase on 1 April 1978. The price of fuel, to which I have referred and for which, according to the suggestion of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, I was responsible, has increased over the relatively short period of one year by 159%. By the way, Sir, I shall come later to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in this regard.

The concessions to the staff in the form of a package deal amount to R300 million for one year. If one adds to this the other expenditure, what does one find? One finds that the weighted average of these costs increases since 1978-’79, when the last increase in tariffs was announced, is calculated at some 38% while expenditure in total only increased by 41,6%. As against this it was only necessary—I should like to stress this—to supplement total revenue by 9% by means of tariff increases in order to balance the books for the coming year. What does it imply? It implies that all the other cost increases have been absorbed by the S.A. Railways in its activities. In fairness I ask any hon. member on the other side to show me an undertaking, supposed to run on commercial lines, that can pride itself on an achievement of this nature.

This is not only well below the expected inflation rate for 1980-’81, but I believe it is also a remarkable achievement if compared with the accumulated rate of inflation since the last increase in tariffs in 1978.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the supplement of 9% includes the money coming from the Consolidated Revenue Fund?

I am not dealing with that now. I am now dealing only with revenue as reflected in the figures and estimates for this year—the 1980-’81 figures. Allow me to take it slowly. In all fairness, I think the hon. member—and he always used to be a very fair hon. member; I do not know what has happened to him recently—should concede this point to me that this is a major contribution made by the S.A. Railways during the last two years of operation in curbing or combating inflation. In fact, I submit that if everyone else had done the same, the inflation rate may well have been under 10%, generally speaking.

Not everyone else has received R241 million from the Treasury.

But I did not receive it during that year. The hon. member is completely wrong. I did not get it in that year. I am only getting it for the coming year.

You will get it none the less.

Allow me to go on, please.

*I now wish to deal with the separate subjects or themes which were discussed by hon. members. At the moment we are discussing inflation. In his support for my arguments the hon. member for Witwatersberg pointed out that the Railways was to a great extent subjected to cost pressure and had consequently been forced to adjust the rates. In this connection the most important fact is that because we found during the past year that there was a moderate upswing in the economy towards the end of 1978, which also continued during 1979, the Railways did not want to take any steps which would have a detrimental effect on that revival in the economy. Consequently, and in all fairness, my predecessor—and I am indebted and grateful to him for doing so—decided not to announce some of the increases at that stage. It was not because they would not have been justified, but because he wanted to avoid doing so for as long as possible, so that the upswing in the economy could gain momentum. I think that he and the Management of the S.A. Railways should be praised for their actions in this connection, and not criticized. The hon. members for Amanzimtoti, East London North, Green Point and Orange Grove expressed their misgivings at the effects of this budget on the inflation rate. Of course the budget will have an influence on it. After all, I said so at the beginning. I never denied it. I also said that I should like to minimize it as much as possible.

I said that the cost inputs of the S.A. Railways had risen sharply. Allow me to illustrate this. For the information of hon. members I can refer to the rise in the prices of commodities which represent important inputs for the S.A. Railways. Let us take the same period again, the period since 1973. After all, 1973 is an important year and hon. members know why it is important. Not only is it the year in which the world oil crisis began, but it was also the first year of the longest recession in the economies of the industrialized countries of the world. Not only did it have an effect on growth rates, but also on the ability of those countries to generate and develop capital available for foreign loans. There is one thing we should make no mistake about. We in South Africa paid a dearer price for what happened then and for the effect it had on our country than we are prepared to accept.

One of the commodities I want to refer to is fuel. Although the price of crude oil rose by 1 000% during this period, the price of fuel for the S.A. Railways went up by 515%. During the same period the price of electricity rose by 158%. I shall come back to the reason for this later. But first allow me to mention in passing that if Escom had financed its capital programme from revenue in time and on a gradual basis, it would not have experienced the detrimental consequences with which I was confronted when I became Minister of Economic Affairs in 1975. But I shall return to this later. The price of steel rose by 183% and the price of coal by 290%. Let us dispose of this matter now. In 1975 the coal mines were not prepared to invest in the development of coal mines—not in Natal either—unless we would approve a specific price for them. As a result they undertook to reinvest a certain portion of the profits in the development of coal mines. What did that mean? It meant that, at a time when things were very difficult, South Africa was able to use its revenue from coal exports when there was a capital outflow from this country. I want to ask those hon. members, when we deal with these matters, please to state the facts, or at least to confess our ignorance. But one really does not do things the way those hon. members do.

I come now to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, and he must please listen to me now. During the corresponding period the labour costs of the Administration rose by 117%. I just wish to give hon. members a general indication now of what happened. As a general indication of how costs rose I just wish to mention that the consumer price index rose by 99% between 1973 and 1979, while the wholesale price index rose by 128%. An interesting fact in this specific connection is that the wholesale price index for imported goods rose by 157% over the same period. What is the position of the Railways Administration in this specific connection? During that period the rates increased by only 68%.

I expect hon. members to identify weaknesses, but I also expect them to do so on the basis of recognized statistics and norms. Only then can we have a meaningful discussion on a budget of this magnitude.

But that they will never do.

Let me furnish a few prices, and one in particular which affects that hon. member as well. Hon. members will then be able to understand my doubts in connection with the ambiguity of the standpoint of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in particular. He will not deny that he was one of the people who not only asked for a drastic increase in the sugar price, but also asked for a drastic widening of the producers’ profit margin. That is true, is it not?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why?

No. I am now asking that hon. member a question. What are the facts? Whilst the Administration’s tariffs increased over that period by 68%, the price of white sugar, a commodity he produces, increased by 182%.

What was the price increase over the previous eight years?

I was not there. I was not Minister of Transport Affairs then either. [Interjections.] The point is that I thought that the request of the hon. member was justified. I am not suggesting that it was not justified. I am not accusing him. It nevertheless had a cost-raising effect. That is the point I am trying to make. It also had that effect as far as the consumer was concerned, because there are very few consumers who do not use this commodity. In fact, the hon. member would know that I had to make a special arrangement for a special sugar price for the export marketing activities of the canning industries. All I am asking is that a fair conclusion should be drawn and that all the facts should be given. [Interjections.]

It is a very small quantity overall.

Of course, but there are many others.

Will you concede that the price of sugar actually dropped twice?

But I can give the hon. member figures in regard to others as well. All I am trying to suggest is that in this case, because the price has been dropped, there are circumstances why it had to be increased to this extent.

*The people who write about price increases may find it interesting if I point out—my friends of the Press will not mind—that the price of Sunday newspapers rose by 166% and of daily newspapers by 145%. I do not know whether these services are comparable. The hon. members must decide for themselves. But I do not wish to take this any further either. The point I want to make is that the total price increases in general are far higher than is the case in respect of the Railways. This could only be achieved by increased activity, the critical analysis of expenditure and great dedication on the part of the people who work for this mighty organization. For that I want to thank them. That is why I also expect hon. members opposite to do so. It ought to be clear to hon. members that the S.A. Railways, through its effective performance, succeeded for a long time in absorbing the cost increases on the receiving side. It was able to do so for the reasons I have enumerated.

As for the increase of expenditure for 1980-’81 I have already stated—and hon. members are aware of this—that the most important items were the following: The additional R300 million for salaries and other concessions; add to this an additional R85 million for fuel, for which the hon. member will certainly not hold me responsible; R109 million for other consumable stock and materials; R122 million for interest on capital and depreciation; and the fact that we closed with a deficit in 1979-’80. Then we must realize that, despite an expected increase of 10,4%, or R381 million, in revenue—this was prior to the increase in rates—there was no alternative but to increase the rates.

With reference to the remark made by the hon. member for East London North on the increase in the expected expenditure under the head “Administrative and General Charges”, I want to give him the facts and I also want to ask him to be fair. It is not fair to compare the expected expenditure for 1980-’81 with the initially estimated expenditure for the previous financial year. Surely it must be tested against the revised estimates. Surely there is a material difference between the two. The revised estimates represent the working results of the year against which one measures things. Surely one cannot measure them against the expected results. That would be extremely unfair. Nevertheless, let me give him the facts. I want to point out that the expenditure under the head “Administrative and General Charges”, apart from the expenditure of the Minister and the General Manager’s offices, also includes the expenditure of, inter alia, the accounting department, the data-processing services and the Railway Police. Consequently these are not services relating specifically to the maintenance and activities of the two offices.

Apart from the salary adjustments, the service bonus and the increased contributions to the Superannuation Fund as a result of the improvements which I announced, the expected increase in expenditure can be attributed primarily to the following: Normal annual scale increases, over and above the increases which I announced; rationalization of salaries and conditions of service by the organization itself; an increase in depreciation owing to increased contributions and the purchase of additional data equipment; and additional vehicles and uniforms as well as supplies and equipment for the police for security purposes. I do not think the hon. member would expect me to cut back on any of these items. If he does, he must tell me where I can effect such cut-backs. Although it is not expected in the coming financial year that an increase in the fuel price, if there is one, will be of the same magnitude as that which we experienced during the previous financial year, I nevertheless wish to bring it to the attention of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that an increase in the price of crude oil, and even if the price does not rise, may result in the Equalization Fund being depleted. I discussed this specific matter with my colleague. While I am on this subject I want to say that in regard to the contribution by the Equalization Fund of 16,75 cents in the increase in the price last year, it was intended to stabilize the price of fuel internally because it was not possible to purchase fuel at official prices. The fact of the matter is that for a specific period we had to purchase 80% of our fuel requirements on the open market at very high premiums.

Does that still happen?

It would not be fair of me to reply to that question. The hon. member should discuss it with my colleague. In the Equalization Fund there was only one additional amount for a purpose other than this, and that was the 1,35 cents which had to be paid to Sasol. I wish to state in all fairness here that there is no other country which was capable, by means of the instruments which it had created, to deal with a situation so quickly and to take decisions so rapidly to initiate a capacity for the generation of liquid fuel within weeks at a cost of R3 500 million. I should like hon. members to acknowledge this.

In all fairness to hon. members and also to the Administration I wish to deal with another important matter which hon. members raised, and that is the method of financing our capital programme. This subject was raised by the hon. members for Orange Grove, Witwatersberg, Amanzimtoti and others, and for the sake of the record I should like to refer to various aspects of this matter. In the first place I wish to state—and I hope hon. members will agree with me—that the S.A. Railways is a State business undertaking in terms of its founding statute. Does the hon. member for Amanzimtoti agree with this?

Yes.

The hon. member says that he agrees. I want to emphasize the fact, for we must also speak with pride of South Africa and its institutions, that the S.A. Railways is a State business undertaking which not only succeeds in balancing its books, but is also one of the few Railway undertakings in the world which is still financially independent. That is an achievement. Underlying this achievement are various factors of which the application of recognized and sound business principles are the most important. I can say this although I have only been in charge of this portfolio for one year. I intend to maintain these principles as long as I hold this portfolio.

In the private sector, which hon. members use as a criterion for our organization and which I would also like to use, the solvency ratio, i.e. the own to foreign capital ratio, serves as a very important yardstick for financial stability and economic viability, but what is even more important: The availability of loans to undertakings is determined by this ratio. Although the ratio differs from one undertaking to another in the private sector the internal financing of capital investment in the private sector is on an average—and I want the hon. member to listen carefully now—approximately 60%, while individual figures are sometimes as high as 90%. In the case of the State undertakings—and this also includes the corporations—the Franzsen Commission recommended in 1970 that approximately 40% of the net capital investment of these undertakings should be financed with internal funds. I want to state today, because I experienced it—and I am not saying this because I want to complain—that the Economic Affairs portfolio during the past 4½ years was absolute hell. Because this did not happen in the case of Escom or in the case of Iscor, we had the phenomenal price increases to which the hon. member referred. I want to say, and I am making no apology for this, that I am grateful that after I left, Escom as well as Iscor were in a better financial position than they were in when I came there.

In the evaluation of the financial policy of the Railways as regards self-financing, I believe it is important that we understand the sensitivity of the S.A. Railways to the economic cycle. It has an effect on our operating and our operating account It is a fact that in times of a downward trend in the business cycle as a result of a slack period in the economy, there is also a downward trend in the quantity of high-rated traffic. Consequently it is important that the fixed to total cost ratio of the Railways should be kept as low as possible. I think hon. members know that interest payments are a very important fixed cost item, and the reduction of such payments is therefore not only of importance to the survival of the Railways as a financially independent institution, but is certainly of basic importance as well to the creation of a relatively lower cost structure in the long term. Surely hon. members will understand, in all fairness, that the utilization of our own funds is in general cheaper than the utilization of funds from external sources. Surely this is true, and will result in a reduction in costs.

As regards the accusation that there is a shift in the burden which a policy of self-financing could entail by burdening the present generation for the benefit of future generations, I can just say that it is definitely not a future burden which is being placed on the present railway users, neither is it on balance to the detriment of the economy. The funds which we require for capital investment and for the financing of our transport infrastructure, seek to meet the demands of the present generation, and without them a recovery of the national economy will not be possible. What are we doing if we hurl arguments of this kind at one another across the floor of this House? If the Railways is expected to remain financially independent and economically viable and to meet the demand for transport, as we may expect, and does not in so doing retard the economic growth of the country, it is not only desirable, but also essential that we shall have to endorse and adopt a policy of a greater measure of internal financing. In this specific connection I should just like to reassure hon. members now. The implementation of this policy takes place with the greatest circumspection and with due regard for the present state of the national economy, as appears from the fact that for the 1980-’81 financial year the net financing revenue is fixed at only 9,4%. This is a percentage which is far below the ceiling of that of the private sector—as I have explained to hon. members, this is approximately 60%—as well as the recommendation of the Franzsen Commission of 1970 in respect of State business undertakings, a recommendation in which the figure suggested was 40%. As appears from the balance sheet of the Railways, the solvency ratio, i.e. the ratio between own capital and foreign capital as at 31 March 1979, the last financial year, was 17%. Now I ask in all fairness: Is it fair if hon. members propagate this myth that these contributions are too large and that, as a result, I am being compelled to increase rates to such an extent that they are inflationary? Surely that is devoid of any reasonable degree of truth. Let me go further. Hon. members could have obtained this information if they had studied the documents which were submitted to them. What is more, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti voted for this on the Select Committee. But do hon. members know what he said? He said his reason for doing so was that he did not have the professional advice that would have enabled him to analyse the documents fully. There is only one inevitable conclusion to be drawn from that, which is that since he voted for this, he has received professional advice. I should like to ask the hon. member this question: Whose advice was it?

His own!

His own? I wonder whether it was not the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South who wrote it for him. I want to warn him that that hon. member knows less about it than he does. He should rather vote the right way on the Select Committee and not say the wrong thing. Then we shall make far more progress.

Let us take the matter a little further. The hon. member for East London North and the hon. member for Hillbrow made a plea for a larger measure of internal loans as a source of finance because, in the first place, there was greater liquidity in the money market and, in the second place, because reasonable interest rates were being charged. Of course that is true in theory, but do hon. members know what I find? For years the criticism levelled at the financial policy of the Government was, inter alia, that the public sector, including the Railways and the State corporations, were too great a share of the total available capital for their purposes and were leaving an insufficient amount for the private sector. They themselves endorsed the book entitled Assault on Private Enterprise.

It is interesting to see how people’s standpoints can change. But what are the true facts? What did the hon. member for East London North say? He spoke of money which could be borrowed in England at an interest rate of 16%. Who would borrow money at 16% Surely we are not fools. We are borrowing money in Switzerland at 6%. The hon. member should instead have spoken with appreciation of the fact that we are in fact doing this. The hon. member must understand how a State is managed, and I can understand his lack of knowledge in this connection. His historical knowledge and his future prospects are both non-existent I am not asking him to be able to see what we are doing in its proper perspective.

I have already discussed the fixed costs which must be kept as low as possible, but in respect of capital expenditure and determining the source of financing, surely this country has created a co-ordinated method of dealing with these matters, in the form of the priority committee. I shall return to this aspect in a moment.

I intend to implement this policy from time to time, taking into consideration the state of the economy, so that it may have the least detrimental and most beneficial effect on the national economy and the activities of the Railways. In this connection I could return to another aspect, and that is the whole question of present costs. Here the hon. member for Amanzimtoti committed a terrible error when he misunderstood the balance sheet of the Railways, and I am not going to say anything hurtful to him on this matter. The hon. member misunderstood it.

[Inaudible.]

It was not misleading. It was misleading only to people who cannot read properly.

It is not fair. There was no asterisk next to that comment.

As a result of the intensified effect of inflation on the replacement price of assets, it has become essential that not only the original investment in assets be recovered by way of depreciation write-offs, but also that provision be made for adequate funds to replace the assets at prevailing prices. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti voted for that. [Interjections.] Not now, but last year already, a few years ago. Now the hon. member is criticizing me when I carry out his decisions. What kind of debate is this? As a matter of interest I just want to point out that both the Dutch Railways and the British Railways (as from 1980) are already applying a system of present costs. Under this system the depreciation rates based on the economic life of the assets are applied to the present replacement prices of assets. As an example of the development of this school of thought in South Africa, I could just mention that the Post Office, made provision in its depreciation provision for higher replacement costs of equipment, while the Price Controller, on the other hand, accepted the same principle for the determination of the prices of certain commodities which fall under price control. For example he accepted this principle in respect of cement and coal. In fact, in respect of coal, he included other elements as well. Therefore this is no new concept. During 1978 the Accountants’ Board issued a set of guide-lines in which it was proposed that depreciation write-offs should be based on replacement values, i.e. on historic costs, adjusted with appropriate price indexes and confirmation thereof by means of five-yearly revaluations—a procedure which is at least in accordance with that of the Railways, except that in the latter case the revaluations will be undertaken on a ten-yearly basis. I am not going to burden the hon. member with figures in this specific regard. If he wants them I can let him have the tables.

As for the progress which the Administration has made in respect of the implementation of the full system of present costs, it is mentioned that the economic life of the assets has already been determined—and here I come to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti—and that the Select Committee, in Resolution No. 2 of its first report, 1979, approved the relevant depreciation scales based on this, and which come into operation on 1 April 1980. I wish to inform the hon. member that I am prepared to carry out his decision on one condition, viz. that he does not quarrel with me about it. It would not be fair.

Finally, as regards the replacement value of assets, the assets are revalued physically/ technically every 10 years. Owing to the magnitude of this task it has been decided to calculate the replacement values of those assets, which could not be revalued physically/technically during the 1980-’81 financial year, by means of the consumer price index. I want to inform the hon. member that I shall do my best to act in accordance with his resolutions.

I do not think I need to deal with the increase in the Renewals Fund balance. I think the hon. member misunderstood it, and I do not think we should take the matter any further now.

Sir, I try my best to understand the hon. member for Hillbrow. Since both of us are ex-lawyers I felt that I would not find it so difficult to understand him, but I am finding it extremely difficult He told me that since the road transportation services would show a deficit in the year under consideration, I should sell them to the private sector. He said since they were going to run into a loss I should sell them to the private sector. I want to ask him—and I shall furnish him with the figures in a moment—whether the private sector would then be able to operate them at a lower cost or a higher cost.

At a lower cost.

I shall give them to him for nothing if he is able to do so at a lower cost.

[Inaudible.]

Please, clergymen must keep out of this.

I can perform a miracle. [Interjections.]

Although the Railways is not being operated on a profit-making basis, it remains a financially independent organization which has a cardinal role to play in the economic welfare of the country. That is why it must be operated on business principles.

I want to bring it to the attention of hon. members that the practice of utilizing contributions from revenue for the financing of capital works is a principle which is contained in section 127 of the South Africa Act of 1909 with the establishment of contributions from revenue to Betterment Fund, and which is also contained in section 104A of the Constitution Act, which authorizes contributions to the Sinking Fund. I have already indicated that it is being proposed to amalgamate the various funds into one revenue reserve which will be used for the partial financing of the capital programme of the Railways.

I wish now to refer to hon. members’ criticism on the budget in general. They said that it was inflationary and would retard growth. I have already dealt with that, but all members will accept that rates increases had to be introduced. Criticism was also expressed in respect of the nature and the introduction of the rate increases, but not one hon. member told me which rate I should reduce, and by how much. The hon. members fired a broadside of bird-shot. All that they produced was a whole lot of generalizations, for example that I could have avoided rate increases if I had done one or more of a whole lot of things. It was said that I should have relied on the growth in traffic, but not one hon. member told me that my forecast of the growth in traffic was too low.

I think it is too low.

What percentage would the hon. member suggest?

I do not know, but when I look at last year’s increase in traffic, I think the hon. the Minister has been conservative in estimating …

But this projection is based on the revised assessments of last year. I can give the hon. member the figures.

The figures are less than half of those of last year.

I would like to give the hon. member the answer.

I did tell you across the floor.

The second thing I should do, according to hon. members, is to abolish apartheid, and the third thing I should do, according to them, is to obtain a smaller percentage of the capital from revenue. I have already dealt with that.

Let us look at the first one. In respect of the increase in traffic, the hon. member for Orange Grove said—he must tell me if I have misunderstood him—that I should take into consideration the fact that the Railways would handle much more traffic, most probably to full capacity, and that this should enable the Railways, with the compensation paid by the State in respect of the socio-economic services and the payment of the subsidy for resettlement areas—an amount of R241 million—to avoid tariff increases during the year. Let us see, in all fairness, whether this is true.

In my budget speech, I described in detail the cost push that the Railway had been experiencing over the past two years and that this alone made a tariff increase inevitable. As far as the increase in traffic is concerned, the hon. member for Orange Grove is right in saying that the total amount of traffic has increased. On the occasion of the previous tariff increase on 1 April 1978, it was estimated that the total traffic—i.e. goods, coal and livestock—during the year 1978-’79 would amount to 152,679 million tons. This, therefore, was the traffic level at which the present tariff level was determined. It is estimated—this is a figure which the hon. member might make a note of—that the traffic level in the year 1980-’81 will be 181,986 million tons; i.e. 29,307 million tons more than the previous level.

My problem is that the increase in the high-rated traffic will be only about 1%, or, in terms of tonnage, only 349 000 tons, while the rest, i.e. almost 99% of the increase, will consist of low-rated traffic. In addition, most low-rated traffic on the Saldanha and Richards Bay lines has been carried at contract tariffs. Since the low-rated traffic is carried mainly at uneconomic tariffs, the increase in the high-rated traffic, the 1% I am talking about, is the only traffic which can really contribute to an increase in the net revenue. Surely a child could understand with an increase of only 349 000 tons in high-rated traffic, it was impossible to avoid tariff increases or even to reduce them in any way.

In his argument about the inflationary effect of the tariff increase, the hon. member for Orange Grove said that the prices of consumer goods would rise much more steeply than would be justified by the direct effect of the tariff increase. Why does the hon. member say so?

Because it always happens that way.

If this is so, the hon. member has a responsibility—surely the Railways cannot be blamed for this—to the people who exploit the situation. Many of those in the business world belong to his party in any case.

But I believe you have some of them in your party too.

Of course. I do not deny it. However, I am prepared to sound this warning. Why does the hon. member blame me for this and why does he not do his duty by appealing to the private sector not to use this as an opportunity for exploiting other people?

You therefore admit that it does happen?

Of course it happens, but if I should do what people suggest and have tariff increases at intervals, it would result in a repetition of the occasions on which people can abuse the public.

*Apart from the fact that the figure involved is not 0,9%, but 0,8%, I concede at once that the possibility exists that tariff increases may be used as an excuse for increasing other prices to a higher level than the tariff increases alone would justify. I ask the hon. member whether he will not join me in an appeal to the effect that the tariff increases should not be exploited in this way.

Various hon. members spoke about the passenger services. One of the hon. members who did so was the hon. member for Simonstown, whose contribution I greatly appreciate, and if I have time, I should like to reply to it. However, the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about a bonanza of R241 million which we received from the Treasury and he said that because of this, it was not necessary to increase passenger fares and especially commuter fares. He also advocated that I should abolish apartheid, but I am not even going to deal with that. In the first place, I want to say that the R241 million is not a bonanza Nor is it a subsidy.

But it means that you are better off than you would have been.

Yes, I am coming to that one. It is compensation paid by the Treasury for services rendered at the request of the Government in certain cases where tariffs cannot be collected in full in relation to cost.

*Does the hon. member agree? Very well, he indicates that he agrees.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I shall come to that.

Your train is very slow today.

An hon. member on the other side alleged that if we had not received the interest exemption of R171 million, nor the R70 million in the form of resettlement subsidies, the total tariff increase would have been 5% higher than the one now contained in my proposals in this House. That is a fact.

In connection with the so-called bonanza of R241 million I should just like to ask the following question. What is the factual position with regard to passenger services? Let me repeat it. The fact is that the estimated loss on the total cost of passenger services—including commuter services—for the 1980-’81 financial year amounts to R504,2 million. If the amount of the tariff increase, which I propose should come into operation on 1 April 1980, i.e. R19 million, is subtracted from this, it still leaves an estimated deficit of R485,2 million. If hon. members wish me to express this in terms of avoidable costs, it would amount to R403,3 million. If the amount of R19 million resulting from the tariff increase is deducted from this, it leaves a deficit of R384,3 million on avoidable costs for 1980-’81. Calculated at the total cost and taking into consideration the R241 million, this would then amount to a loss of R244,2 million. Calculated at avoidable cost, and taking into account the R241 million, it would mean a loss of R143,3 million. Now the hon. member argues that I should use it now. But I have used it already.

Let us examine for a moment the situation with regard to the recovery of costs. I submit that not one hon. member would deny that those losses on the services are too high. The recovery of costs, expressed as a percentage of costs, is as follows: On suburban first-class passenger services, 23% is recovered. On suburban third-class passenger services, the figure is 25%. On mainline first-class passenger services, 26% is recovered, as against 33% in the second class and 62% in the third class. So it is just not possible—and that includes the hon. member for Simonstown—to do what he has requested. It would only mean that we would have to increase the other tariffs even further.

The hon. member for Simonstown also asked for concession tariffs. However, I just want to point out that concession tariffs with regard to people in uniform only applied during the war. After that it was abolished. Concessions for scholars or for workers or for national servicemen only mean that the percentage that is recovered is lower and that I shall have to supplement it from elsewhere. The same applies with regard to the Airways. There are in fact concessions.

The Army should pay for it.

The Army should pay for it, of course. Now the hon. member and I are on the same wavelength again. It has taken us a long time, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] I thought it would happen.

The hon. member for East London North asked me whether I could assure him that the percentage differences in the salary increases applicable to the various population groups would eventually enable the gap to be closed. Allow me to make it clear that I think we should get away from the question of closing gaps. We should up-grade people in the services and pay them equal salaries and wages for the work they do, otherwise South Africa is going to price itself out of foreign markets completely.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I am making progress. For the second time, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and I are on the same wavelength. [Interjections.]

My reply to the question of the hon. member for East London North is “Yes”. However, allow me first to explain to him what is happening to us now. The hon. member will realize that we have an enormous enterprise with many employees. Therefore the implications of introducing equal salaries are phenomenal. If we had to do it immediately, I should like to know what hon. members would say about tariff increases then. However, let us look at what we have already achieved, and we have achieved a great deal. What we have already achieved in respect of salaries—I refer hon. members to the salary adjustments which, as I have announced, will come into operation on 1 April 1980—is that for the first time, there will now be parity for people of colour on the scale beginning at R275,50 a month. There used to be a difference between the salaries of Black people, Indians and Brown people on this scale; now their salaries will be equal. In my opinion, this is significant progress. According to my estimate, and if this percentage increase is kept up, there should be total parity by the year 1994.

†In certain cases, however, equality will be reached earlier than 1994, as evidenced by the two examples I shall now give hon. members. A White principal clerk whose salary, as at 1 April 1979, was R10 065 will find that if his salary is adjusted annually by 10% it will amount to R23 733 on 1 April 1988.

At what rate?

10%. A similarly graded non-White officer whose salary, as at 1 April 1979, stood at R8 235 will find that if his salary is adjusted by 12,5% annually—and hon. members know that I am adjusting the salaries by 15% for this year—it will amount to R23 770 on 1 April 1988 So there is material improvement in that regard.

The hon. member for Musgrave has referred to the question of harbour tariff increases. I am going to give him some information to set his mind at rest in as far as the worries he had about the export of granite. If one looks at the total impact—and of course the revenue involved—of these increases one finds that it is negligible. It is not really shocking at all. I shall give the hon. member the information, however, so that he can have a look at it for himself. I shall hand my notes to him so that he can consider the information at greater length, because otherwise I shall be taking up too much time on this aspect. The hon. member referred to certain hardships suffered by certain exporters and requested some flexibility in the application of the charges in cases where difficulties might be experienced in maintaining an export market share. He used the question of granite as an example. What is the position? An analysis has been carried out in respect of a specific shipment of 2 020 tons of granite shipped during March 1980. The following charges were payable in March 1980: Wharfage charges, R978,71 and total shipping charges, R5 748,74. This gives a total of R6 727,45. Charges payable after 1 April 1980, i.e. after the new tariffs come into operation, will be as follows: Wharfage charges R978,71—this remains the same—and total shipping charges, R4 647,38. This gives a total amount of R5 626,09. This is consequently a reduction of R1 101,36 or 16,37%. Let me explain the reason for this. This reduction is due to a higher charge for packages of over 4 tons in mass being eliminated in the revised tariff structure, and granite, it should be remembered, is shipped mainly in large slabs of over 4 tons each.

[Inaudible.]

That is right.

*The other aspect of harbour fees I should prefer to discuss later during the Third Reading debate, otherwise we shall have to spend too much time on it now.

The hon. member for Orange requested that meals be abolished. Do hon. members know what that would mean? It would mean a reduction of R1 in the price of the ticket. Hon. members will understand, therefore, that having to operate a commercial enterprise, I really cannot afford to lose the goodwill of the passengers only in order to bring about a reduction of R1 in the price of a ticket The hon. member asked whether I had any comparative figures, because the charge was made against us that our tariffs were higher than overseas tariffs. I should like to give him a few examples.

†The hon. member mentioned that generally our internal fares appear to be higher than is the case anywhere else. He quoted as an example the fare from Paris to Nice, which is R75 for a distance of 700 km. The actual distance is 685 km and, comparing this with the fares for similar distances on SAA domestic services, we find that from Durban to Port Elizabeth, a distance of 674 km, the new fare is R61. Compare that with the R75 he mentioned.

You are arguing about distances now. The distances I was given were different.

The distances the hon. member gave in his arguments were even higher. That is the whole point I am trying to make. Let me give another example. Between Kimberley and Keetmanshoop the distance is 722 km, 22 km more than the distance the hon. member mentioned, and the fare is R65 compared with the R75 of his example. Between Johannesburg and Upington the distance is 735 km and the fare is R65, again as against the R75 he mentioned for a distance of 700 km. The Paris—Nice fare is therefore 20% higher than the equivalent in South Africa, notwithstanding the fact that we pay much more for our fuel. [Interjections.]

*I should like to reply to the other hon. members. If the hon. member does not mind, we can discuss the matter again at the Third Reading or during the Committee Stage.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Bethlehem on his speech, to which I have already referred. He suggested that we consider standardizing the equipment used by both the Defence Force and the S.A. Railways. He also referred specifically to truck engines. There has long been a committee promoting close co-operation between the Defence Force and the Railways. Matters such as standardization are discussed by this committee from time to time and I shall instruct the committee to give special attention to the hon. member’s request The committee considers the availability of workshop capacity, and regional commanders of the Defence Force are already negotiating directly with the local Railway control officers about mutual aid. I also wish to point out that work of a highly specialized nature, and of course of a highly confidential nature as well, is already being done by the Railways for the Defence Force. The Defence Force is also very well aware of the abilities of the Railways in this particular connection. Just allow me to add that in emergencies, the facilities and expertise of the Railways will naturally be made available as in the past.

The hon. member for Kempton Park expressed his concern about the position of pilots. We are not having any problems in obtaining pilots at the moment, but as the hon. member said, that problem may arise in the future. The S.A. Airways recruits its pilots from the Air Force and the private sector, on condition that they have completed at least 500 flight hours. Training in our own service is limited to the change-over to the type of aircraft and operating procedure of the S.A. Airways. This matter is being investigated at the moment, and if necessary, the S.A. Airways will change its training organization. I just want to add that the State is presently subsidizing training in the private sector through the Department of Transport. The subsidy will also be examined with a view to increasing it in order to keep pace with the higher cost of training.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow asked me to explain why the SAA was operating at a loss and suggested that the less profitable domestic services be operated by private enterprise on the basis of tenders. I am afraid I do not understand this. At present all domestic services are operating at a loss owing to the phenomenal rise in fuel costs since the last tariff increase. This increase has been from an average of 14c a litre to 35c a litre involving an additional expenditure of approximately R90 million, to which I referred in the additional estimates. The tariff increase is necessary to cover this increase alone. Other cost increases have been absorbed by the introduction of the fuel-efficient Airbus and by increased utilization resulting from passenger growth.

The hon. member further suggested that we should look into the Laker type operation, i.e. to wait until the aircraft is full before it departs. We have a problem in this regard. Since 70% of our passengers on our domestic air services are business people this cannot be done. It can only be done on routes in the United States of America, for instance, where there is a very heavy traffic density in air travel.

*The hon. member for Simonstown raised several matters, including protection at stations and on trains. In this connection I wish to give him the following information: There is already a special unit of the Railway Police to combat offences such as those referred to by the hon. member. Forty-two members of this unit are stationed in Cape Town and 31 at Bellville. Because passengers are aware of the existence of this unit, they are more readily coming forward with complaints. In this way, 352 complaints were received during the period 1 December 1979 to 29 January 1980, of which 132 have already been successfully dealt with. The outstanding cases are still being investigated. I want to give the following particulars of the offences and the results obtained. There were five cases of murder, in which seven persons were involved, and four of these have already been successfully dealt with. There were 195 cases of robbery, involving 138 persons. These robberies usually take place on a Friday, which is pay-day, and this creates a serious problem. Of the 195 cases of robbery, 77 have already been successfully dealt with. There were 134 cases as assault in which 78 persons were involved. Forty-five of these cases have already been successfully dealt with. In all fairness, the number of offences should also be seen against the background of the larger numbers of passengers making use of the suburban services.

The question of arming staff and of issuing fire-arms remains a delicate one. The possibility exists that the other party may also be armed, and hon. members can understand that if we were to allow shooting in the trains, innocent people could be injured. However, I am doing everything I can to see whether we can accede to the hon. member’s request in this connection. I have already asked the General Manager to see what further steps can be taken.

The hon. member also referred to the position of the pensioners. The hon. member for Tygervallei gave detailed information on this subject, so it is not necessary for me to go into the matter any further.

The hon. member for Bellville—he is not in the House at the moment—made an important contribution to the debate. In the light of the limited time available to me and because I should like to give special attention to the case of the hon. member for Bellville, I wish to suggest that I deal with it during the Committee Stage or at the Third Reading.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—111: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. L.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson; J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, F. J. le Roux (Hercules), W. L. van der Merwe, P. J. van B. Viljoen and A. J. Vlok.

Noes—27: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules:

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the very long speech of the hon. the Minister in reply to the Second Reading debate. He is a man of remarkable stamina to be able to keep going for as long as that. To enter into the Committee Stage right away, must for him be a difficult undertaking. The hon. the Minister answered many of the questions raised by this side of the House. There were, however, a few I was a little disappointed about, particularly because he did not have the opportunity to reply to the hon. member for Bellville. [Interjections.] He will do so at the Third Reading. I thought his was a very good speech. I like his idea of having another look at the Railway tariff structure, a cost-orientated structure. The Schumann Commission, which originally reported on this matter, is somewhat outdated at the present time, and I believe that he is quite right when he says that the time has come for us to have a look into the matter.

Another question that the hon. the Minister did not deal with, is my comments on apartheid on the Railways and how much it is costing us. We shall get the answer to that later on I hope. Incidentally, I might say that I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister, because when travelling down on the Trans-Karoo this year, I noticed that they were no longer shunting the coaches for Blacks from back to front. This made me feel that some of the things that we say from these benches do bring results. I just want to remind the hon. the Minister that he nearly flipped when I raised the matter during an energy debate last year. He was very cross with me indeed. However, I see that he has seen the light, and I am very grateful for that.

I intend to deal further with most of the questions that were answered in regard to the financing of the Railways during the Third Reading debate. I should certainly say that I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the report in The Argus and other newspapers. I am glad to hear him say that he will always come to Parliament first and keep us well informed with regard to any new plans of this magnitude made known to the general public. I should just like to make one or two small comments on financing. He did contend that financing from own funds was really cheaper than financing from external sources. He drew attention to the difficulties experienced by, in particular, Escom and Iscor when they had to have sudden and fairly dramatic increases. This was not entirely due to financing from external sources as opposed to internal sources. The fact of the matter was that they just could not obtain the capital and so they had no alternative.

My point was that they had built up no own capital …

That is right. They built up no fat which they could feed off. I understand the hon. the Minister’s point, but what I want to say is that I believe that there should be flexibility. The money market was different then. Today we are in a situation in which money is fairly readily available at a fairly low interest rate. However, I do not want to talk about that for too long as I want to talk about various other matters more fitted to the Committee Stage. I shall come back to that at Third Reading.

During the Second Reading debate we discussed the 10% increase in the depreciation rate which is costing the Railways an additional amount of R50 million per year. According to the estimates of working expenditure, i.e. the White Book, the total increase in depreciation for the year under review for all departments is just over R64 million. I analysed this increase, and there is one aspect I believe needs further clarification by the hon. the Minister. On page 1 of the White Book, under head No. 8—“Depreciation”—in respect of the Railways, we see that there has been an increase from R295 880 000 to R329 250 000, an increase of just over R33 million. This is very much in line with the 10% adjustment to allow for a new rate of contribution. However, on page 2, under head No. 23—“Depreciation”—in respect of harbours, one finds a very different situation indeed. In this case the depreciation goes up from just over R20,6 million to R48,79 million, an increase of R28,17 million. This can in no way be equated with the 10% increase, the real increase being in the region of something like 140%. In checking the memorandum by the Minister at the beginning of the White Book—this is something the hon. member for Amanzimtoti pointed out to me when he asked me what this was about—one sees that this is “mainly due to seawalls and quays on which no depreciation was calculated in the past and which will now be regarded as contributable assets”.

That is because of the new policy of not spreading …

Yes. I realize that this is a new policy, but the point is that in this year the Railways have to find in the region of probably about R26 million in addition to the R50 million for purposes of depreciation. Perhaps I should ask the hon. the Minister whether in the case of a really bad year, in which the gold price goes down and the Minister of Finance is not feeling very flush, that new item would have been included in the White Book at all. I do not think so. I think we would have kept to the old system. I want to make the point that only when we have the money available we tend to go in for these new systems which put money aside for the future. Frankly I do not really believe that the hon. the Minister has answered my argument about the whole question of inflation accounting. However, I should like to come back to that at Third Reading.

You yourself said that you had no firm ideas about it.

I am just not prepared to listen to that hon. member. That hon. member, I may say, in a speech last year referred to my talking about a stigma being attached to the names of railwaymen because they worked for a losing organization.

That is correct.

He knew then that he was quoting it out of context. I put him right last year. I quoted it in context and pointed out that the men on the Railways were doing a very fine job. He accused me of saying that the railwaymen loafed on the job.

What does “stigma” mean?

Having been put right on that, he is still quoting me out of context, something which makes me disregard anything he says. I just consider him to be a member who does not have the brains of an idiot. I am not prepared to talk to him.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Well, Mr. Chairman, if I withdraw it, it means that he has the brains of an idiot.

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my remark that he does not have the brains of an idiot unconditionally.

The hon. member must withdraw the entire remark because it implies that the hon. member does not have the brains of an idiot.

Mr. Chairman, I realize it is unparliamentary to say that and on that basis I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to say that hon. member has not the brains of a louse?

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Von Brandis allowed to say that the hon. member for Orange Grove has not the brain of a louse?

Did the hon. member for Von Brandis say that the hon. member for Orange Grove has the brain of a louse?

Yes, I did.

The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, my only regret is that I wasted two minutes of my very valuable time on that hon. member.

I want to speak about the situation which exists at present in Ermelo. As the hon. the Minister no doubt knows, Ermelo has a fairly new station, and I believe considerable difficulties are being experienced by Black passengers because of the distance of the new station from the Black township, which I gather is in the region of about five km. I gather the bus service, if any, is inadequate to get them from the township to the station, and that they therefore are experiencing considerable hardship. The request has come to me that consideration should perhaps be given to building a new station very close to the Black township, in other words a platform with ticket office facilities. That is on the new Ermelo-Estancia line. The old station used to be only one km from the township on the old Ermelo-Breyten line.

Another matter I would like to raise in the very short time I have left has to do with railway sleepers. Perhaps I should call it the “great railway sleeper mystery”.

Are you talking about the hon. member for Von Brandis?

That could be the hon. member for Von Brandis. Over the years we have seen a considerable number of new sleepers going in as track has been relaid. What has worried me extensively in the recent past, is the number of sleepers which seem to be lying around, not being put to use. I went into this a little. Sir, this could apply to the hon. members on the other side. I am being reminded of this by the hon. member for East London North. In any event, I gather many contracts were given out for the manufacture of concrete sleepers. I believe these contracts were stopped at one stage, the manufacture of sleepers was stopped. Two companies were then manufacturing concrete sleepers. I would be interested to know what exactly is going on as far as sleepers are concerned. There seem to be far too many just lying around … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the statement by the hon. member for Orange Grove to the effect that there would be sufficient opportunity during the Third Reading to discuss further the financial policy of the Railways. Accordingly I want to confine myself more specifically to Committee Stage items. To begin with today I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my gratitude on behalf of the inhabitants of the major part of my constituency. This has already been done on occasion but I should also like to express our gratitude in this House to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs for the sympathetic hearing he gave me and the representatives of the inhabitants of Capital Park, Eloffsdal and Roseville—which fall within my constituency—when we discussed with him the issue of the goods-shed at Capital Park. I refer to items 444 and 445 in the Brown Book. In the course of these discussions it was very clear that the hon. the Minister had sympathy for the problems of the inhabitants of the aforementioned areas. The construction of a goods-shed in a residential area—and I have mentioned this on a previous occasion as well—has its distinctive and specific problems which, of course, directly affect the inhabitants. Therefore I trust, Mr. Chairman, that you will afford me the opportunity of saying something about this matter.

The two problems that immediately arise in a situation where a goods-shed is being constructed in a residential area, are the problems of noise and pollution. Therefore we are grateful that, in respect of noise, the hon. the Minister immediately saw his way clear to granting permission for the construction of a concrete wall between the proposed goods-shed and the proposed container-shed at Roseville and the residential areas. We know that this does not solve the problem entirely, but we believe that the proposed wall will contribute to lessening the intensity of the noise, and pollution too, I believe. It will probably contribute to a great extent to preventing this. It is a pity, although we understand his problem, that the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to removing the steam locomotives from the goods-yard as well and replacing them by diesel locomotives. In view of the fuel situation this is probably impossible at the moment. However, when conditions improve and it becomes at all possible to do so, I should like to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister that steam locomotives be removed from Capital Park as soon as possible. For economic considerations it is certainly necessary to use steam locomotives in such a set-up. We accept that this must be the case. However, I just want to emphasize once again that this goods-shed is being constructed within a residential area The attendant problems cause a lot of headaches. The electrification of the shunting-yard and loops should be completed within the shortest possible time. Here I am referring to item 172. Of course I want to point out that I have the full support of all the inhabitants of that part of my constituency in this matter. If every housewife has to remove black soot day after day, children constantly have to inhale it and man and beast have to suffocate in it, then this soot is causing a real problem. However, I am also convinced that the hon. the Minister will give the problem at Capital Park the necessary attention. I believe that he will give his sympathetic assistance here. On behalf of the inhabitants of my constituency and myself I want to convey my sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the discussion I was able to have with him and for his sympathetic attention. I believe that this is going to result in something worthwhile for our people in that area.

However, in this regard there are two requests I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Up to now the planning with regard to the goods-shed is only in the second phase, that of the transshipment of goods for Pretoria. I do not want to be technical and try to explain to hon. members exactly what this entails. The third phase, will, I believe, be implemented within the next few years. This entails the distribution of goods from the goods-shed to Pretoria and vicinity, It will be necessary for us to be notified in good time of the commencement of the third phase for the purposes of liaison with the Pretoria City Council with a view to constructing access roads, for example, a matter that will have to be considered well in advance. It is most desirable that that liaison should take place well in advance. Thus, when the third phase comes into operation, it is also necessary that the Pretoria City Council should already have its project for the building of the necessary roads in readiness. We live in a congested area there, and this could cause grave problems.

The second request concerns the construction of the container-shed. At this stage it is still in the exploratory stage. However, I ask that we be kept informed of all possible developments in this regard. Only to tell the voters at a late stage that the Railways are constructing a container-shed, is simply not good enough. I would prefer to inform them that the Railways is planning a container-shed in Roseville, what its extent will be and what the effects will be. If we keep voters abreast of what is happening at all times, they will also have a better understanding of the problems that could arise. However, if they are confronted by the project as a fait accompli we are going to have a repetition of the problems concerning the goods-shed we have had at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. The voters of Gezina are responsible people. They are sober in their approach to matters such as the goods-shed and the container-shed. [Interjections.] No, that is not the case. They are responsible, otherwise I would not have been standing here today. All they are asking is to be consulted in these matters. They would like to join us on this path and to know what is going on.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will reply to the hon. member for Gezina in due course in connection with his constituency. In the 1978 Railways debate I requested that steps be taken to have empty seats on SAA aircraft used by the introduction of incentive airfares. On 15 January 1979 the SAA introduced new excursion fares on its domestic services. There is, for example, the 10 to 21 days excursion as well as the seven to 28 days excursion. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question today with reference to a new traffic pattern which has apparently arisen in the interim. Could the hon. the Minister inform this House how effective the above-mentioned measures have been and what the existing situation is in respect of seat utilization on our domestic flights? Could he tell us when the greatest measure of occupation takes place and whether there are certain times of the day or days of the week when there are still unutilized seats? In this regard I should also like to know whether the first-class section of the Airbus and first-class sections of other aircraft are receiving adequate support to justify the continued existence of that facility. I am fully aware of the value of such a facility on our aircraft, for some of our foreign travellers in particular. Consequently I am not calling for the abolition of that facility. However, I want to propose a possibility which could serve as a solution until such time as the new aircraft, which are on order at present, are taken into use. Can first-class seats not be used during peak times when there are not enough seats available elsewhere in the aircraft? I am also aware of another possible solution. One could perhaps provide smaller seats, and therefore more seats. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to choose that solution. I am already finding it difficult with the present seats, and I would not like us to make our seats still smaller. I would rather stand than sit in an even smaller seat.

I should also like to know what penal procedures are being applied at the moment to passengers who have bought tickets, reserved seats and then do not turn up to undertake the journey. In my opinion this is one of the evils contributing to the losses suffered by the Airways. I also expressed my concern about the possible shortage of pilots and I am very grateful for the hon. the Minister’s explanation, for the fact that he assured us that there was no reason for concern at the moment and that this matter was being given very serious consideration, so that we could meet the future with confidence. I want to express the hope that we shall try to obtain our pilots from our own ranks. I would not like to see us recruiting people from abroad if we could avoid doing so in any way.

During this debate hon. members on this side of the House have highly praised the staff of the Railways and the Airways. I have in mind the hon. members for Bethlehem and Umhlatuzana in particular. They emphasized certain aspects in this regard. I should like to confirm this expression of gratitude today. I should also like to express a few words of appreciation specifically to the pilots of the S.A. Airways. The profession of pilot in the service of the S.A. Airways is and remains one of the most popular and colourful professions in this country. The hundreds of applications received annually attest to this fact. Very few of these applications succeed, however, as a result of the strict and careful selection. Our pilots’ thorough training, the careful selection and the refresher procedures are the reasons why our pilots are so sought after by foreign airways as well. It is no secret that our pilots are regarded in international aviation circles as being among the very best in the world. Over and above the pilot’s thorough training and testing, particular attention is also paid to his technical knowledge, leadership qualities and initiative. He is expected to pass a series of psychometric tests, a stringent medical examination, etc.

His training commences in the class-room. After that he goes to the simulator where every conceivable flight situation can be simulated. I had the opportunity of observing this simulator and of experiencing it myself and I can assure hon. members that every conceivable flight situation can be simulated. In this simulator the pilot is afforded the opportunity of executing landings and take-offs at every airport to which the S.A. Airways flies. Subsequently he is appointed as a third pilot and commences his course for his practical training. Unfortunately I do not have the time to deal with this training in full.

I want to conclude by saying that our pilots are all men of high calibre and high morale. Moreover, our pilots do not have the trade union mentality which often raises its head in overseas airways and has even given rise to strikes. Our pilots avail themselves of the channels of negotiation available to them in order to solve their problems among themselves. They have a positive attitude and their conduct inspires confidence. They are proud of the S.A. Airways and the aircraft they fly. They realize that the interests of the S.A. Airways and of South Africa are important considerations when it comes to salary demands. I believe that our pilots are being paid as much as our country can afford. It is the love of flying which motivates these men. This is an extremely stimulating and colourful profession which demands great skill, but which also affords a great deal of satisfaction. Our aircraft are technically well-cared for. We use the most modern aircraft that are able to compete with the best in the world. The training is thorough and sound and keeps abreast of the most modern training methods and techniques. One captain told me—and I know that this is the way most pilots feel: “If I had to choose a profession again, I would again choose to be a pilot in the S.A. Airways.” Consequently I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the 452 pilots of the S.A. Airways who are a credit to the profession both within our country and abroad and who see to it that the millions of passengers they convey arrive safely at their destinations. I thank them for their loyal service and their dedication to their task.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend talking about the Airways, although I would like to say that it has been brought to my attention that there is a tremendous turnover in staff as far as the hostesses and stewards are concerned. I know it costs an awful lot to train these people. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us some idea of the turnover there is and exactly how much it is costing the Airways. Possibly there is some reason for this turnover. I sincerely hope that, if there is, it can be corrected.

I would like to take this opportunity of referring to something the hon. the Minister said yesterday when he started with his reply to the debate. He referred to what I had to say about the various levies on fuel. He implied that we in these benches are not appreciative of the work which has been done by those who are acquiring fuel for South Africa. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that I do not think he is entirely correct in that respect. The whole argument which I put forward yesterday was in regard to the amount of money which is taken from the consumer and used in State corporations. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister saw fit to give us some figures today. If one thing came out of yesterday’s debate it is the fact that the hon. the Minister today in his reply has given the House some very interesting facts and figures. One figure which he did give today was that 1,35 cents per litre from one of the Funds is being used to help develop Sasol 2 and Sasol 3. I have done a very quick calculation and I estimate that this amounts to something in the order of R230 million. The very point I was trying to make to the hon. the Minister yesterday was that Sasol could have obtained this money from the investing public of South Africa, as has been seen from the recent share issue in Sasol.

The difference is that if we had done it this way by establishing another share issue we would have to show a profit.

The point is that R230 million was taken from the consumer, which if it had not been taken would have stimulated the consumer demand in the country and the country as a whole would have benefited from that.

The hon. the Minister referred to the comments I made yesterday on the Fund balances shown on page 9 of his memorandum on the estimated results of working for the financial year 1979-’80 and anticipated revenue and expenditure for the year 1980-’81.

I accepted that.

I am pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister has accepted that because it was rather misleading. I was expecting him, if I may use my hon. colleaque’s expression, to throw a bucket at me today and I appreciate the fact that he did not. If I may say so, he probably feels a little bit guilty because for the sake of a little bit of extra space at the bottom of the page for an asterisk and an explanatory note, I was misled. [Interjections.] As I indicated, the figures were misleading and therefore the figure I gave yesterday of available cash in the General Renewal Fund was also misleading. However, I believe that my argument is still valid. If one looks at the balance sheet on page 6 of the memorandum, one will find that the working assets have increased by something like 60% or R328 million between the year ended 31 March 1977 and the year ended 31 March 1978 and by a further R544 million between 31 March 1978 and 31 March 1979. This does show quite a build up of capital in the Funds, although I want to qualify that remark by saying that the working assets include Funds other than just the General Renewals Fund. There is, nevertheless, a lot of capital in there.

Something that is of much interest to all of us is the amount of capital that is building up in the Renewals Fund as a result of the new depreciation rates. Yesterday, when we were discussing the depreciation in respect of harbours, my colleague questioned the tremendous increase and, if I remember correctly, I think it was I who said: “If you look at the explanatory note, you will see that it has something to do with harbour walls.” We would therefore appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could tell us what additional assets that were not being depreciated previously are now being depreciated, whether there are any other assets which are adding to this increased inflow of capital. I know that one has to build up capital funds for development, but I will go into that in greater depth during the Third Reading.

There are a few parochial matters which I want to raise, although the first does not concern my constituency. I was rather disturbed to see recent newspaper reports that a South African Railway employee was bayoneted to death in South West Africa. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware of this case. His name was Mr. Andries van der Bank, a 57-year-old Railway employee and a father of six. He was doing relief duty at a siding situated in a desolate mountain region and he had one Black worker with him. I think this is a very regrettable happening and I believe that it is wrong that Railway workers should be exposed to terrorist activities in such isolated areas without some form of protection. I wonder whether these people could possibly be armed, or whether they could take a guard-dog with them or have something to warn them of any impending danger, because, apparently, he was sleeping at the time when they broke in and bayoneted him to death. His Black worker was sleeping some 25 yards away, as I gather, and he did not hear anything.

The other parochial matter which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, a matter which I have also raised during question-time, concerns Amanzimtoti Station and the elderly people who are using the pedestrian crossing across the tracks. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ask the S.A. Railway Police even if only for a certain period to blitz this particular railway station for the sake of the public using it. I do not say that the public must be disturbed, but the point is that there are a lot of loiterers around the station who are assaulting elderly people and who are using the bridge as a place to congregate and making things very difficult for all concerned. I do not think this state of affairs is really necessary.

I shall help you in that regard if you will see that the local authority helps towards the cost.

I shall take up that matter with the Mayor of Amanzimtoti, who is a friend of mine, but seeing that this is happening on Railway property I do feel that the S.A. Railway Police could perhaps make sure that pedestrians are kept moving and do not use the bridge as a place to loiter and cause embarrassment and especially that they do not assault or bother elderly people.

In the few minutes that I have left, I want to raise the question of Umkomaas Station and the difficulty in regard to the road traffic that is presently passing through the town of Umkomaas to the Saaicor factory. I have sent a letter to the hon. the Minister giving some of the details of this long-standing problem in Umkomaas. Saaicor has grown by leaps and bounds and this has resulted in hundreds of thousands of tons of timber going to the factory and rayon coming from the factory for export, and all of this traffic goes right through the centre of the residential area of Umkomaas. It was proposed that a by-pass be built in the interim period before the new South Coast freeway is completed, which is now only going to be in about 1985. The provincial authorities were prepared to find the funds and to build this by-pass, but it involved Railway property because the bypass was going to be built on a portion of Railway property right near the station. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to have his System Manager or his planning department reconsider their rejection of this plan some months ago. I believe the hon. the Minister has a letter from a hotelier at Umkomaas who has invited him to come and spend two weeks at his hotel free of charge. He guarantees that after one night he will leave because of the tremendous noise caused by this traffic. The other aspect of this particular problem is that it is quite feasible that much of this heavy traffic could be transported by rail to and from the Saaicor factory. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Amanzimtoti I should like to raise a local matter in regard to my constituency. But before the hon. member for Orange Grove departs from the House in the manner in which he usually does …

He is only shunting quietly. [Interjections.]

… I should like to know why the hon. member for Orange Grove—I have not so far said a word in this debate—is so extremely sensitive about being reminded of words that he has used in this House.

Because I regard your conduct as dishonest.

The hon. member is English-speaking, and he says I quote out of context or give a wrong impression. I can see that the hon. member is extremely sensitive about his past record concerning his attitudes towards the railwaymen. He is very sensitive, because in that same speech in which he said I quote out of context, something which I deny, he also used other expressions. He said, for example, that the time had come to be completely honest with the hon. the Minister. I hope he will not say I am now also quoting out of context. He said the hon. the Minister’s department is failing to produce the efficient service we need. The hon. member will admit that the hon. the Minister does not drive the trains himself. It is the personnel who carry out the job. Thereafter he used the statement that railwaymen carry the stigma of being part of an organization which loses a tremendous amount of money. As I have said, that hon. gentleman is English-speaking and has as much access to the Oxford dictionary as I have. I want to repeat it to him. [Interjections.] I did not choose the words that the hon. member chose. I only reminded him of what he had said, and the word “stigma”, which he used, has three clear meanings according to the Oxford dictionary. First of all, it means a mark of disgrace or infamy, or it is a sign of severe censure or condemnation, regarded as impressed on a person or an object. So it is very clear that when the hon. member for Orange Grove used the word “stigma”, he was quite clearly expressing severe censure or condemnation of railwaymen, of the Management, or whatever. I mentioned no such word today. It came from the hon. member himself. Therefore one can see that he demonstrates a degree of sensitivity about his own attitudes, as reflected in the use of these words, which were a clear reflection on railwaymen as such and which implied that they were not doing an efficient job. Having explained that very clearly to the hon. member, I want to tell him that the best thing he can do is to apologize to the railwaymen of South Africa for what was perhaps an unfortunate choice of words when he was discussing Railway matters, and he should try to put this right. I rightly raised the matter in this House because we on this side of the House are concerned about the welfare of the railwaymen of South Africa and are proud of the job they do on the Railways.

I should now like to raise a matter which I think is of some importance to my constituency. It has a bearing on the conditions which prevail on Park station. I am making no excuse for the fact that I have raised this matter before in this House, because I think that the situation in the vicinity of Park station in Johannesburg has not improved at all, in spite of the co-operation of the S.A. Police and the security measures which have been taken in the vicinity of that station to attempt to clear up the very bad social conditions which prevail. The hon. the Minister knows that the Witwatersrand Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board has the services of a representative of the Railways. The strongest possible representations, by the Traffic Department of Johannesburg and the City of Johannesburg, have been made to this board with regard to the Railways Administration taking some further steps in the planning of Park station. The proposal is that the eastern side of Park station should be covered to form a traffic commuting centre for the various bus terminals, for the very good reason—and I do not want to quote lengthy figures—that on estimate it is considered, so I am informed, that at least 30% of our Black workers who come to Johannesburg are, in fact, transit workers using Park station. In other words, they come from Soweto or the other Black urban areas, and from Park station they have to transfer themselves to bus stations to be able to travel to the places where they work. This has caused considerable social problems because there are these thousands and thousands of commuters in a very confined area. As the Johannesburg municipality has built these malls in the vicinity of the station, we find considerable loitering of unemployed people and others prevailing in that area I do not want to record in detail, in the House, incidents that have occurred in the vicinity of Park station. However, the situation is not improving in spite of all the activities of the S.A. Police. The situation is indeed deteriorating.

That is a reflection on the police.

I think that when Park station was planned, it was planned to meet the conditions of those days. However, it is not meeting present-day conditions. If one only looks at the number of Black commuters using the station today, one realizes that it was planned to meet the requirements of 25 to 30 years ago, and was certainly not planned to meet the volume of commuter traffic, including transit traffic, going through it today.

I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister. He has made some comments in respect of improvements to the Soweto railway line and so on. However, the decking over of the east side of this station is the only solution. The toilet facilities, the refreshment rooms and all the other facilities at the station are certainly not coping with the situation. Even the governing body of the cathedral, right near Park station, has made the strongest possible representations in regard to the conditions prevailing in that area. I do not want to go into details in this regard, but I have received numerous complaints from my constituents and other bodies. I therefore want to make the strongest possible appeal that the Railways Administration, or the hon. the Minister himself, give consideration to the question of the estimated additional amount of R5 million—it is probably a bit more now as this is last year’s estimate—to cover the cost of providing cover over the eastern railway lines at Park station so that an adequate bus terminus could be established there for these Black commuters.

There is an additional point I wish to make. Even though new ideas have been expressed and new plans have been made in regard to the Soweto railway line, the problem of Park station, and the thousands of Black commuters using it, is still not going to be resolved. It is still not going to solve that problem, because they are still transit commuters. Adequate facilities must be provided near and about the station, because there is just no other place in that metropolitan area of Johannesburg where such facilities can be provided. This will alleviate the situation and will certainly greatly improve the social conditions prevailing at present, conditions which are in fact deteriorating. I want to make the strongest possible plea to the hon. the Minister to give it his favourable consideration when the budget is presented next year.

Mr. Chairman, I feel I must elucidate and emphasize the example that the SAR sets for all of us.

The indispensable function of the S.A. Railways cannot be calculated in terms of figures. However, they set a brilliant example in various spheres. I want to mention a few examples. They aim to promote good relations in our multinational country, to maintain law and order by means of the brilliant efforts of the Railway Police, to ascertain which the right priorities are and to act accordingly, to promote productivity, to provide training, to make a substantial contribution towards relieving the energy crisis and to maintain good relations with other countries on an inter-state level. The SAR can play a meaningful role in a constellation of Southern African States. It sets the private sector an example as regards the provision of housing to Whites and non-Whites. To sum up, it can be said that the SAR always puts the interests of South Africa first. To put it differently, the direction that the SAR follows, is not only in the best interest of South Africa, but it also corresponds to the road travelled by the whole of South Africa.

Not only does the SAR set an example of how we should act in a broad, spiritual sphere, but it is also an impetus, an injection, a decisive, constant factor for larger communities, whether they be towns or cities.

In this regard I should like to refer to the tremendous influence which the SAR exerts upon and the meaningful contribution it makes to a city. As an example I am taking the central capital of South Africa, viz. Bloemfontein. If one looks at certain data and analyse the statistics, one is impressed by the fact that the SAR is an indispensable stimulus to cities in South Africa. I am obliged to mention some statistics in order to substantiate this statement.

In 1890, 90 years ago, a railway line reached Bloemfontein for the first time, and today Bloemfontein is the most important centre of the Railways in the Free State. This is why Bloemfontein has already been called a transport city in contrast to mining cities and industrial cities which depend on mining and industries for their most important source of revenue.

A large portion of that town belongs to me in any event.

25% of the Whites in Bloemfontein are directly or indirectly—i.e. through their dependents—attached to the Railways. 30% of the non-Whites are similarly attacked to the Railways. A further analysis clearly shows the decisive role which the Railways plays in Bloemfontein’s economic structure. The City depends on the contribution of the transport sector for approximately 19% of its economy, in comparison with the average of 11% elsewhere in South Africa The gross income of railway employees in the city amounts to approximately R62 million, of which ± R43 million is disposable income, i.e. money spent on consumer goods and essential services in the city every day.

In 1979, 345 home loans amounting to approximately R8 million were granted to railway employees in order to purchase property in the city, and R354 000 in rates was paid to the City Treasurer for properties falling under the home ownership scheme. The Railways also paid the municipality R260 000 for water and R1,4 million for electricity.

The Railways goods-shed in Bloemfontein is one of the most modern and except for one other, the largest in the country. Since it is the second largest transhipment depot, Bloemfontein is in a position to cater for the distribution of goods throughout the entire Republic.

The Railway workshop in Bloemfontein is the largest industrial complex in the Free State. At the moment, this workshop is the only one that manufactures points and crossings. It is the Railways’ largest iron and brake-block foundry. Approximately 12 000 brake-blocks are manufactured in the foundry per day, as well as a variety of other parts.

The largest truck-building centre in South Africa is to be found in Bloemfontein. The trucks are manufactured at a rate of five per day and the shop’s total annual turn-over is approximately R7,4 million.

As in other centres, the SAR provides accommodation for its employees. There are two staff hostels for unmarried Whites which can accommodate 348 and 132 people respectively. For Blacks there is a hostel which can accommodate 3 968 people. Apart from the normal building complex which comprises a hostel, there is also adequate provision for sporting and recreational facilities for Blacks. There is an athletic track, a cycle track as well as soccer and rugby fields.

We are delighted that a training college for Black constables for the S.A. Railway Police in the Republic was opened in Bloemfontein this year.

In the community life of every city or town, the Railway employees make a considerable contribution to the social, cultural and religious spheres. In Bloemfontein, mayors have already been chosen from the ranks of the railway staff on three occasions, i.e. Messrs. Willie Viljoen, A. J. de Klerk and Roelf Greyling. The ATKV, the Vrouen-Moederbeweging and the Bloemfontein branch of SASVROU play an active role in this cultural city.

The S.A. Railways has made its mark in the sporting sphere, too. A corrugated iron hut with a bar and a billiard table only which was erected in 1892, after the first Railway line had reached Bloemfontein, has become one of the largest Railway recreation clubs in the country, viz. Schoeman Park. The club, which bears the name of the former Minister of Transport, Mr. Ben Schoeman, offers full facilities for 14 different types of sport to approximately 2 200 members and their dependants.

In conclusion I should like to bring two matters to the attention to the hon. the Minister. As hon. members know, Bloemfontein lies on the main line from Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and East London to Johannesburg, and it is the largest rail junction in the Orange Free State system for passengers travelling east, west, north and south. The existing station facilities have become completely inadequate. It is also very much in need of additional space in order to accommodate staff responsible for controlling rail traffic. The present office space is already inadequate and at the moment rented office space is being used amongst other things. I therefore ask for improved facilities at the station, as well as for a new administration building.

Last but not least I want to point out that only do Railway employees have a large share in the weal and woe of Bloemfontein, but of the whole of South Africa too. Stability in the Railways brings about stability in our towns and cities, and accordingly in South Africa too.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of individual and perhaps unrelated matters which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister in the very limited time at my disposal.

The first one relates to the operation of container traffic. One knows that this is obviously the accepted form of usage around the world. Containerization has been very successful elsewhere. One knows too that the Railways Administration has been successful in providing services in order to accommodate container traffic. I am concerned, however, to see in the annual report of the General Manager of the S.A. Railways—on page 52—how far short of expectations containerization has fallen during the period under review. The General Manager tells us the following in his report—

The hon. the Minister, in his budget speech—I cannot quite reconcile the figures, but perhaps they deal with a different period—said that although the number of overseas containers handled at the ports during the months of April to December 1979 reflected a sharp increase of 32% over the figure for the same period during 1978, the number was still only some 88% of the original projection. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain the difference between the figures given by the General Manager in his report and the figures given in his budget speech by the hon. the Minister himself.

Just tell me what page of the General Manager’s report you are referring to now.

I am referring to page 52 of the report.

One wonders therefore whether this is perhaps simply owing to the state of the economy at the time or whether it is owing to any other factors. Certainly one notes that the Administration is expanding its container facilities, and therefore the Administration must be anticipating a greater usage of containerization. In the Brown Book, for example, I think an amount of R14 million is to be voted this year for the creation of container facilities at Bay Head, in Durban. I should like to know whether the Administration has done a survey of expectations, and, if not, on what they are basing their optimism. I think this is important.

The other point I should like to raise is this: There is a general satisfaction with the operation of containerization, but one does hear of delays that occur in regard to documentation, especially between Durban and the Witwatersrand. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us any indication of whether this sort of delay is within the power of the Administration or whether it is caused by some other factors. That is the first matter I should like to deal with. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to me on the whole question of containerization.

The second matter relates to the Brown Book, and the hon. the Minister also referred to it in his budget speech. I am referring to Berea Road railway station. The hon. the Minister said that the re-location of the railway station would be completed this year. The Brown Book shows that an amount of R3 million has still to be spent after this year. I want to know what that R3 million is for. I also want to know whether the hon. the Minister or the department has taken any final decision on whether there will be any feeder service provided from Berea Road railway station to take commuters nearer to the city via the Esplanade. I know that this is a matter that has been discussed before, but it is still a matter of importance because of the situation at Berea Road railway station which does handle a large number of commuters going to the city centre.

Then I want to refer again to the question of Durban’s new railway station. We are told that stage 3 is going to be completed this year, and an amount of R19 million is provided in the Brown Book for this purpose. This is said to involve, inter alia, main line station buildings and concourses, three main line and two suburban platforms and a road transport service bus terminal. What, however, about a suburban station building? Is that something that is proposed for the future? The hon. the Minister refers specifically to main line station buildings and concourses and suburban platforms. This main station is obviously also going to handle a good deal of suburban traffic, so I would very much like the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of when the remaining phases of the station will be completed and what the Administration has in mind.

Then I want to come to the question on which the hon. the Minister did not reply when he replied in the Second Reading debate.

That was only because of time.

I understand that. I am referring to the question of the old Durban railway station.

I shall reply to that shortly.

Thank you. I still believe that the Administration might not have a direct responsibility in regard to that site, but from the point of view of sentiment, history and tradition I think the Administration must have some view on whether the old railway station, which is an old Victorian building that has great historical significance, should be retained or not. I should like the Administration to express a view on this. I know the hon. the Minister is going to be very cautious and sit on the fence. That is what I am afraid of.

I can hardly express an opinion about other people’s property.

No, but we have heard a great deal about the background and the history of the Railways Administration and the Railway services, and this is a very important aspect of it from the point of view of tradition and history. So perhaps the Administration might even make some suggestion about what use that could be put to.

I now want to deal with another item in the Brown Book, item 361 which is a new item dealing with mess and ablution facilities for non-White train marshallers. This item provides for an amount of R101 200. Nothing has yet been spent, but an amount of R66 200 is to be spent this year. I should like an indication of how many non-White marshallers are to be catered for, and I should also like to know what has happened up until now. As I have said, it is a new item providing for mess and ablution facilities for presumably a very large number of non-White marshallers. I therefore wonder what facilities exist at the present time and what the position has been in the past.

I now come to another question relating to non-White staff members, and that is the question of housing. I am referring more specifically to the situation in Natal, and this is dealt with in items 550, 551 and 552 in the Brown Book. In item 550 provision is made for a hostel for non-Whites at Bayhead, in item 551 the provision of a hostel for non-Whites at Plessislaer and in item 552 a hostel for non-Whites at Umlazi. In the case of the last two, the estimated ultimate expenditure is something like R22 million, of which R20 000 has so far been voted in the case of Plessislaer, with a further R210 000 provided for the current year. The estimated cost of a non-White hostel at Umlazi is R28 million, of which some R1 700 000 has been voted up to March, with another R6 million to be provided for the financial year 1980-’81. These are fairly large sums and I should like to know whether these hostels are for single men and how many men are to be accommodated in them. If they are not for single men, I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of what the policy of the Administration is going to be in regard to housing married men. In the well-known case of Umlazi they could be accommodated in married quarters in the Umlazi township.

They are initially for single men, but they are so constructed that they can be converted.

The hon. the Minister says they can be converted into family units.

Those are the points I wanted to raise and I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister can deal with them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave will understand if I do not comment on his speech. He asked the hon. the Minister a number of questions and it would simply be presumptuous of me to attempt to reply to them.

Since this is my first opportunity of participating in the debate, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the first Railway budget that he is introducing here. I believe that the hon. the Minister will also stamp on this department, as is his wont.

The department has achieved a great deal of success. The Railways, the Harbours, the Airways and related departments have all done very well and this is due amongst other things to the dedication of the staff from the top management to the most humble worker. I should also like to pay tribute to these people on this occasion, especially those in my constituency, who have laboured faithfully and with dedication every day in the interest of the S.A. Railways and of South Africa.

The Railways has a programme by means of which it hopes to become less dependent on imported fuels. This is welcomed by all. The hon. the Minister pointed out that on completion of this programme, 85% of the gross ton-kilometres of the Railways will be from coal-derived energy. Consequently, once the programme has been completed, electricity will comprise 80% of energy consumption and steam only 5%.

This programme will have great advantages in regard to cost for the Railways. Unfortunately, this will also be disadvantageous to the rural areas unless changes can be made in good time or a form of compensation can be introduced. The rural areas will lose many people when steam traction is done away with. If one takes into account the workshop, repair and maintenance facilities, I want to say that steam traction is the largest single provider of employment to Whites in my constituency. I want to make a friendly request of the hon. the Minister to make the necessary changes for electrification in good time at the large railway junctions like De Aar, Noupoort and Rosmead. As steam traction is phased out, the necessary service facilities and workshops for the repair and maintenance of electric units and refrigerated trucks should be modified in such a way—and established where necessary—to enable them to be used once again in the new dispensation of electric traction. It would also be a good thing if provision were made at these centres for extending the repair work to include ordinary trucks. I want to ask for the decentralization of activities of the Railways. We have the space, the Railways has sufficient houses available at most of the places to which I have referred and I think it is worth the trouble for a serious investigation to be made into the possibility of establishing some of the manufacturing industries of the Railways there.

I read in the report of the General Manager that the manufacture, repair and proofing of tarpaulins amounted to more than R10 million last year. Now the question arises whether this industry could not be established at a place like Rosmead, to mention only one. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that houses are going to be standing empty there, due to the dieselization programme. Why should tarpaulins be manufactured and repaired in a city? Can we not shift this industry to the rural districts? Until a few years ago Noupoort had a tarpaulin repairing depot However, it was moved to East London and as a result Noupoort lost a considerable number of people. The rural districts would benefit from an industry like the one that I have just mentioned. If my calculations are correct, the Railways itself will probably have to manufacture tarpaulins to the value of approximately R3 million this year. The remainder are manufactured by private businesses.

I want to make a plea on behalf of the rural districts. I think the problem of Whites leaving the rural areas is more serious than is generally recognized. Resettlement is an expensive business, especially if delays set in and the infrastructure has been destroyed in the process. Then it becomes a very expensive undertaking to resettle people. In their position as the largest single employer in the Republic, the Railways have a very important function to carry out here. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate the possibility of establishing Railways light industries in these areas.

There is another matter that I should like to raise. There is a very great demand for electricity in the rural areas, particularly on farms. It has become too expensive to generate power by means of diesel, petrol and power paraffin engines. There are few railway stations that are not connected to a power line, at least for the purposes of their signalling system. Consequently I want to ask the Railways and Escom to investigate the possibility of incorporating the existing and future power lines of the Railways in transmitting electricity in the rural districts and the border areas. If we are in earnest about this, and if we stand together, I believe that electricity could be provided to farmers more rapidly and more cheaply if it were possible to use the existing and future power lines of the Railways. Of course, it would be cheaper because we would be using the same power lines as those that are being used by the Railways. I believe that in this case the Railways could even be distributing electricity on its own account This will enable the farmer to buy electricity directly from the Railways through his co-operative, or as an individual. It was a wise decision on the part of the Railways to use alternating current in future, and this makes my proposal even more practical to implement.

The Railways also provides socio-economic services. I do not want to describe this service as a socio-economic one now, because I believe the Railways should be remunerated for it, but I think it is possible that, although the Railways, like any other business, is managed according to business principles, it can enter a new sphere here, viz. the distribution of electricity, in the rural districts wherever possible. The Railways has a large contribution to make in order to make a stand against this serious problem of the provision of power. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, today I should like to ask the Railways Administration to investigate the possibility and necessity of a new railway line in my constituency. I am referring to the route from Moolman Station, which at the moment is situated on the so-called coal line from Broodsnyersplaas to Richards Bay, in an easterly direction through Pongola, and meets the Natal north coast line at Candover Station. My information is that that route was surveyed as long ago as in the late ’thirties or early ’forties. I want to suggest that such a railway line will have tremendous economic advantages for the whole area there and for the country as a whole and will also be of great strategic importance. In this regard I should like to associate myself with two very important statements made by the hon. the Minister during his Second Reading speech. Firstly he said that the services of a national transport system are so important that the continued progress of every sector of our economy is dependent on such a transport system or is at least affected by it. The second important statement that the hon. the Minister made, is that the strategic importance of the transport infrastructure in South Africa is not necessarily based on purely economic considerations, but is applicable to many other spheres as well.

The development of the coal industry, the timber industry, the sugar industry and agriculture in general in the eastern and south-eastern Transvaal, as well as in northern Natal, has increased so phenomenally in the past five years that ever increasing demands are being made of the Railways to transport the various products of those industries. For instance, the Railways was obliged to improve the coal line between Broodsnyersplaas and Richards Bay and to increase its carrying capacity.

In the Brown Book we see that an additional R6,6 million is going to be spent on that alone this year. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister also said that the annual flow of coal through the Richards Bay harbour would amount to approximately 44 million tons by the end of 1985, as against 21 million tons per annum at present. All indications point to the fact that it will not be the transportation of coal alone that will make demands of this specific railway line. I predict that it will be necessary to double the Richards Bay-Broodsnyersplaas railway line within the next few years if we do not want to retard development in other sectors of the economy in these specific areas. Instead of doubling the entire length of the line, I propose that the existing line should only be doubled from Broodsnyersplaas to Moolman Station, south of Piet Retief, and that an extra line should be built along the route that I have proposed, in order to connect at Candover via Pongola, ultimately reaching Richards Bay along the northern Natal coast line. In view of the hon. the Minister’s two statements to which I have referred, I want to suggest that such a line would have tremendous economic advantages for the particular area which would be opened up as a result I want to refer to a few of the most important sectors of our economy that would benefit as a result. Firstly, the mining industry would benefit Practically all of the existing coal-mines in the eastern Transvaal Highveld are involved in tremendous expansion programmes and new mines are also being opened there. Closer to my territory, in the South Eastern Transvaal, there are tremendous coal-reserves waiting to be mined, particularly in the Wakkerstroom, Dirkiesdorp and Piet Retief areas. Some of them are already being mined on a small scale. This increased coal production in our country is aimed chiefly at the export market and all that coal has to be exported via Richards Bay harbour. A rail connection that would be able to carry this increased traffic, which does not consist only of coal, is indispensable. However, the sugar industry would also benefit as a result Pongola, with its intensive sugar industry and large sugar mill, has no rail connection at all. Consequently at the moment the entire production of the sugar-mill at Pongola has to be transported to the nearest railway station by road at a high cost. A great deal of cotton and vegetables are also cultivated in that area, and these products also have to be transported to the nearest railway station by road. My information is that the railways transported approximately 200 000 metric tons of freight to and from Pongola using a large fleet of railway buses and lorries, not to mention the large number of private hauliers who also provide transportation services in that area. Just imagine the valuable fuel that has to be used for these services.

The timber industry would also benefit from a new railway line like this. The Central Timber Corporation has built up a valuable export market for wood chips in Japan. The present loading facilities at Durban harbour must be moved to Richards Bay before 1985. This will mean that large quantities of wattle and hard gum timber from the South Eastern Transvaal and even as far as the Lowveld areas of the Transvaal can be transported economically via Richards Bay by means of chipping. The export of round wood, other timber products, lumber, etc. via Richards Bay, will also be much more profitable for producers if a railway line like this can be opened up, because this line will run through one of the most intensively developed plantation areas of Transvaal.

The agricultural industry in general will also benefit a great deal. The provision of food is a very high priority. South Africa is in the fortunate position of being able not only to produce enough for our own needs, but also to export a great deal. The railway line that I am proposing, will open up for considerable additional agricultural development areas that have thus far been unable to develop to their full potential. I am referring here to the districts of Ermelo and Piet Retief in particular, and to the Dirkiesdorp, Sulphur Springs, Klein Vrystaat and Pongola districts. Over the past two years, maize production in the Piet Retief area has increased by approximately 40%. The Klein Vrystaat and Sulphur Springs areas are endowed with the right climate and the right rainfall which makes these areas eminently suitable for the cultivation of vegetables. Those two areas, together with Pongola, can become the vegetable larder of Natal in particular, provided that proper railway facilities can be made available.

I also want to refer to the second aspect, viz. the strategic value of a new railway line like this. I feel its chief value will be that it will provide an alternative route from the Transvaal to Richards Bay and the Durban harbour in contrast to the direct junction from Piet Retief via Vryheid to Richards Bay. However, this railway line will also not only stop the depopulation of the rural areas, as a result of the economic stimulation it will bring to the areas through which it runs, but will also bring about a considerable settlement in and occupation of the rural areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the suggestion that perhaps my hon. colleague was expecting the hon. the Minister to throw a bucket at him today, I should like to say at the outset that I do not think the hon. the Minister has any buckets left because he threw them all yesterday. [Interjections.]

You will be surprised at what I can do.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo will forgive me if I do not react to his arguments. He made a plea about local matters. Obviously he knows his stuff on this particular subject, so he must excuse me for not elaborating on it.

The hon. the Minister suggested in his reply to the Second Reading—I think I have understood him correctly—that I had suggested that the Railways should borrow money overseas.

No.

He did not? My hon. colleague in front of me thought that he had, in fact, said so, but of course I did no such thing. I pointed out, in fact, that Great Britain is a very good place in which to invest money at the moment, because one can obtain interest of 16% on seven-day money.

Now that that has been satisfactorily dealt with, there is a further point I wish to raise. If I have understood the hon. the Minister correctly, he expects parity to be reached, in the wages for the different population groups, in 1994.

Provided there is an annual increase on the basis I have indicated.

Yes, certainly. However, one would then assume that in making this statement, it is his intention to continue at the same sort of pace and that it is expected that parity will perhaps be reached in 1994, admittedly in some cases sooner and perhaps in some cases later. Perhaps this will be taking somewhat too long. That date is still 14 years hence. One would hope that parity in wages could be reached long before this time. However, I fully support the hon. the Minister when he maintains that what we actually want is equal pay for equal work. That is certainly the policy of this party.

As far as the Railways is concerned, I think this is a particularly important year for the East London area in general. It is important, because on 5 May 1880 the first rail service from East London to Queenstown was incorporated. So this year we shall be celebrating the centenary of the Railways in the border area. This fact was brought to my attention a considerable time ago by the Friends of the Museum, because they plan to organize a commemorative trip from East London to Queenstown. Unfortunately, however, they found that to hire the necessary train to do this was going to be very expensive, and therefore they cut it down to a trip from East London to Stutterheim, everybody travelling in period costume, etc. I am delighted to see—and I should like to congratulate the Railways on this—that they have now taken over this idea themselves and will now be running a commemorative trip directly from East London all the way to Queenstown and back overnight.

I shall be on that train.

Yes, I understand the hon. the Minister will be on that train.

In period costume?

What sort of dress are you going to wear?

Everybody is stealing my lines. I hope that he will be in period costume. Perhaps I could suggest that the hon. the Minister might don the costume of a 19th century melodrama villain.

I shall leave that to you.

I shall wear it with pleasure.

[Inaudible.]

In fact, I have taken part in old-fashion melodramas on a number of occasions.

I think this centenary celebration is particularly apt, because the hon. the Minister has announced that this year, the centenary year of East London, they will start on a programme to electrify the line from East London north to the Orange Free State.

There are a number of questions I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in this regard. I appreciate the fact that a start is to be made this year, and I should like to know where that start will be made. Are we going to start in the Orange Free State and work south, or start from East London and work north, or in the middle and work both ways, or at a number of places at once? We in the border area should like to get some idea about where and how these works will start.

Secondly, I should like to ask whether the advent of this line will speed up the passenger service in the area. Will it mean that the time-tables will, in fact, indicate reduced travelling times? I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that if one were able to reduce the time taken by trains, the passenger services would certainly be used much more frequently. In the second place I believe people would actually move from using their own cars to using the railways. I shall give an example. Stutterheim is a fairly small town and is 80 km from East London by road. It takes the average motorist, travelling within the speed limit, approximately one hour to travel from Stutterheim to East London. The train, however, takes just on three hours, which is an average of under 30 km per hour. I do not know what the actual rail distance is, but I am comparing it with the road distance. I believe anything that can be done to lessen the amount of time it takes to get from point A to point B, particularly over shorter distances, would be a tremendous advantage to the inhabitants of the area, and not only that. I believe it would also do economic good to the country because it would stop people using their cars as much as they do. To be able to get into the train in the morning and go to the major city to do one’s month’s purchases and then come back by train in the evening will, I am sure, induce a lot more people to travel by train if the train times could be shortened. The last question I have in connection with the electrification of this line is really one which I could ask either the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs or the hon. the Minister of Consumer Affairs. The question is how the electric power usage of the Railways will visibly affect the situation of the Border area undertaking of Escom. Do the Railways purchase their electricity from the local undertaking through which the trains pass? This is important, because if this happens, what we need in the Border area, electricity-wise, is greater usage to spread the costs amongst a greater number of people and thus reduce the overall tariff rate. What I am really asking is …

You have to put the question to me.

Fine. Will the fact that the Railways are using electricity in the Border area Escom undertaking help to reduce tariff rates generally?

At this stage, I want to leave railways and go on to the port of East London. This port has, I think, a very proud record, because we are now able to accommodate ro-ro ships and I understand the harbour has the fastest rate of cargo discharge and intake of any port on the South African coast. I understand its rate of discharge per hour from these ro-ro ships, the Elgaren and others, have been such that we have set up records in this regard. I think the harbour must be congratulated on this. We appreciate these facilities. At the same time I would like to refer to the matter of tugs in the East London harbour, because I understand these tugs have been in use for some considerable period of time. Is there any plan to replace them in the near future? What is their economy of operation like in comparison with more modern and up-to-date tugs?

Mr. Chairman, before you make me sit down—because my time is very nearly up—I would like to refer to East London’s airport. Last year I raised the point of radar at the airport in terms of flying safety, which is why I brought it in under S.A. Airways. At that stage I got certain answers from the hon. the Minister. I want to know whether those answers still hold. Do the S.A. Airways see the possibility of putting in radar, which I believe is very necessary, at the airport at any stage in the future?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London North discussed his local affairs and for a change it sounded as if he had a few points with which one could agree. I, too, wish to discuss two local matters, firstly, the doubling and electrification of the railway line from Pretoria to the far north, particularly to Warmbad, Potgietersrus and Pietersburg, and secondly, the link line between Marble Hall and Groblersdal. As far as the link line between Marble Hall and Groblersdal is concerned, as far as I know this matter was raised on a few occasions by the late Mr. Abraham, one of my honoured predecessors, and again later by the late Mr. Bekker, also a predecessor of mine. I can already see in my mind’s eye how my successors will one day mention how the late Fanie Herman spoke about the same matter. [Interjections.]

Hope maketh not ashamed, of course.

Yes, hope maketh not ashamed. Here I agree with the hon. the Minister. He is a new hon. Minister and therefore there is more hope. [Interjections.] This is not a matter which we are raising simply to try to obtain a railway line for Groblersdal. I think this is a matter which is in the national interest, and accordingly I wish to approach it from this angle. I know that a survey was carried out in 1973. That was the last survey I know about. In that survey it was maintained that the railway line was not economically justifiable. However, since then much water has flowed under the bridge and perhaps such a railway line would now be economically justifiable. In the second place, I know that there is no one who wants to guarantee such a railway line. Therefore it cannot be a guaranteed railway line either. In the third place, however, one could imagine that from a departmental viewpoint it could be a vital railway line in the national interest. I shall explain why I am arguing along these lines.

After the previous survey had been carried out, the fuel crisis occurred in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has probably read about what happens at Groblersdal. It is simply amazing how many buses there are taking passengers from the Witwatersrand and Johannesburg to their homelands, particularly Lebowa and KwaNdebele, over weekends. Obviously all those buses use fuel. Then, too, there are taxis and private transport. We must take that into account as well.

Moreover—and this is very important—the development of Lebowa and KwaNdebele needs something of an infrastructure. For example, I know that KwaNdebele has absolutely nothing. There is not even a single tarred road. Nor are there sufficient water resources. Moreover, there is not a single railway line there. Therefore it is vital for the sake of our future that we should consider establishing an infrastructure for KwaNdebele, as well as for Lebowa and the entire region in the vicinity of Groblersdal and Marble Hall.

As regards the security of South Africa as well, I believe that if this route could later be joined to other routes, for example Roossenekal, Middelburg or even Bronkhorstspruit, there would be an alternative railway line to Pretoria and Johannesburg if something unforeseen were to occur in the future. Accordingly, since such a request was last made several years ago I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not perhaps inform us in detail what the position is in regard to such a rail link. We should also like to know when attention can again be given to this matter. I believe that all the bodies in that vicinity would be very grateful for the latest news in connection with the possibility of a rail link of this nature. The city council of Groblersdal, the regional development associations and the agricultural unions would all like to know what the situation is in that regard.

In the second place, as regards the electrification of the railway line to the north, I fully understand that this is a matter which is in fact being given the necessary attention. This also applies to the doubling of that railway line. This is being worked on, but at the moment I find nothing in this regard in the documents relating to the budget. Accordingly I should also like to request the hon. the Minister to explain to us in detail, if possible, what is happening in this regard. It does happen from time to time that the people in that region want to know from me when something is going to happen there. There are of course a number of important factors causing them to ask this question. For example, we heard the other day that General Mining now has very big plans on the Springbok Flats with regard to the production of fuel. Now the people there want to know whether there is going to be development in that region as well as regards extension of the rail network. In the second place there are the coalfields from Pienaars River to Potgietersrus. I am also being asked whether any improvement is possible with regard to the infrastructure in the far north. I see that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is in the House at present Although many hon. members may not be aware of this, I know that that hon. Minister is fully aware of the important development that has taken place at Warmbad in connection with the building of the recreation centre there. This is something which is unique in the world. R5 million has been spent on it and even at this stage it is attracting many tourists, and it was only completed last year. I should like to know whether high-speed transport to that part of the world could not perhaps be introduced. Could we not perhaps have improved transport facilities on that route? I should be much obliged if the hon. the Minister could give us more details about this.

Mr. Chairman, the railway town of Salvokop falls into my constituency and accordingly I have a large number of Railway people in my constituency. I should therefore like to convey my most sincere thanks and appreciation today to the Railwaymen, for the work they do. The Railway people—and I know them well because I grew up in a Railway home; my father was an engine driver who retired on pension—are people who work hard, who are loyal towards their employer and who are honest and straightforward people. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Mr. Ben Schoeman was so popular among the Railway people, because he was straightforward and honest with them, and they were always fond of him.

Today I should like to confine myself to discussing Salvokop. Salvokop is an area in my constituency which is ideally situated to the north of a series of hills, near the city centre and close to the station. It is a very well-situated place. The position in Salvokop has improved substantially in certain respects over the past few years. There were old houses too dilapidated for repair that have been demolished. I understand that the Railways have also decided to restore and then rent certain houses of real cultural historical value. We wish to thank and praise the Administration for this. However, I am today in the position of a member of the City Council, because in Salvokop the Railways is also responsible for the water supply, the roads, the pavements and the parks. There was always a park in Salvokop until it was taken away to make way for a building for the overnight staff of the Blue Train.

This brings me to my first plea in connection with Salvokop. Can the hon. the Minister not give the children of Salvokop a place to play? They did have one and they ought to get one again. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look into this matter with compassion—and this is a word which has political significance nowadays—to see whether he cannot do anything about this.

My second plea is a very serious one and concerns the question of water, H₂0.

Is there water in Waterberg?

And brains in Bryanston?

Order!

The Railways is also responsible for the provision of water in Salvokop. However, there are high-lying and low-lying areas of Salvokop, and it often happens that the supply of water is not strong enough and is totally cut off. This means that a section of Salvokop does not get water. An hour ago I spoke by telephone to a Salvokop voter. Mr. Cronje, one of those railwaymen who speaks his mind and tells one exactly where he thinks one is wrong and where one is right, says that they have not had water in Salvokop for 12 hours, believe it or not. It is a serious matter, because he says that they have had to carry water in buckets. They have had to go and fetch water at the station in buckets and carry it to Salvokop, and this is the city centre of Pretoria in the year 1980. Surely we cannot allow this.

That is absolute “Bols”.

It is of course a question of hygiene, too, because if there is no water then the sewage works cannot function. There is something else, too, that I must point out Since this is a fairly densely populated area, certain practical problems arise. In this connection I must also draw attention to the fact that for part of the time the school, too, has been without water. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that if in these times we keep having problems of a shortage of water—and I can assure hon. members that there is a failure in the water supply every month—then this is indeed a matter which must be regarded as requiring speedy action. I think the matter should be regarded as urgent, and investigated as such. I want to bring these two specific matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Then I want to conclude by wishing the hon. the Minister all of the best. As a practical Railwayman I want to say that it means a great deal when I say to the hon. the Minister that I hope that in the years that lie ahead the railwaymen will become as fond of him as they were of Mr. Ben Schoeman. If that is the case, then they are going to be very fond of him. If the hon. the Minister wants to make a good start in Salvokop, he will give serious attention to the representations I have made to him.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria Central will forgive me if I do not react to his speech since he dealt with his own constituency. If I may, I want to touch on just four aspects concerning the hon. the Minister and his department.

It is clear from the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading that there is no doubt that the tariff increases are inflationary. The hon. the Minister has admitted as much. Since the budget will be passed, all that is left for us to do is to appeal to the hon. the Minister to prevail upon the hon. the Minister of Finance to provide sufficient relief by way of tax relief for the business sector and John Citizen to cushion the effect these increases will have.

Order! There is such a drone of talking in the House that the hon. the Minister cannot hear what the hon. member is saying.

I hope the hon. the Minister will take that up with the hon. the Minister of Finance, and I make that appeal accordingly.

I could not hear what you want me to take up with the Minister of Finance.

Since this budget is inflationary, I want the hon. the Minister to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to help private enterprise and John Citizen to cushion the effect of inflation by granting appropriate tax relief.

I shall do my best.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for that.

The hon. the Minister also stated in his reply that he was not really convinced concerning my appeal that the road transport service should identify areas that can be taken over to see what role private enterprise can play. He challenged me to say whether I thought it would lead to a lowering of costs and I said I thought it would. I in turn challenge him to find areas in respect of which tenders can be granted, for example services such as passenger or goods services. He should allow people in the private sector to apply for transportation certificates. If he does that, I think he will find that a number of companies will be only too pleased to go into those areas, assist the road transport service and make their own profit.

In this regard I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to page 40 of the General Manager’s very good report for 1978-’79. According to the report the number of first-class passengers conveyed dropped by 21,7% or approximately 183 000. The number of third-class passengers dropped by 11,66% or 1 624 000. That is a lot. The report states that a contributory factor was the increase in fares introduced with effect from 1 April 1978. Can we then on this basis expect further losses being sustained because of the increase now proposed of approximately 12%? Surely there are routes that can be handed over to private companies by way of tenders. I think we should consider this.

I also want to refer to the road transportation of livestock, milk and cream. This is also dealt with in the report. In that respect an increase of 12,5% is proposed. The housewife will have to pay for that. The report states that the number of livestock conveyed decreased by 42,89%, which is an astronomical figure. The number conveyed decreased by 66 281 units despite the forecast of a 26,3% increase. Milk and cream conveyed decreased by 39,99%, which is again a large percentage. The decrease represents 1 024 536 litres.

What is the reason for this? The reason is, funnily enough, contained on page 40 of the annual report of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. The report says—

The suggestion therefore has merit and I think the hon. the Minister should look into it, because as far as the ancillary services are concerned, there was a decrease of 31 295 tons in the tonnage conveyed by the ancillary goods services. This area should therefore be looked at.

A third aspect I want to touch on is one which may please the hon. the Minister. I want to thank the department for conducting a survey on smokers who commute on the suburban trains in Johannesburg. In an investigation lasting six months it was ascertained that 80% of the commuters on the suburban trains in Johannesburg are non-smokers and that only 20% are smokers. On that basis I think the hon. the Minister might consider extending the allocation of coaches for non-smokers on that basis and also making provision for “No smoking” signs to appear not only on the doors of the coaches, but also on the windows, as is done in the case of aircraft. With reference to aircraft I think that in the case of the Boeing 737s, one is not allowed to smoke in seats on the aisle, but smoking is allowed in the other inner seats. Similarly I think the hon. the Minister should consider the allocation of seats on aircraft on the basis of the 80:20 ratio I have mentioned, in order to meet the wishes of the commuters in this regard.

Lastly, I want to touch on the discrimination in salaries paid by the Railways Administration. It is the policy of the Government to narrow the wage gap between Whites and non-Whites, and an amount of R188 million has been set aside for this purpose, but I want to make an appeal for equal pay for equal work. If we look at the salary scales of the Railway personnel—and I thank the hon. the Minister for making the figures available to me—we find, for example, that a White driver earns a starting salary of R356 per month as against a Black driver’s starting salary of R253 per month. Surely the work and the responsibility are exactly the same? They carry the same loads and the risks are also the same. A Black grade II clerk receives a starting salary of R2 394 per annum as against a starting salary of R2 640 for his White counterpart Why is there a difference? There is not much difference in salary, however, between a Black and an Indian clerk. A Black principal clerk receives R7 830 per annum while a White principal clerk gets R9 609. Why is there this discrepancy? Is it not possible for the hon. the Minister to narrow the gap and to pay them what they deserve for equal work?

I have indicated that we are doing it now.

The hon. the Minister must, however, close the gap.

Can I increase tariffs to do so?

I think the hon. the Minister has sufficient money now to do so. When one looks at the salaries of constables we find that the starting salary of a White constable is R229 per month, whereas the starting salary of a Black constable is R209 per month. A Black sergeant, for example, receives a starting salary of R322 per month while a White sergeant receives a starting salary of R571 per month. A Black warrant officer earns R358,80 per month, as against the White warrant officer’s salary of R667 per month. A Black lieutenant earns R5 736 per annum while his White counterpart earns R9 153 per annum. This is a large discrepancy. These people face the same risks, their training is the same and their work is equally onerous and I can see no reason whatsoever why the hon. the Minister cannot take this unique opportunity, as they are not bound by the regulations of the Public Service Commission as employees in other Government departments are, to show the Railway Service and, in fact, the country as a whole that the Railways can introduce equal pay for equal work and, in so doing, do away with all discrimination in the payment of salaries and wages to the Railways staff.

Mr. Chairman, I have three things I want to mention and they concern only my constituency or constituency matters. Last year I made an appeal to the hon. the Minister in respect of a particular matter in my constituency and it is my pleasure today to be able to say thank you to the Railways Administration for action which has been taken in regard to the appeal I made. It concerns urban decay in the greater area of Maitland. There are many parts of the Peninsula, as is well-known, which are suffering from urban decay and distress and the Maitland portion of my constituency is no exception. The hon. the Minister of Community Development recently declared Maitland a designated area in need of community development. Last year when the appeals were made to the Railways, which provides housing for a very large portion of the population of Maitland, housing which is also not in a very good condition, the hon. the Minister responded Very sensitively and the building programme is to be commenced with in April when all the houses in Maitland are to be revamped. New roofs, new ceilings, new windows and new floors will be supplied where necessary and all the houses will be painted. I therefore want to say to the hon. the Minister that we are extremely grateful not only for what is to be done, but also because we know—and this is such a big community—that this is going to give impetus to the whole rehabilitation of Maitland, which we believe must follow and will follow now that the committee which has been designated by the hon. the Minister of Community Development has had its first meeting on Monday.

Having said that, there are two brief matters I want to raise with the hon. the Minister by way of questions. The hon. the Minister will recall that last year I raised with him and his department the matter of coal-dust in Maitland. Alongside the railway line there is a coal company—I do not think it is necessary to mention the name of the coal company—which stores great heaps of coal there.

I know the company.

When the south-easter blows, it blows the coal-dust into the military camp and when the north-wester blows, it blows the coal-dust into the Maitland area. I would be very grateful if the hon. the Minister could inform us as to what developments there have been in that regard.

The third matter on which I require some elucidation from the hon. the Minister is the matter of the railway station at Maitland. Over the years we have heard, regarding the Koeberg and Maitland railway stations, that possibly one will be removed and that a new station is to be built at Koeberg. The hon. the Minister will be aware of the enormous social problems which face us in Maitland. He will be aware of the stabbings in the subways, the loitering and the social evils which exist there. He will also be aware of the difficulties confronting the people who work in the area, such as nurses working night duty, etc., who have to use the station. We know that it is no good taking palliative steps. The people of Maitland are patient and we do not want mere cosmetic steps to be taken. However, we understand that the problems will be resolved when ultimately a new station is built If the hon. the Minister could perhaps indicate to me when it is planned to construct a new station according to the Railways’ programme for the future, I would be grateful.

I should like to conclude by simply saying once more a hearty “thank you” to the hon. the Minister for the great interest the department has shown in matters that affect my constituency.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.