Mr. Chairman, I wish to start off with the general mark that hon. members have covered a very wide spectrum in their discussions during the Committee Stage. During the past week-end I literally experienced what it means to work 24 hours a day, seven days of the week. However, there is also good news on the S.A. Railways. The General Manager has become a grandfather and that of course means an addition to our staff, something that is probably going to make things easier for me in future. [Interjections.]

I shall try to reply to all the speeches made by hon. members as concisely as possible. The hon. member for Gezina expressed his thanks for the fact that we granted an interview to a delegation from his constituency. This was concerned with the railway extensions at Capital Park. I thank him for his co-operation in this respect. It is difficult to act in a responsible manner at all times, particularly when one’s voters are not all that kindly disposed towards one. The hon. member has requested that we consult him when the third phase of the extensions at Capital Park has been reached. Perhaps I should just confirm that there is a very effective liaison between the City Council of Pretoria and the S.A. Railway Administration, also with regard to the facilities that have to be established there. However, I content myself with assuring the hon. member that the liaison will be maintained and that he himself will be kept informed of any further developments in this regard.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow requested that provision be made for non-smokers in the ratio established by the census on suburban trains. According to a census undertaken by the S.A. Railways 80% of all suburban passengers travelling in the first class prefer non-smoking accommodation. For this reason 80% of all first-class coaches on the Reef are being clearly marked on doors and on windows to indicate to passengers that smoking is prohibited in those particular vehicles. On the same ratio this arrangement is now being introduced on all suburban services in other centres as well. That is what the hon. member suggested we should do.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown referred to the surplus land between Simonstown and Muizenberg and requested me to intercede with the Railway Administration in order to have them transfer that land to the city council. Allow me to explain that between 1952 and 1978 there were negotiations between the city council and the Railways with a view to the acquisition of land by the council for the purposes of widening that particular stretch of road. On 8 August 1978, however, advice was received from the city council to the effect that their planning had not been finalized at that stage, that consultants had been appointed to undertake a comprehensive study of metropolitan transportation and to evaluate the needs that existed. They undertook to advise the S.A. Railway Administration further on the result of that study. No further representations have as yet been received from the city council.

I should just like to state that the Railways Administration has no objection whatsoever to the transfer of the land—naturally against payment of the value of the land—that we do not require for our own purposes to the city council for the purposes for which it might be required.

The hon. member for Simonstown also referred to the level crossings at Steenberg, Lakeside, False Bay and elsewhere in his constituency. I should like to put on record that the level crossings at Steenberg—the one at Military Road—and at Lakeside have been listed for elimination. The schemes are, however, connected with the planning by the Cape Town city council of its arterial road system in that particular area, a scheme which is still being considered by the council. Both these crossings are, however, equipped with flashlights as additional interim safety precautions. Half-arm barriers will be installed as soon as possible as a further safety measure. The level crossing at Kalk Bay has been listed for elimination and the Cape Town city council is investigating a proposal to locate the elimination structure where it would have the least visual impact. Alignment is a serious problem. The Permanent Level Crossings Committee recently approved the provision of flashlights and half-arm barriers, on condition that the road is sufficiently widened to accommodate such barriers and that arrangements can be made with the council to control road traffic at the intersection with the main road.

*The hon. member for Simonstown also inquired about the overcrowded trains from Steenberg and Retreat to Cape Town. In this connection, I wish to explain that if the platforms on these particular sections were to be extended, some of the stations would have to be closed in order to accommodate the new signalling systems. The distances between the various stations on that section are relatively short. An ad hoc committee of the Cape Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board is already investigating the possibility of improved transport facilities to and from this area, and we shall devote further attention to the matter after we have received the report.

The hon. member also referred to the question of providing police services on trains and on stations on this particular route. I think it is perhaps advisable that I should inform hon. members about this matter in full. This is a very real problem, and one that causes the S.A. Railway Administration great concern. I just wish to sketch the background to hon. members. In the settlement area there are 33 stations that are served by 64 trains during peak periods, and by 140 trains outside peak periods. There are other services as well. There are 29 stations between Cape Town and Simonstown, and during peak periods there are 59 trains. Outside peak periods, there are 149. On the Cape Flats line there are 18 stations that are served by 32 trains during peak periods. Outside peak periods there are 96 trains. Between Cape Town and Bellville there are 14 stations that are served by 49 trains during peak periods. Outside peak periods they are served by 168 trains. These two services convey 10 439 White passengers and 84 775 non-White passengers to Cape Town station every day. That gives hon. members an indication of the scope of the services provided on these routes.

What is our present modus operandi to try to cope with or counteract this problem on trains? Whereas it was previously the practice to have plainclothes policemen on the trains, it is now the custom to have uniformed policemen on duty on the trains. Naturally this serves as a deterrent, since they can be identified. It must be mentioned, however, that policemen do not normally travel on trains during heavy peak periods, since passenger density is then such that the policemen cannot move from one part of the train to another. Their presence would then be worthless if problems were to arise at another point. Experience has shown that assaults occur more frequently on trains running outside peak periods and which are not so full, and that policemen should rather concentrate on these trains. In other words, the assaults do not take place to such a great extent on fully loaded peak-hour trains. During peak periods, attention is devoted instead to problem stations when people have to get off the trains. In addition there are mobile police units. There are 42 policemen on the Cape Town station with one vehicle, and 31 policemen at Bellville with two vehicles; the latter have two vehicles at that station because the distances to be covered are greater. These units concentrate on the problem areas and they are in contact with their head office and with one another. Lately, police dogs have been used with policemen at key positions on stations, and this works effectively. Every manned station on the various routes has telephonic communication, and also the facilities for receiving complaints. The public was recently informed of these facilities again and requested to avail themselves of the facilities. The staff on trains also make a personal contribution in an effort to solve problems on trains.

I come now to further measures which I envisage for these routes. In the first place there is extensive liaison with liaison committees representing the travelling public, since we have to obtain their co-operation. Then there is also the improvement of communications between the stations, control offices and mobile units to facilitate contact. In the third place, there is an effective communication system on trains, and that also means communication between the trains, the stations and the police. Employers are also being persuaded, through the media and other organizations, to negotiate another method of payment which would eliminate the situation that of passengers carrying large amounts in cash with them on Fridays in particular, since this is actually the crux of the problem and the reason why these crimes take place. Liaison committees are already co-operating in this respect. Furthermore, there is the extension of the barrier system to keep unauthorized persons, those who do not have tickets, off the trains. There is also the further strengthening of the Police Force, and an increase in the number of vehicles in this area.

The hon. member for Algoa referred to the position of a particular group of pensioners whose pensions are not too high for them to qualify for social pensions. I should like to explain this matter. The object of the pension fund of the Railways is, apart from the cash payment to the railwayman when he retires, to ensure a regular monthly income for the member after his retirement, or for his widow when he dies. At present, the average payment to ordinary pensioners and their widows is approximately R360 and R220 per month respectively. Only pensioners who retired on pension after 1 October 1976, qualify for a social pension in terms of that department’s own arrangements. The minimum income level of R82 per month is relatively low, however, with the result that at present only about 500 out of a possible total of 6 000 Railway pensioners qualify for such a pension. Although it is theoretically possible to change the formula for the calculation of pension benefits in such a way that a larger percentage of railway pensioners would qualify for a social pension—I am now referring to the 500—it would definitely not be in the interests of the pensioners in the long run. If a portion of the annuity were to be converted into a cash amount and the pensioner were for some reason or other to use up this entire cash amount, it would make him solely dependent upon the relatively much lower monthly pension from the Railways. The conversion of a portion of the monthly pension into a cash amount could, in certain cases, therefore place the pensioner in a far weaker position than he would have been in if the status quo had been maintained. The fact that the annuity of the Railway pensioners is increased annually by 2%—compounded annually—should not be overlooked either. In addition it is the policy of the Administration to adjust pensions from time to time to improve the financial position of pensioners, and this could cause the amount of old-age pension to be exceeded.

The hon. member for Algoa also requested that the travelling time of the passenger train service between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town should be reduced. The average speed of the passenger train between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town will be increased in the near future because intermediate stops at present required for operating purposes are being eliminated. Stops for commercial purposes cannot of course be eliminated, as the hon. member will appreciate. It is also expected that as a result of dieselization it will be possible to increase the average speeds in due course. The hon. member would then be able to arrive in time for a parliamentary session!

The hon. member for Boksburg asked us to inquire into the provision of sheltered parking areas at suburban stations in the metropolitan areas. Let me say at once that I have a great deal of sympathy with the standpoint of the hon. member. He will appreciate, however, that I have specific responsibilities and that these are not related to his request. Most stations in the areas referred to by the hon. member are situated in very densely built-up areas and in the first place, Railway land is not available at all these stations. In the municipal area of Roodepoort, the municipality established open parking space at each and every suburban station within its area and in certain cases the council even acquired land on which houses had been demolished for this purpose. Where unutilized Railway land is available it is made available to the local authorities at a nominal rental for the establishment of parking facilities, but the lay-out and method of lay-out is their responsibility. Unfortunately, we cannot help the hon. member in this respect.

†The hon. member for Edenvale referred to sales promotion and advertising on the Airways and asked for more detail as far as accounts No. 3108, No. 3140 and No. 3144 are concerned. He also asked whether market research is being undertaken with a view to determining the users’ needs. I shall first deal with the different accounts. As regards account No. 3108, provision is made under this account for the labour cost of instructors and other staff engaged in the training of air personnel other than flight deck crews and workshop staff. In other words, it relates to the training of ground hostesses, cargo-handlers, cabin crew, etc. Provision is also made under this account for training equipment. The staff are trained by academically trained personnel development officers. As regards account No. 3140, approximately 90% of the provision under this account is in respect of labour costs of staff solely engaged in sales promotion whilst 10% is in respect of expenditure on office equipment such as stationery and telephone and teleprinter services. Regular research is being done to establish a consumer profile and consumers’ requirements. During the period 1978 to March 1979 a study was undertaken at all boarding points except Australia. Approximately 5 000 passengers were interviewed. From 15 December 1978 to 15 April 1979 the S.A. Airways also participated in a survey abroad by the Department of Tourism. A similar survey was conducted for domestic travellers last year. The increase in the estimates for 1980-’81 is fully as a result of the salary adjustment, service bonus and increased contributions to the Superannuation Fund in respect of the sales promotion staff. As far as account No. 3144 is concerned, this account is charged with the cost of publicity and the dissemination of air travel information, such as advertising, time-tables and articles used for publicity purposes. In this respect use is made of the S.A. Railways Publicity Section and various private publicity undertakings. The increase in the estimates for 1980-’81 is due to a rise in the printing cost and the high tariffs for Press advertisements, locally as well as overseas. Further, provision is also made to extend the marketing programme in South America and the Far East. That also confirms the fact that the S.A. Airways pays continued attention to both marketing and sales.

The hon. member referred to the problems encountered when making reservations by telephone at the Johannesburg Airways Reservations Office. Let me say immediately that this is a general problem, and does not occur only at that reservation office. I should like to explain this and what I have done about it. The rapid growth in air travel, especially during the past 12 months has, for obvious reasons, placed a severe strain on the staff and the facilities of the S.A. Airways, especially in Johannesburg. Suitable action has, however, been initiated to solve the problem. The steps involved are the following: 64 agents have been granted direct access to the S.A. Airways’ Safari reservation system, which is a fully mechanized system which has brought much relief on the telephone lines; secondly, a fully automated telephone call distribution system has been sanctioned for installation in the 1980-’81 financial year, the year we are discussing now; and, thirdly, an improved multi-access computer mechanization of all agents will be available in October-November this year. These additional facilities will ensure a high standard of communication with the S.A. Airways’ reservation offices. The hon. member for Green Point also referred to that. Let me say in this regard that there is also, from time to time, ambiguity as to which number to call.

*The reason for this is that it is often difficult to distinguish between the Airways and the airport service. We are now taking steps to rectify that matter in the telephone directory as well.

The hon. member for Vasco also pointed out that the new Kensington-Bellville railway line runs through parts of his constituency such as Acacia Park, Tygerdal, Vrijzee, etc., and inquired whether he could consider allocating certain of these area names to these stations. The station names Acacia Park, Monte Vista, De Grendel, Avondale and Oosterzee on the Bellville-Kensington section have already been approved by the Place Names Committee. The railway line is being opened on 1 April 1980 and all interested parties have already been advised of the station names and the running times. Since the Place Names Committee has to be consulted in connection with any change of name, it will not be practicable to effect any changes before the service has been introduced. As far as the others are concerned, I shall give further attention to the matter at a later stage. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy says he approves of this recommendation. The hon. member also asked for railway lines to be constructed so that areas could develop from an economic point of view and not the other way around. He will appreciate that I am experiencing a problem in this particular regard. Perhaps I should just point out for sake of the record that in the earlier years, railway lines were constructed to help develop the country, since the development of the hinterland was wholly dependent upon rail links. It was then possible because the construction costs of railway lines were very low, and only the bare minimum of facilities were provided. This pattern has of course changed over the years, since the railway network has been virtually completed and we have had strong competition from road transportation. Apart from that, the costs of the construction of new railway lines has, of course, risen phenomenally. In view of the fact that we have to work in accordance with commercial principles and also in view of the considerable capital expenditure required for the construction of new railway Unes, the Administration is only prepared to construct new Unes in cases where these are required for departmental purposes or are guaranteed against operating losses by organizations with considerable capital resources, or where they can be economically justified by the expected traffic in the area which will be served by the line.

The hon. member requested that I should eliminate discrimination between men and women. I assume that this request concerns only conditions of service, otherwise I would not be able to do so. I wish to point out to the hon. member immediately that where men and women in the employ of the S.A. Railways perform the same work, for example checkers, constables, grade 2 clerks, etc., they receive the same salary, so there is no differentiation.

The hon. member for Rissik has tendered his apology for not being able to be here this afternoon. He referred to the stations Hartebeesspruit, Rissik and Loftus Versfeld Park in his constituency. In the nature of things there is, sporadically, great pressure on the line, particularly when Western Province plays there, although not always with much success. Facilities for maximum traffic flow at these relatively small stations cannot of course be economically justified. The matter will, however, be re-investigated and we shall effect improvements where necessary. I wish to point out that the mobile unit of Pretoria affords police protection on the stations concerned, particularly during peak periods. If any complaints of irregularities are received at times when the mobile unit in the area is not on duty, such complaints are attended to by the regular police officers on shift duty at Pretoria station. During sports meetings at Loftus Versfeld, special arrangements are made for police protection. Since the beginning of the year various persons have already been arrested by the police for offences on this particular section.

The hon. member for Newton Park dealt with housing and stipulations for housing. Properties acquired in terms of the Railways’ house-ownership schemes are registered in the name of the Railways Administration. The reason for this is that in contrast to loans from building societies, which are only 80% loans, the loan is granted for the entire amount of the purchase price, except in cases where the maximum loan amount is exceeded and the applicant then has to make an additional payment. The Administration pays rates and taxes, the sewerage fees, and charges for refuse removal—these charges are recovered monthly from the owner—while it also acts as “guardian” for the applicant in the case of re-allocation, letting, etc. Transfer duties and transfer fees are also included in the loan.

On the other hand, building societies and other financial institutions that grant loans, have nothing to do with the applicant once the bond has been registered against the property, as long as the bond repayments are made regularly. Apart from the 20% of the purchase price which an applicant has to pay on transfer of the property, he is also responsible for transfer fees and expenses incurred in registration of the bond. An important fact which we should not overlook is that when an officer who has acquired a home in this way is transferred to another centre, the Administration can again grant a loan to the Railway servant at his new centre, which would not have been the case if the property had still been registered in the name of the servant. It is therefore to his benefit.

As regards the hon. member’s inquiry in respect of the rate of interest on that part of the loan above R40 000, I just wish to mention for the information of the hon. member that the funds involved here come from the Pension Fund. This fund makes money available for housing at the same interest rate that would have applied if the money had been invested in long-term stock. Since the rate of interest on long-term stock cannot change during the life of the stock, as the hon. member knows, the rate of interest applicable to the housing loan cannot be changed during the period of redemption either. If that were to happen, the relative position of the Fund could not be maintained and in any event, this would amount to a violation of the conditions under which the money has been made available by the Fund for housing purposes. The Administration subsidizes the first R40 000 of the housing loan. The member pays only 5%, and the Administration pays the balance. If the amount exceeds R40 000, the member must pay the full applicable rate of interest. Consideration is at present being given to the regular revision of the R40 000 limit to make provision for inflation. The hon. member inquired about this as well.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow asked many questions. He will understand that I shall not be able to reply to all of them. Amongst other matters he inquired whether the Administration was contemplating experimenting with battery-operated vehicles, whether the Administration or the CSIR provides installations for research into fuel mixtures and whether it can be expected that these experiments will bear any fruit. Let me explain very briefly. The Administration is at present conducting tests with five Enfield battery-operated cars. Tests are also being carried out with two battery-operated vehicles at Jan Smuts Airport, where vehicles have proved satisfactory over the short distances travelled on the apron. A tender for the supply of three battery-operated light delivery vans for general workshop area use, is at present being adjudicated. Lastly, a large fleet of battery-operated fork-lift is being used with success by various departments. The Administration is at present conducting fuel tests on large engines under actual working conditions. Test fuels include mixtures of diesel fuel and naphtha, diesel fuel and methanol and diesel fuel and propanol plus. The test vehicles range from open line locomotives to normal heavy road-hauling equipment and includes super-charged and normally aspirated engines. Tests with the different mixtures have been carried out in many laboratories, and the results are generally available. The reason for the Administration’s tests is to determine the practical problems under normal operating conditions with different mixtures, e.g. cold filter plugging during the winter months, storage problems and performance under various traffic conditions. These tests are done in conjunction with the CSIR.

The hon. member asked me whether the Administration intends to electrify the total railway network. The answer to that is “no”. Once the present electrification programme is completed in 1985, 85% of the gross ton-kilometre generated will be hauled by coal-based energy. Thereafter further electrification schemes will be considered, based on traffic density, but will be carried out only if economically justified. It is therefore obvious that the entire service will not be electrified.

The hon. member inquired about the distance of the new route from Soweto via Kazeme. I shall reply to that very quickly. It must be understood that the proposed circular route is intended mainly to serve the passengers travelling to the stations east of Johannesburg, thereby alleviating the tremendous load on the main line between Langlaagte and Johannesburg. Although the distance from Naledi to Ellis Park via Langlaagte is 29,67 km and via Kazeme West, 37,78 km, the travelling time between these two stations will be the same.

The hon. member also referred to the overcrowding on suburban passenger trains. I wonder whether I can give the hon. member my notes. It is going to take very long to give the hon. member all the information required now.

The hon. member referred to findings of the Cillié Commission of Inquiry into the Riots in Soweto and elsewhere and asked for more police protection on trains to Soweto, particularly over week-ends. I have already given the Committee information in general on this. The specific information in this regard is that due to the number of trains operating in the Soweto area, every train cannot be policed. The hon. member will understand that. The Administration has taken steps to increase the safety of passengers on these trains since June 1976. The following measures have been taken: A new police post was established at Dube Station; secondly, the existing three mobile units were reorganized and streamlined; thirdly, a special robbery unit was set up to investigate robberies and to engage in follow-up operations and, fourthly, trainees at the Police College at Esselen Park are sent to Soweto to assist various units over week-ends.

The hon. member also referred to concessions to passengers. I will give him the information later if he does not mind.

*The hon. member for Rosettenville, with his usual enthusiasm, made a very interesting speech. I am sorry that I cannot accede to all his requests. I just wish to tell him that the design of our diesel locomotives is being used in many countries. The design effects maximum flexibility of use, as well as the best accessibility for the maintenance of these specific locomotives. The maintenance facilities are specifically designed to suit this type of locomotive. The hon. member will appreciate that we must be content with that. The hon. member also inquired whether there could not be an alternative to the Blue Train between Cape Town and Johannesburg. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member wishes to come to Cape Town so often. I can understand why. I just wish to tell him that the Drakensberg used to run between Cape Town and Johannesburg as a special train. Although considerable concessions were made, the patronage was so poor that the running of the train could not be economically justified. I just wish to point out to the hon. member that the facilities being offered on the Trans-Karoo are such that passengers availing themselves of this service, could probably not be persuaded to make use of the Drakensberg at extra cost. In any event, although the average utilization of the Trans-Karoo is satisfactory, it is not yet optimal and the economy of this train could be detrimentally affected if the passengers were to be siphoned off to the Drakensberg. The Trans-Karoo is also being kept in operation for inter-city second-class passengers, and could therefore not be withdrawn from service.

The hon. member also wanted to know what had become of the White Train, and I am sorry to say that it no longer exists. Personally, I think it was a mistake to do away with it. One should have something for the eye, too, after all, as the lady said. The White Train as a unit has already been broken up, and the carriages which could easily be converted into ordinary ones, have already been converted. Carriage No. 49, the dining saloon, is being rented out for conference purposes, while the remaining coaches have already been partially dismantled for subsequent rebuilding. Perhaps one day the hon. member and I should go and see what carriage No. 49 looks like.

†The hon. member for Durban Central had an argument with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti about the old Durban Station. I have already explained what my attitude in that regard is. The land is scheduled to be transferred to the city council under certain specific conditions. I am quite prepared to adhere to those conditions and, in addition, I have indicated that we shall make a payment in respect of demolition costs, if so required by the Durban Corporation.

Suburban commuter facilities are being provided at the new Durban Station and also at Berea Road. Commuter traffic in big cities is now a matter for the Metropolitan Transportation Advisory Board. In this case it must therefore also be referred to them.

*The hon. member for Hercules requested that the level crossing at Lüderitz Street should be opened or that road-over-rail bridge should be provided there. This level crossing has been scheduled for elimination in terms of the Level Crossing Act, and the formalities for the financing of the project had already been finalized when the City Council of Pretoria decided to close the crossing on account of the large number of motor accidents on the corner of Lüderitz Street and Van der Hof Road. Since then the road traffic has been making use of alternative routes over bridges at Bremer Street and Hendrik Street. As a result of the increasing traffic, however, the alternative routes have become inadequate and arising from a liaison committee meeting on which the Railways and the City Council were represented, the City Engineer negotiated with the department on a proposal for the installation of traffic lights at the Lüderitz crossing, operated by means of railway circuits. However, it is not possible to get such a system to operate safely, and in association with the City Council, the new possibility of the provision of a separating ramp structure for that crossing is now being investigated.

The hon. member also asked for the platform at Daspoort Station to be extended. I have good news for the hon. member. The extension of the platform at Daspoort Station will be undertaken as part of the work provided for under vote 457 of the capital budget for 1980-’81, and we hope to start with the work early in 1981.

The hon. member further requested that a bell should be provided on the compartment doors of passenger trains, as on the Blue Train. The Blue Train is a unit set and cannot be disassembled. The same principle does not apply in other trains. The carriages of the other trains are coupled and uncoupled, and it is not possible to apply the same principle on those trains as on the Blue Train. Ordinary trains are often disassembled and the carriages are attached to other trains, and this would make the provision of doorbells difficult. Doorbells were previously provided, but as a result of abuse by passengers, and particularly by children, this was discontinued. As far as the opening of doors from the outside is concerned, if there are ladies inside, they should rather fasten the safety chain. Unfortunately, however, our ladies do not always do so.

Finally, the hon. member requested that access to the Hercules station from the east side should be improved. We have not received any complaints in this regard yet. In contrast to the west side, the area to the east of Hercules station is not densely built-up. A foot-bridge giving access over the railway lines already exists at the station and if there are problems, the hon. member must please let me know immediately.

I shall deal with other aspects raised by hon. members later.

Mr. Chairman, traditionally the Railways in South Africa is a service organization. While it is stipulated in the Constitution Act that the Railways must not make a profit, the Railways is nevertheless instructed to contribute to the development of remote areas by means of low tariffs. This is stated specifically in the Constitution Act. The hon. the Minister also referred to this. I just want to remind hon. members that when the narrow gauge section from Port Elizabeth to Avontuur was put into operation, the Railways especially appointed an official to advise the farmers on what to plant and appointed another official to advise the farmers on how to market their products. This was a service rendered by the Railways.

I want to make the statement that every railwayman on the Railways not only practices a profession, but also has a calling. In this regard various forms of transport can open the doors to Southern Africa for us today. We are seeking co-operation with African countries in various spheres, for example agriculture, commerce, mining, tourism, water affairs, power, wildlife conservation and industry. I maintain that effective transport links are the most important of all these things. It is the key to all the other things. We have already come a long way with these things. We have already forged economic links, and it is important that we should maintain those links in future even if the ideological principles of the other nations are completely different to our own. We have seen this demonstrated when the question of the exportation of maize to Zambia cropped up recently. We are assisting in many ways.

I want to refer here in passing to the very fine annual report of the General Manager. It is an extremely neat and well compiled report. An entire chapter of this report is devoted to our links with African countries. I think we are making very good progress in this sphere. The Railways maintains very close ties with the Railways and Harbours of Maputo. In Swaziland our officials render assistance in the technical sphere. There are locomotives in the Transkei which are being operated by drivers who were trained at Esselen Park. We are trying to assist these countries in every possible way.

It could easily be alleged—and it is being alleged—that we are trying to influence these countries in the economic sphere and are in that way trying to determine their policies. It could also be maintained that it could be to our detriment to provide Zambia with maize for example. Not one of these statements is true. We have no military designs on these countries. We believe in a policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries. It is important that 10 out of the 16 countries south of the equator are landlocked and that half of all the harbours in Southern Africa are situated in the Republic. By far the best facilities and the most efficient harbours are found in the Republic.

The fact that so many of these countries do not have access to the sea emphasizes the importance of air traffic. It is important to note that in this sphere, too, we have already come a long way and that we have very sound agreements with Botswana, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Lesotho and Malawi. Of course we must approach this matter carefully. Dependence on another can so easily lead to feelings against those rendering assistance. It could therefore result in attempts at closer co-operation perhaps having just the opposite effect. It is very important that we should assist only where assistance is asked for. Such assistance must be based on sound business principles and above all must be rendered with sincere honesty and without any paternalism. In this way economic interdependence can lead to friendship and trust and contribute to stability in Southern Africa. Perhaps it will eventually pave the way for us to a constellation of States. Thus I advocate that, as is provided in the Constitution Act, the Railways must open up the interior. Every Railway official, from the lowest to the highest, must see it as his task and calling to render this service to our country as well. I know that this is already the policy. Last year the General Manager said in a speech—

Therefore I am simply asking that we continue with this policy.

Assistance of this nature to neighbouring States is so important that one would be able to argue that we should even subsidize it or in any event render it at cost only, but as I have said before, I believe the existing policy is correct. We must render it on an economic basis. It is a psychological fact that what is given to one for nothing is not appreciated as much as that for which one has paid for or worked hard for. Thus I believe that the Railways, true to its calling, is rendering a very important service to our country in this sphere as well. I should like to quote what our former Prime Minister said after he had become Prime Minister in 1966—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Humansdorp has dealt with one or two extremely important aspects, and the hon. the Minister will obviously respond to him.

While we listened to the hon. the Minister replying to one question after another, it was difficult to believe that new points could be made. Unfortunately, however, there are. I have two which I should like to pose to the hon. the Minister. I believe that both of them are important. The first touches on something the hon. the Minister said a little earlier on in his reply when he was referring to the hon. member for Simonstown about security on the trains. A related subject, which was dealt with by the hon. the Minister, is the security on the railway station, property and subway in particular.

I had a telephone call only last week from a public school in Maitland. They had a specific complaint and said that they had made the complaint before. It was attended to, but because of the demand on the Railway Police, I believe, they cannot have a constant watch on one area without limiting their powers somewhere else. I know the school there very well. The children use the subway and very often they are abused verbally and are frightened. I hope that before something even worse happens, the Railway Police will have a look at that particular situation to find out if there is not some way in which they can have people on duty at the specific times when the children use that subway. I believe the situation is quite serious and chronic.

It obtains not only at that station. At the Rondebosch station, for example, I believe that the kiosk has been broken into on three occasions. The woman who works there is obviously afraid that something might happen even while she is on duty, because they seem to take all sorts of risks. One is aware of the fact that railway stations always attract certain groups of people—loafers, out-of-work people, ruffians, thieves, the whole lot. I believe that before we have even greater disasters occurring we simply have to find a way of giving more security.

The other particular station I should like to refer to, is Observatory station. There, only last year, my own mother was assaulted in the station subway. She is quite an elderly lady now. She was pushed down by a gang and, of course, as she fell down the very steep staircase they grabbed her bag, her handbag or whatever it might have been. She was rather badly injured. This is becoming almost a pattern. When I made some inquiries I found out that certain people were not even reporting incidents of molesting, assault and attack. I believe, however, that it is very widespread. Therefore I should ask the hon. the Minister to look into this with some urgency. I am referring now to the whole question of security within station subways. I have also been told of elderly people who simply refuse to use trains any longer because they are afraid, when they are returning home after dark, to use the station subway. Nobody has made any complaints to me about incidents occurring on the trains themselves. There seems to be few incidents there. It is in particular elderly people and schoolchildren that are molested in station subways. I put that to the hon. the Minister.

The other matter I should like to refer to is quite different, but in its own way, I assume, as important. I refer to a letter I have received from the Railways Society of South Africa. I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister is familiar with this particular society, but it has a specific interest in the preservation of steam haulage and steam locomotives. This is, of course, much more on aesthetic grounds rather than on economic or even technical grounds. I believe, however, that they have a case and I should like to try to put it to the hon. the Minister.

They have an association and contact, not only locally but also abroad, and the society is involved with the preservation of “steam”. They are also very worried about what they call the stated policy—and I may be open to correction here—of the S.A. Railways to phase out steam traction in the near future. Of course, we all know that experience in Britain has proved that although that was their stated policy it turned out to be quite impossible because of the demands made. In Britain they are now having to use so-called preserved locomotives on the main railway lines. I believe—and here again I am going on information given to me—that the S.A. Railways still have in the vicinity of 1 000 serviceable steam locomotives of fairly recent vintage.

You have all that information in the annual report. Why do you not read it for yourself?

I know all that. I am, however, not talking to the hon. member for Von Brandis. I am addressing myself to the hon. the Minister. I am quite frankly not interested in the hon. member for Von Brandis whatsoever.

The attraction of steam for foreign tourists is a well-known fact in South Africa, and it is not an insignificant source of foreign exchange. The S.A. Railways—that we know from the report—during November and February, ran long distance steam trains, but these were patronized almost entirely by foreign tourists. It is believed that the steam excursions, known as steam safaris, planned for September, October and November this year are already almost fully booked. None of these excursions, however, falls in the school holidays, which means that the people who have never really experienced what, I submit, the hon. the Minister and I have experienced, know nothing about this. It is just foreign to them. So I believe that it is important for our children, those who come after us, to have this experience. All these excursions are also from Johannesburg. I believe, however, that the western and south-western Cape is almost made for such trips …

I agree with you.

… because of its specific attractions, its scenery and its terrain. I am very glad the hon. the Minister agrees with me. I have noted that the S.A. Railways intends to retain 5%—I think that is the figure—steam traction, but there is no clarity about the length of time for which this is going to be retained and, indeed, where this is going to take place. If no scheme is retained live in the western Cape, it would deprive many thousands of people, and many children in particular, of this privilege of seeing a steam engine in action. I also understand that the Railways seems to have closed many local branch lines in the western Cape to steam and withdrawn the necessary watering facilities. I believe that it would be possible to retain a few steam locomotives at the Salt River workshops, for example, in order to run trips to Elgin, Ceres, etc. If the turntable at Elgin were retained in working order, steam trains could run on that line with the addition of a water tank behind the locomotives. I think the hon. the Minister and, indeed, the hon. the Prime Minister would agree with me in what I am about to say, because I would like some assurance that the scenic branch line between Knysna and George will remain open to steam for ever because it is known, not only throughout South Africa but also, I believe, in many parts of the world. What is of particular concern to this society, and others who are concerned, is the apparent lack of a definite, clear-cut policy with regard to the preservation of old rolling stock. It seems to depend on the enthusiasm of a particular individual in a particular place rather than on specifically laid-down policy. [Interjections.] I should, for example, like to know what is going to happen to the Victorian dining cars that are stil in service on the Port Elizabeth to Cape Town main line. I said at the beginning that the plea is much more of an aesthetic one than a technical or economic one, but I believe the individuals concerned have a case. The hon. the Minister appears to be sympathetic, and I therefore hope that there will be a definite, clear policy for the preservation of some steam locomotives, in the western Cape in particular, and that we shall be informed of the policy regarding the preservation of steam locomotives and old rolling stock in general. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to what the hon. member for Pinelands had to say, since my Whip has just told me that my speaking time has virtually been reduced by half. However, I want to avail myself of the opportunity of asking the hon. the Minister to assist me, but not only me, because this is a matter which extends far wider than my constituency only. It affects virtually the whole of South Africa. The hon. the Minister already knows of my plea to grant air travel concessions to children with certain physical disabilities. I am appealing to the hon. the Minister to extend these concessions to cover children with disabilities such as spina bifida and muscular dystrophy and the cerebral palsy. Let me explain briefly what the consequences of the above-mentioned disabilities are. Children who suffer from spina bifida are born with an opening in a part of their spine. The spinal chord below the lesion is damaged and this causes paralysis of all the muscles below the lesion. Over and above paralysis there is also a loss of sensation, and incontinence. As a result of the loss of sensation decubitus or pressure sores are very common among these children. To heal a small pressure sore can sometimes take months. In some cases these children even have to undergo operations. As a result of incontinence, these children require urgent assistance every two to three hours. They require assistance with their toilet needs and eating. They need constant assistance. Another form of disability is muscular dystrophy. This is a disease causing progressive paralysis which follows a definite pattern of development and eventually leads to the child dying at the age of 25 years. These children, too, are entirely dependent on the assistance of other people. Finally we have the cerebral palsied child. This disability is caused by brain damage. Cerebral disabilities occur in various degrees and types. It is pointless to deal with each specific case here. In some cases there are hearing, sight and speech problems as well. In all three cases these children are in addition confined to wheelchairs.

There are other forms as well. Let me just refer to them briefly. There are disabilities such as arthrogryposis, osteogenesis, imperfecta, the Guillain-Barré syndrome and poliomyelitis. In many of the poliomyelitis cases the children are completely paralysed. One could justifiably ask what this has to do with the Railways. In spite of their handicaps these children travel by train. This is where the problem arises. The children of the Elizabeth Conradie School in Kimberley travel by train from Kimberley to Johannesburg, Cape Town, South West Africa, Rhodesia, Port Elizabeth, etc. They also have to sleep overnight on the train. These are long and tiring journeys they have to undertake. As I have already pointed out earlier, some of these children need urgent assistance every two hours. If one bears in mind that these children are confined to wheel-chairs, hon. members will agree with me that the train’s corridor is very narrow and that other facilities on the train that the children are forced to use are extremely inconvenient, particularly for persons who are completely dependent on others to help them and who in addition are confined to wheel-chairs. So there is a host of problems which these children experience on the train.

Another aspect I want to single out, is the cost aspect. For the parents of a child suffering from any of these physical disabilities, the cost of keeping that child at an institution is tremendously high. In addition to that special alterations have to be made to the children’s parental homes to be able to accommodate children who are confined to wheel-chairs and to make matters as easy for them as possible. As a result of all these things the cost to the parents is prohibitively high. All of us are grateful that the orthopaedic aids required by these children are being made available to them by the departments concerned. Nevertheless it costs the parents thousands of rands. Every time such a child travels by train he has to be accompanied by an attendant or an assistant to help him on the train. This costs the attendant or assistant a double return ticket, for argument’s sake from Kimberley to Cape Town and back and there and back again when the child is fetched. Nor can such an attendant be an ordinary person without any experience of working with these children. They must be people who have been trained to work with these children. Consequently it indirectly costs the State a tremendous sum of money to convey these children back and forth by train.

As a result of the children’s disabilities time is extremely important to them. It would be easier for such a child to sit still for an hour or an hour and a half on an aircraft without any complications arising, than to undertake a long train journey taking hours or days, because in that case many complications could arise. My appeal is based on the fact that I am sure that if the hon. the Minister, together with the other departments, were to examine the cost aspect, he would find that giving these children concessions on air tickets would benefit the State because it would be cheaper to convey the children by air in this way than to provide them with free train tickets.

Finally, I want to raise a matter towards which I know the hon. the Minister is very sympathetic. In fact he has told me this personally on more than one occasion. I want to conclude with the idea that if we have ever encountered children suffering from disabilities of this kind or have visited the schools they attend and have seen the way in which they help one another, how full of the joy of life they are in spite of their disabilities, we can go onto our knees in humble gratitude and thank our Maker that we and our children are healthy. Therefore, my appeal is that we should open our hearts to these people and that it wil be possible for the hon. the Minister and his department, in co-operation with the other departments which will of necessity be involved as well, to comply with this request of mine.

Mr. Chairman, I want to lend my support to the plea by the hon. member for Kimberley South concerning the concessions for handicapped children. The hon. member made out a very good case and I hope the hon. the Minister, who listened carefully, will be able to comply with the hon. member’s request.

†We feel that the Railways are doing invaluable work throughout the rest of Africa. They must continue with this invaluable work which could lay the foundations for an African economic community in Southern Africa. We have spent thousands of millions of rands on the infrastructure of our harbours and it is obvious that the development of our harbours is vital. Since we have spent these large amounts on our harbours, it is also essential that our harbours should be utilized to their fullest potential. The harbour at Port Elizabeth has lost a substantial amount of business as people in commerce and industry were encouraged at one stage to use facilities outside the Republic. There may have been very good reasons at the time for that line of thought, but I am not going to quarrel today about what happened at that time. There were very good reasons at that point in time for that particular position. However, I submit that our position has changed vastly today and I think different considerations apply now as to those which applied a few years ago.

We believe that the hon. the Minister has a duty to encourage and promote the use of South African harbours. We feel that this is a matter which should not be debated publicly in depth but there are very many people in commerce and industry who feel very strongly on this issue and who are entitled to a public assurance on this particular matter. South Africa is entitled to the maximum possible return on the money invested in the development of its harbours. In view of the unemployment situation it is essential that we should pull out all the stops to ensure that we push whatever business we can towards the fullest possible utilization of our harbours. Ports that are under-utilized cannot make the contribution to the economy and the unemployment situation that they should make. A ministerial assurance is required without any doubt and I therefore hope that this matter will enjoy the serious consideration of the hon. the Minister. If we use ports outside South Africa in preference to our own ports we lose foreign exchange which means a direct loss to the country, but worse still, it has a multiple effect in that the money is out of circulation in South Africa.

The Port Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce deals with this matter in detail in a publication entitled Charity begins at Home. This publication is available for all to see. It is a matter of determining our priorities, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give our ports the boost which they urgently require.

Another matter I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister is the question of a new railway station for Port Elizabeth. I know that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised this matter in 1978 and that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North raised it in this particular debate. If the hon. the Minister can give us a positive reply in this debate, we would welcome it. If, however, the hon. the Minister is not in a position to give us a positive answer, we would welcome an assurance that this matter will be investigate as one of urgency. In 1871 the Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage Rail Company was granted a concession to build a railway line from Port Elizabeth to Uitenhage. The Cape Government took over this rail system some three years later. The railway station at Port Elizabeth was opened on 2 September 1875. I realize that there have been improvements and additions since, but looking at the pictures of the 1875 station and of the present station, I am sure it will be conceded by the hon. the Minister that the present buildings need replacement. Port Elizabeth is a commercial centre with a tremendous infrastructure, but we have always felt that its full potential is far from being realized. As one of the major centres in the Republic, it needs a modern railway station which will have the standard of facilities commensurate with our requirements. Port Elizabeth is the heart of the eastern Cape and, in terms of population and tourists, we could utilize new facilities. The present station is completely inadequate to accommodate the number of tourists. It is almost as old in years as the number of the hon. the Minister’s party here at the moment. The original station is 105 years old.

You have not heard the final score yet.

The NRP number is reducing at the rate of one per month. There will be a faster rate next month, they tell me. The original station is 105 years old. The hon. the Minister, who is new in his portfolio, should concede that we have been waiting a long time for a new station. The railway station performs a most important and integral function in a city the size of Port Elizabeth. The hon. the Minister has often visited Port Elizabeth in the past as a member of the Executive Committee of the Cape Province in charge of education and in charge of the works department. He used to come to Port Elizabeth for many in-depth inspections. He took decisions by which many problems were solved. The buildings are standing there as evidence of the decisions which he took in the past. In the same spirit I should like to invite the hon. the Minister, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, to come to Port Elizabeth on an in-depth investigation, and I am certain that he will come to the irresistable conclusion that a new station is a necessity for Port Elizabeth. [Interjections.] It may be an expensive trip, but it will be worthwhile.

I should just like to deal very briefly with another matter. I understand that children of 11 years of age pay half fare on the Airways, whilst children of 12 years of age have to pay full fare. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to push up the age limit to the age of 18 years of age, since that is the school leaving age. That would only be fair. Why should there be discrimination between a child of 11 years of age and one of 12 years of age?

What one finds in regard to passenger bookings on the computer system is that one is told that there are no seats on a particular flight. One then finds that 10 people have been placed on the waiting-list. All 10 of them then board the flight and one often finds that there are still seats to spare. I am not blaming the S.A. Airways, but it is obvious that some people are making block bookings and cancelling them at the last moment. In cases where a person cancels for a good reason, e.g. he produces a medical certificate, that is in order, but I believe that a far heavier penalty should be imposed.

I think that the system of block booking is totally wrong. One is as a result placed on a waiting-list and then finds many seats still vacant. I believe that the S.A. Airways is losing a lot of money through this. I believe that many business people and others who want to use the Airways’ facilities are not able to use them on a particular day because of other people who have selfishly booked up the plane with no intention of taking up the flight. The last point I should like to raise is that I think that the hon. the Minister should talk to his colleagues in the Defence Force, because I believe that military trainees should receive special concessions when they travel on the Airways.

Why do you not talk to him yourself?

I know that the hon. the Minister has a soft heart in many respects, and I think that this matter may be close to his heart. In the circumstances I should like him to make representations to the defence authorities. I am sure his representations will carry more weight than mine.

Mr. Chairman, the part of the world I represent has a strange power so that once one has spent a holiday there, one always wants to return and also purchase property there. In this way many hon. members have purchased property there and the same applies to most of the top officials of most departments as well. Until recently this was unfortunately, not the case with the Railways, but I believe that this has now been rectified and that some of its top officials recently purchased property there. I say to them: “You are very welcome.” I am sure that they will not be sorry and I hope that the grandfather and grandchild will still play happily in the waves there. If they experience problems with the Railways on the South Coast, they must come and see the MP. His door is wide open. [Interjections.]

There are only two minor matters I should like to raise. The one concerns the bus service between Durban and Margate. The bus leaves Durban at 10h00 in the morning and then departs again at 13h15 from Margate to Durban. Most of the people living on the South Coast are elderly and do not have vehicles, or cannot drive them. Consequently this bus service has become very popular. However, it is unfortunately the case that the bus travels from south to north and that the afternoon sun on the one side makes it almost impossible for elderly people to sit in that bus. I believe that some of them have already experienced problems with the heat. I have also heard that one of the new air-conditioned buses has already been put into service somewhere and that the Railways might be acquiring another six new ones. Therefore I ask that, if it is at all possible, we should please assist the old people and introduce one of these air-conditioned buses on this route.

I have only a minute or two left. So I cannot really discuss the other matter which is, in fact, very important. I think that economic realities will bring it about before next year, but if not, I shall raise the matter next year. It concerns a direct flight between Johannesburg and Margate. We have a beautiful, large airport, as hon. members know, and I can give hon. members the assurance that an air service of this nature will do better than the air service between Umtata and Johannesburg, which is already doing so well. I do not know what the understanding is between the S.A. Railways and private air services, but this is a ripe peach which I should like to see the S.A. Airways pluck.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast has raised a couple of subjects on which I am sure the hon. the Minister will answer when he replies.

I want to carry on with a particular matter that the hon. the Minister talked about in one of his previous replies. It has to do with the training of pilots for S.A. Airways. He did say that he was going to give the matter greater attention and that he was going to raise the level of assistance given to trainee pilots. As was quite rightly said, S.A. Airways is one of the few airlines that do not run its own training course for pilots. Basically they depend on the S.A. Airforce, private flying clubs and commercial aviation operations to recruit their pilots. With the phenomenal increase in the price of fuel, we find that as far as training a commercial pilot is concerned, it is quite beyond the pocket of the normal man. I would say on an average to keep a small aircraft in the air now costs at least R50 per hour. If an aspirant pilot who would like to learn to fly has to pay R50 an hour—he has to do 200 hours in the air to get a commercial licence—it means that there is an absolute minimum cost of R10 000 to him. Quite obviously, that is not within the compass of many young South Africans who would like to become pilots. The present assisted scheme for pilot training is to get a private licence which only requires 40 hours.

Therefore my request to the hon. the Minister at this stage—and I do want to speak further about the matter during the debate on the Transport Vote, where it fits in a little better—is that the level of assistance should be given right up to commercial pilot stage, where it becomes a proposition as far as the S.A. Airways are concerned.

Even countries which have national airlines which are smaller than S.A. Airways sometimes run training courses in other countries. There are various countries and airlines which send pilots overseas for extended training and perhaps S.A. Airways will have to consider this sort of thing because it is going to be more and more difficult for them to recruit local pilots. I am absolutely sure that inevitably they are in time going to have to go overseas, and S.A. Airways pilots are not paid particularly well. In comparison with many overseas airlines, there are a lot of very dedicated S.A. Airways pilots who stay on purely and simply because they want to do the right thing by their country. However, if they left the employ of S.A. Airways and went elsewhere there is no doubt at all that they could earn considerably more money—a great deal more.

Another matter which I would like to raise is something which the hon. the Minister does have intimate knowledge of because he went to see what happens early in the morning on the suburban railway lines in Cape Town. I think he went to Langa Station. There one has the considerable problem of outriders, as they are known in the Cape. We have a similar sort of thing on the Witwatersrand, namely the staff-riders. I am referring to the incredible congestion on suburban traffic lines as far as third class is concerned. We welcome the news that the Johannesburg loop is going to be in operation reasonably soon, because I looked at the problems some years ago. With the courtesy of the Railway Administration I carried out an inspection to see just what they were doing to try to ease the situation between Soweto and Johannesburg. I must admit that with the space, lines and platforms available, there was nothing more that they could have done. The situation is getting worse, however, and obviously this loop line will make the problem very much easier to solve. There is no doubt, however, that the situation is far from satisfactory in the Western Cape. The train to Nyanga via Langa is already pretty full by the time it reaches Langa. I gather that on the day the hon. the Minister saw it he felt the problem had been somewhat exaggerated. It seemed to have been an off-day for some reason or other. But I am told that on most days the situation is quite unbelievable, quite incredible. When my colleague the hon. member for Groote Schuur visited the station his description of what happened were quite unbelievable.

Apparently they stayed away when I went.

I think it had possibly to do with the timing. I think the hon. the Minister probably got a rosier picture of what is in fact a very serious situation.

He did not get up early enough.

I think even the hon. the Minister will admit that the situation is very serious. There are commuters fighting to get on trains, climbing through windows and hanging on the outside. I read quite a hair-raising report by a reporter who had actually tried to do some of this outriding. He said he had never been so terrified in his life.

Did anything happen to him?

Well, nothing happened in fact, but it terrified the life out of him. One of the standard answers from the Railways, and possibly this is so, is that there are people who like to live dangerously. They hang on because they enjoy the excitement. It is rather like the game of chicken which used to be played on roads.

It is like hanging on the wing of an aircraft.

I am perfectly certain that a lot of people hang on the outside purely and simply because they have to get to work on time. I realize it is not going to be easy to solve these problems. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister just what is being done in this connection. It is a tremendous problem, but he is going to be faced with an ever-increasing passenger load. I know that the whole system is under pressure at the moment, but I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister exactly what is being done to solve this problem. I am sure the hon. the Minister is familiar with this particular situation. I realize the difficulty of extending trains when one does not have the platforms long enough to take the whole train, but I really cannot see why the platforms should not be extended at some of those stations.

A third matter which I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister in the short time I have left, has to do with the transport of livestock. For some time we have been aware of the fact that there has been experimentation. At first there were experiments with two-level transporters for sheep. I believe this has now gone further and we are likely to see three-level transporters for sheep and two-level transporters for cattle. The transport of livestock has always been a very vexed question indeed. There has been considerable competition between private enterprise road transportation and the Railways. At times, when the Railways have been very busy, conveying livestock at a loss as they do, they have been only too glad to get rid of the traffic, but when general traffic has diminished somewhat, they have been quite keen to get that livestock traffic back. However, it seems quite evident that as a result of experiments carried out by the Administration, livestock can be transported very much more cheaply than at the moment. I should like to know just how far they have proceeded with these experiments. We have been hearing about them for some considerable time, but they do not seem to be transformed into action. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how soon we are likely to get these three-level sheep transporters and how soon we are going to get the double-level cattle transporters. This obviously will enable the hon. the Minister to lower his rates so that farmers who are at present having a tough time as far as the cost of transporting their livestock to the markets, to the abattoirs, is concerned, might have a little bit of the burden on their shoulders lessened, although knowing the S.A. Railways as I do, it is very unlikely that they are going to lower tariffs once tariffs have established. In any event, it may avoid further increases in the future.

I should also like to comment on the hon. the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Edenvale about the telephone services at the Airways. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has ever tried to ring the Cape Town booking office.

Yes, I have.

That is probably what has galvanized him into action. Possibly for the first time a Minister has himself actually rung the Airways office and found that it was absolutely impossible to get through to them.

[Inaudible.]

I am glad that at last something is being done. When one j thinks of the tremendous amount of money; that is reflected in these accounts as having been spent on advertising for the S.A. Airways, one could cry when one thinks that they throw so much of it away, because people cannot get hold of the S.A. Airways when they want to. After having telephoned unsuccessfully, they either have to go and physically book themselves or go through a travel agent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall try to reply to all the matters raised by hon. members. However, I doubt whether time will allow me to do so.

I want to begin by referring to the representations made to me by the hon. member for Marico concerning the cost of the transportation of livestock, the same subject to which the hon. member for Orange Grove has just referred. In this connection I want to explain that the Railways itself cannot subsidize the transportation of goods, of whatever nature. The Railways can only raise or lower tariffs according to circumstances. However, this does not mean that cross-subsidizing cannot take place in the sense that the revenue from the transportation of one range of commodities is used to subsidize another range. However, I think hon. members will understand that there is a limit to the degree of cross-subsidizing that can take place. I shall deal with this in detail during the Third Reading debate, as I indicated in reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Bellville.

As I said in my budget speech, it was not possible to exclude livestock from the tariff increases. However, I tried to keep the effect of the increase on livestock as small as possible by increasing the tariff by 10%, which is equal to the average tariff increase. The hon. member will recall that the increased revenue from all the increases amounts to approximately 9,9% of increasable revenue.

As far as the three-decker trucks are concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that we are past the experimental stage and have already put the concept into practice by ordering 50 of these trucks. This is a service which the Railways is rendering to agriculture and which agriculture appreciates.

Is that achieved by the adaptation of existing trucks?

The hon. member must just give me a chance. We are concerned here with the conversion of trucks with more decks. As I have already indicated, 50 of these have been ordered. Hon. members will understand that they can only be used if they can be fully loaded. Therefore 360 sheep have to be loaded into such trucks before they can be attached to through trains. When this happens, the existing tariff in respect of livestock transported in those trucks is reduced by 50%. So we are very sympathetic as far as this matter is concerned.

†The hon. member for Sea Point asked me whether I was entirely satisfied with the limited line which is planned to be constructed to Atlantis and he requested that provision be made for a connection to Saldanha. I should like to explain that no provision is made for the initial conveyance of commuters. With the hon. member’s agreement I should, however, like to deal with this issue when we discuss the Bill relating to that particular line. We shall then be able to discuss all the other problems in connection with the issues he has raised.

Fair enough.

The hon. member also asked what the passenger fares would be to stations on the new line from Cape Town to Mitchell’s Plain and Strandfontein. I have the figures available and I shall hand them to him because I do not think I should bore the Committee with all that information.

What is the date on which it will be opened?

In so far as Mitchell’s Plain is concerned, it should be opened towards the middle of the year. I shall try to give the exact date a little later.

The hon. member also referred to the Nyanga station and said that it was congested. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to that as well. The reason for the present apparent inadequacy of Nyanga station is due to the fact that Mitchell’s Plain residents transfer into trains from buses at this particular station. The situation will improve when the new line comes into operation. The date is July this year.

The hon. member referred to the proposals of a local architect in connection with the development of a portion of the harbour in Table Bay. He asked me whether I would agree to those plans. Let me say that I met the architect and told him that I took the greatest exception to the fact that issues which had not been submitted to my department or to myself were raised in public. I do not believe this is fair. I suggested to him that in future, for the sake of better co-operation, he might be well advised first to discuss such things with my officials or with myself before making public comment thereon in the Press. These are emotional issues and I do not think one should deal with them in this way. I explained to the Foundation that it was not possible to make the Victoria dock available for a yacht club since there was high pressure on us to make further facilities available to the fishing industry. If we were to do that, we would have to move some of the facilities there to the Duncan dock. There are certain old buildings and installations in that particular part of the harbour, however, and I have undertaken to have the issue investigated as well as the possibility of opening that particular section of the harbour on days when there is not much traffic in the harbour. Once I know what the facts are, I shall take a decision.

The hon. member also referred to the dividing of Cape Town Station because of separate facilities. If I have the time available I shall deal with this whole issue during the Third Reading debate. I therefore suggest that the hon. member’s questions stand over until then.

*The hon. member for Bellville requested that we should make the conditions of service of non-White servants equal to those of White servants and that the Railway housing scheme should be promoted and propagated among the Black staff. The adjustment of the conditions of service of non-Whites in order to make them comparable with those of Whites is naturally a gradual process which has been going on for several years. Because of the considerable cost involved, it cannot be effected overnight. Hon. members will recall that I indicated in reply to the Second Reading debate when that aim, to which I myself subscribe, could be achieved. Adjustments in this connection were recently made in the case of, for example, leave conditions and sick pay, while new conditions of service, such as a service bonus and recognition of long service, are in fact being introduced on an equal basis. Because of the delay there has been with the introduction of a leasehold system, not much progress has been made so far with the house-ownership scheme for Black employees. However, this has not been due to any neglect on the part of the Railway Administration, but should rather be laid at the door of the departments responsible for the provision of the premises for this particular purpose. As hon. members know, however, funds are available. I can therefore give the assurance that every attempt will be made to propagate the benefits of the scheme among the Black workers and to help them to make use of it.

The hon. member for Wonderboom requested that the commuter service to Mabopane be expedited. The hon. member will remember that we had an opportunity to inspect the development there together, that we are actually ahead of schedule in terms of the original date of completion and that the officials involved deserve high credit for the work they have done in this respect. As far as this route is concerned, I just want to point out that the opening of the line up to halt 4, approximately 3 km from Mabopane, will take place according to schedule in 1981. The terminus at Mabopane and Belle Ombré will be completed during 1983. However, everything will be done—and I want to give this undertaking—to expedite the completion of this service as far as possible. The service will be introduced in 1981 as an ex-press commuter service to Pretoria and the i surrounding areas, and suburban coaches of the new design, which was mentioned earlier on, will be used for this service in order to make the transportation as rapid as possible.

†I see the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has changed his seat. I wonder what that means.

The signs of the times. [Interjections.]

The hon. member has requested that the same passenger fares for non-White passengers be charged between Umgababa, Illovo Beach and Durban and between Harrison, Inchanga and Durban. I shall give the hon. member some information in this regard. The fare for workers between Durban and Illovo is R1,37; weekly, R1,64, and monthly, R5,95. Between Durban and Umgababa the fare for workers is R1,42; weekly, R1,69, and monthly, R6,16. The differences are therefore 5 cents in the case of workers, 5 cents in the case of a weekly ticket and 21 cents in the case of a monthly ticket. This shows the order of the differences. Between Durban and Inchanga the worker’s fare is R1,69; weekly, R2,02 and monthly, R7,35. The fares between Durban and Harrison are R1,75 for a worker’s ticket, R2,09 for a weekly and R7,59 for a monthly ticket. The differences are 6 cents in the case of a worker’s ticket, 7 cents in the case of a weekly ticket and 24 cents in the case of a monthly ticket. I think the hon. member will agree that the differences are small. I therefore believe it is unlikely that passengers would change their pattern of travelling if I should accede to the hon. member’s request. In any case, fares are based on distances, and to make an exception would create a precedent which I cannot afford.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would then ask his System Manager to investigate the exact reasons why passengers do not use those other stations? Fares were one of the reasons put to me.

I believe the elimination of the small difference would not change the pattern, but I can nevertheless ask the System Manager to go into it.

*The hon. member for Vryheid inquired about the possibility of transporting other goods in empty coal trains from Richards Bay. I should like to give an explanation to the hon. member. The air-brake trucks in which coal, rock phosphate and phosphoric acid are carried in unit trains to Richards Bay do not carry any freight on the return journey to the dispatch stations. The reason for this is simple. The trucks are special single-purpose trucks, which are not suitable for general traffic and therefore cannot be used for that purpose. In any event, they cannot be used together with ordinary multipurpose trucks. This method of operation for bulk traffic is economically justified. Sufficient rail capacity is available between Ermelo and the Rand, to which the hon. member referred.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn pleaded for better and shorter railway connections and requested that the train services in the Southern Cape should be made faster. He is asking for an investigation in this particular connection. I understand that hon. members of the Southern Cape region have met to form an action front against me in this particular connection. Hon. members will understand that that specific region is represented by important people, a factor which naturally makes my reply more difficult. [Interjections.] I understand the problems to which the hon. member referred, and I am quite prepared to give the undertaking that any investigation which the hon. member and members of that particular group wish to launch can be undertaken in co-operation with my department. I shall give them all the assistance they need to come to the same conclusion as I have.

The hon. member for Nigel wanted the conversion of Dunnottar Station to be speeded up. I just want to explain to the hon. member that after officials of the Systems Management of the Johannesburg office discussed a possible connection at Dunnottar for the industrial area with the city council on 22 May last year, a plan of the proposed connection was recently submitted to my department by the city council. This plan is now being studied by the Railways, and I should like to give the hon. member the undertaking that we shall expedite it as far as possible because I am aware of the problems which the hon. member has at Nigel in this particular connection.

The hon. member for Bethlehem apologized for not being able to be here. He expressed the opinion that as far as salary and status are concerned, the Commissioner of the S.A. Railway Police is not on the same level as his colleagues in other security services. For this reason he requests that the promotion opportunities in the Railway Police Force be reviewed. I must explain at once that the S.A. Railway policemen are members of the Railway Service, and their salary scales and conditions of service are therefore related to those of other Railway employees. Therefore one cannot regard them in isolation. Aspects regarding the grading of the post of Commissioner of the Railway Police and possibilities of promotion in the Force have been reviewed during the past two years and in fact receive continuous attention. In fact, the rank of the Commissioner of the S.A. Railway Police was raised on 1 April last year from Major-General to Lieutenant-General. I have had discussions with management about this, and I hope to be able to report favourably on this matter next year.

The hon. member also requested that new hospitals be linked up with the Railway Sick Fund and that Railway servants should be able to make use of local specialist services. Allow me to explain this question. During 1979, a thorough investigation was conducted into the use of provincial hospitals in all the provinces by members of the Sick Fund. The Administrator of the OFS indicated that it had been decided after mature consideration that it would not be in the interests of the general public of the OFS to reserve some hospital beds especially for a certain group of people or patients. The order of priority for admission to a hospital ought to be determined—and I agree with this—by the seriousness of a person’s state of disease. Therefore members of the Sick Fund can be admitted to provincial hospitals according to the seriousness of their state of disease. As far as the use of specialist services is concerned, it is the policy of the Sick Fund to centralize specialist services in large centres, and appointments are made in rural towns if it is in the interests of the Fund and the beneficiaries. I shall have the case of Bethlehem specially investigated.

†The hon. member for Green Point, who is not here at present, referred to a possible decrease in the number of cabin crew members on aircraft of the S.A. Airways in order to curtail costs. Secondly, he referred to the possibility of introducing third-class accommodation at cheaper fares on internal flights. Let me explain the situation again to the hon. member. The Federal Aviation Authority of America lays down that a minimum of one cabin attendant must be carried for each door and emergency exit. This is a safety precaution. Emergency evacuation of the aircraft must be completed within 90 seconds. The Airbus has eight such exits, but some of them have double slides so that two passengers can be evacuated simultaneously. The S.A. Airways carries a total cabin crew of 11, one for each exist plus two additional for the double slide doors to which I have referred. There is also one flight service officer. This is the minimum number that can be carried in terms of the above.

Let me now refer to the question of the provision of accommodation at cheaper fares. I must advise the hon. member that S.A. Airways already provides the maximum number of seats on the aircraft employed on its domestic services commensurate with passenger comfort, and I do not believe we should make those seats smaller. A few more seats per aircraft at lower fares will not bring in more revenue per flight than the existing number of seats at normal and excursion fares.

*The hon. member for Humansdorp quite rightly referred to the fact that the Railways is a service organization, apart from the fact that it also has to operate its services on a commercial basis. The hon. member also referred to the question of the role played by the Railways with regard to economic cooperation with other countries. I want to confirm at once that I endorse the principle that we are not doing that on the basis of providing aid, but purely on the basis of a commercial enterprise, and that we therefore render a service which has to be paid for. I take cognizance of the hon. member’s kind remark about the General Manager’s annual report and I shall convey it to him.

†The hon. member for Pinelands raised many issues.

Only two.

No, more than two. Three.

Three?

Yes. You see, Sir, my memory serves me much better than the hon. member thinks.

*The hon. member must not misunderstand me. During the debate I have often referred to the fact that we have largely succeeded in operating the Railways with relatively few interests between the various race groups. I do not want to give a different connotation to the hon. member’s speech, but he will understand that we basically have the problem that we are dealing with large numbers of people of different race groups in confined spaces. So the incidents to which he referred can take place. I am not blaming a specific race group for this. I am just stating that this is so. Whether it is possible to give special attention, in terms of police protection at certain times, to the subways that are often used by children, I cannot say at this moment. After all, the hon. member knows that school hours do not always correspond to the school’s academic hours, but that sporting activities also come into the picture. However, I shall see whether there is anything we can do with regard to police protection for those subways which are used by many people. I cannot take this any further now.

†The hon. member also referred to the Railway Society of South Africa. Let me say at once that the Railways are aware of the activities of that society and have assisted them in many ways. In fact, steam locomotives are a very important tourist attraction for people from overseas. I get persistent pleas from these people to preserve them as far as possible. We do that. We do it in many ways. We give many of these locomotives to local authorities, free of charge, for preservation, on condition that they undertake to maintain them properly. We are not planning to phase out these locomotives in the foreseeable future. I cannot give the hon. member an exact date in this regard. Let me point out that we still have 1 770 of these locomotives available. I have indicated that in 1985, 5% of the gross ton/kilometre generated will be hauled by steam. I do not believe therefore that there is any danger that these locomotives will disappear.

I am very glad to hear that.

I have also indicated that we are aware of the fact that these locomotives are a tourist attraction. Through our tourist offices, here and elsewhere, we arrange these tours. If there is a demand elsewhere, naturally we will consider the matter from time to time. We assist in other ways as well. We are making films of the steam locomotives, or rather we are encouraging them to be made to foster interest in these locomotives. I have already indicated that a museum displaying all types of steam locomotives has been established at Esselen Park and also at De Aar.

*In conclusion I wish to say that we are really doing all we can to ensure that they do not disappear.

I asked about the Western Cape in particular.

As far as the service in the Southern Cape is concerned, I shall investigate that. I can hardly imagine that the line between George and Knysna could possibly electrified within the foreseeable future, considering the traffic it carries.

The hon. member also asked me about the old Victorian dining cars. I want to say at once that we are preserving them as far as possible. Some of them are also being housed in museums in our country.

The hon. member for Kimberley South made a plea for concessions for handicapped children. The hon. member has already written to me in this connection. It is a fact that the children to whom he refers can only make use of train services if they are accompanied by attendants. I have indicated that it is not possible to grant concessions in this particular connection, but that I shall discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is responsible for the cost of the attendants, and arrangements can possibly be made for the fees that have to be paid for the attendants to be used as an extra payment towards the cost of a flight ticket, which-would then have the same effect. I therefore want to request the hon. member to make representations to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions when his Vote comes up for discussion.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 75.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, we are now coming to the end of a fairly lengthy Railway debate and as I said a little earlier on, after the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, it requires a lot of stamina on the part of the hon. the Minister to have to answer the multitude of different problems that can be raised in a debate of this nature. I must say that there are various matters that I would have liked to have had answers on from the hon. the Minister a little earlier because I would then have had the opportunity to react to those answers during the Third Reading. If the hon. the Minister does not mind, I am going to raise some subjects and say a little more than what was said earlier on in the debate so that when the hon. the Minister does reply, he will be able to deal with the whole issue.

I am going to start off by talking specifically about the financing of the Railways with regard to the whole situation visà-vis the Franzsen Committee. We have heard of the recommendations that have come from that committee, but we have not yet seen its report. I believe that the recommendations so far are interim recommendations and that they have resulted in a very favourable situation as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned. It has enabled him to contribute about R240 million this year towards the revenue of the Railways. However, there is also no doubt that there are many other services being rendered by the Railways which are not cost orientated. He talked a little bit about cross subsidization, but many commodities are transported by the goods services at a loss. It has been my opinion—and I have said this on many occasions during debates on budgets in the past—that the faster the Railways move towards a cost-orientated structure in terms of the Constitution Act the better I would be pleased. This, of course, would have a tremendous impact on certain areas of the economy in that at the moment the Railways subsidizes them from its funds. I do not think that this is a healthy state of affairs and I should like to have us know what the losses are on each commodity transported. This would enable us to then assess the situation and, if subsidization were then necessary, that subsidization should come from Treasury as well. Say, for example, we transport livestock at a loss, which I understand we do at the present time. I believe it is wrong that the Railways Administration should be saddled with the job of subsidizing this. If something has to be subsidized, I believe it should be assessed on a list of priorities by the central Treasury, rather than by a somewhat arbitrary decision, by the department and the Minister of Transport Affairs, on the extent to which they should be subsidized. I know that in the national interest it is sometimes a good idea to transport ores to our seaports at a loss, because we need the foreign exchange, but there is no good reason why the Railways itself should be encumbered with the responsibility of covering this loss. I again believe that this should be financed from central Treasury. There might be a very good argument for why it should be financed from central Treasury, but at least one is then in the position to assess what is being subsidized and how important it is that we do subsidize that commodity.

This leads me on to a question I should now like to address to the hon. the Minister. How much further is the Franzsen Committee going to go? I should like to know whether we are going to see the interim report of the Franzsen Committee, whether it is ultimately going to report more fully on the various socio-economic services carried out by the Railways, not just vis-à-vis passengers, but vis-à-vis goods as well, and then what the hon. the Minister intends to do with the report once it has come through.

I do not know whether he is going to come up against resistance from the hon. the Minister of Finance when it comes to asking for more money, but I do believe that it is unfair to the Railway users in the community to saddle them with the responsibility of subsidizing uneconomic aspects of operations. Specifically with regard to much high-rated traffic, I believe it is too expensive at the moment because of the necessity for the Railways to make a greater profit out of high-rated goods so that it is able to subsidize some of the things that are carried at a loss. It is not only high-rated goods that are involved. One cannot really say that there are many aspects of Railway operations that are not cost-orientated, and this is why I particularly like the suggestion of the hon. member for Bellville, who made a very good speech, as far as I am concerned, about the necessity of appointing another committee or commission to look into the whole question of cost orientation. I believe that the sooner we get to know what everything costs to transport, and can relate the tariff to that, the better off our whole economy will be. I am sure there are many services that the Railways does not necessarily need to carry out at the moment. We always hear that it is not prepared to brook competition from private enterprise, because if it did have competition, the private enterprise operators would skim off the cream of the high-density routes, and the responsibility which the Railways has of covering every area of the country would be all that was left to the Railways. It would lose the profitable high-density traffic and have to come back to low-density unprofitable work. I believe that in many instances it would perhaps be a good idea to give low-density areas out to public tender and to give it to private enterprise and, if necessary, subsidize private enterprise to carry out a service. There are many of the less densely populated areas of South Africa which, in fact, I do not believe warrant the services they are at present getting from the Railways. Obviously the farming community in isolated areas has to be serviced, but I believe that on certain occasions this can be done very much more cheaply by road transportation. This is, of course, a highly complicated subject, because one then enters into the question of fuel shortages. Road transportation vehicles mainly use diesel which, as we all know, is the commodity in respect of which there is the greatest shortage of all fuels in South Africa. The Railways have the obvious advantage of their extended electrification, so that we are at least assured of fuel supplies for our electrified traffic.

The whole question of Railway finances should be looked at very much more carefully. I believe that one should specifically look again at the report of the earlier Franzsen Commission, which should not be confused with the committee which is sitting at the moment, which talked about self-financing by Government bodies such as the Railways. At the time it recommended that bodies such as Escom, the Railways, Iscor, etc., should try to adjust their tariff structures to include approximately 40% of self-financing from revenue. I do not think that the Railways is coming near to 40% yet. It is approximately 30%.

17,4%.

I understood it to be considerably more than that. However, I understand from the hon. the Minister that 17,4% of the financing for capital betterment comes from revenue. I just want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a few paragraphs in that original report of the Franzsen Commission, and I refer to paragraph 189, where it is stated that—

The advise a greater degree of self-financing, specifically in order that public corporations do not put stress on the whole capital structure of the country. This report was submitted at a time when capital was in very short supply, but the situation has changed now, and I believe that the hon. the Minister should be more adaptable in relation to the changing state of the money-market. They made the rather wise comment at a later stage that because of the kind of services or products they supply—I am talking about Government enterprises—most Government enterprises are monopolistic, and the Railways is monopolistic. It was also said that the objection could therefore be raised that they may tend to charge excessive prices if their total revenue exceeds what is required for meeting the expenditure on operation, maintenance, depreciation and the payment of interest owed on capital. This is what I believe is happening. They tend to charge excessive prices. I believe, as I have said during the Second Reading debate, that the hon. the Minister has been too tough in raising the tariffs in the way he has. I believe that this is, in part, because of the inflationary method of financing and the necessity for getting more of the capital requirements from revenue. I believe the result has been that we are faced with an inflationary budget which can be of no service to South Africa. Inflation has to start somewhere. I have said that before. Where does inflation come from? We all say that a lot of it comes from overseas. I do not know why we import inflation, but to a certain extent we have to because we buy commodities from overseas. However, no country will admit to exporting inflation. They all complain about having to import it. Inflation is a subject which is not understood to any great extent by even the most brilliant economists in the world today. In fact, one finds that when one talks to different economists, one gets different answers. Sometimes one will even get two answers from one economist. However, the one thing one can be certain of is that as soon as an organization of the size of the Railways raises its rates, we are accelerating the inflationary spiral.

We have expressed our disappointment with the hon. the Minister having seen fit to raise tariffs by as much as he did, we believe unnecessarily so. During the Second Reading debate the accusation was made that I suggested that tariffs should not be raised, but that I did not say where the required money was going to come from. I in fact did say where the money was going to come from.

You said we should abolish apartheid.

I cannot hear what the hon. the Minister is saying.

You said we should abolish apartheid.

He cannot understand Afrikaans.

I said one of the things we should do was to abolish apartheid. No doubt it costs the Railways a lot of money every year to retain apartheid.

†While we are on the subject of apartheid, perhaps I could just add my voice to the voice of the hon. member for Sea Point when he spoke about the necessity of doing away with a certain amount of apartheid on the Railways. The hon. the Minister promised to reply to my argument in the Second Reading during this Third Reading debate.

You said “a certain amount”. Why not all?

I am not listening to that hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I know you have forbidden me to use the word “idiot” in regard to an hon. member, but as I am unable to find any other word suitable, I shall use no word at all.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I retract any intimation that that hon. member is an idiot, because it is patently obvious that it is not so.

Order! The hon. member cannot play with words like that. The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally. [Interjections.]

I withdraw it, Sir. I believe one of the difficulties the hon. the Minister is experiencing at the moment with regard to apartheid on the Railways is that there is no clarity with regard to policy. I refer to the trouble at railway stations. There seems to be uncertainty as to exactly what the policy of the Railways is and what the regulations are that have been laid down. In parts of the Transvaal we have a situation that, if the first-class coaches for Blacks are full, the Railway authorities allow those Black people to go into White first-class carriages which are not full. This is sometimes not so in the Cape Province. There seems to be no consistency with regard to policy. Rather ugly incidents are occurring from time to time when Railway servants through excessive zeal throw people out of carriages. There are minor things, but the sort of things that cause bitterness. There was the little girl …

No, that is not fair. You must have read the full explanation of that matter. Now you are generalizing.

I am not generalizing at all.

Yes, you are.

The explanation was inadequate. The inadequacy of that explanation is reflected by the results as far as Cape Town station is concerned. Nobody quite knows what is going on. People of colour who are light-skinned can sometimes take a chance and obtain their first-class ticket from one ticket-office while others who are darker are referred to another ticket-office. This has been outlined very adequately by the hon. member for Sea Point. We have not had an answer yet. There is also no doubt about it that it is costing the Railways a tremendous amount of money to duplicate facilities. I shudder to think of what the assessed cost of apartheid might be.

I believe I put my argument very reasonably in the Second Reading debate. I said we were not asking for things to happen overnight. Even if we do accept that this is a very sensitive area and that it is a possible friction point, it is the duty of the Railways Administration led by the hon. the Minister to progress towards a situation where there can be greater integration on the Railways.

There must be a tremendous amount of resentment and bitterness amongst Black commuters who see what treatment is meted out to Whites and what sort of treatment they are getting. Admittedly, if one is talking about third-class commuters, they pay much less, but generally speaking the facilities and amenities available to Black commuters are very much inferior to those offered to Whites.

That is unfair.

The hon. the Minister says it is unfair. It depends on how one looks at it. Perhaps it is the result of an historical accident. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has every good intention of doing better. I am sure he has; I hope he has, but I would like to know exactly where he is going with his policy, what his intentions are, but not in generalities. I would like to hear the specifics of what he hopes to do. Let him specify: “We hope to phase out this aspect of apartheid fairly soon.” I hope the hon. the Minister is committed to phasing out Railway apartheid. I hope the decision has been made by the Government that, if it possibly can, keeping friction at the minimum, apartheid will be phased out. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister because Government policy, with respect, is very, very cloudy. It is not clear at all. We actually do not know what is going to happen. Is the Government committed to desegregation on the Railways or is it not? That is the crisp question. I hope we will get an answer to that from the hon. the Minister. I want to know—and it might be done in 10 or 20 years or whenever it is possible to do so—that the Government has made a decision to phase out apartheid, because I believe that, if the Government says it is going to do it, if it makes that statement of intent now, it will make a tremendous difference to race relations in the country. Just think of the hundreds of thousands of Black commuters who travel on trains in difficult situations every day. Most of them feel discriminated against. Sometimes it is not necessarily a matter of discrimination. Sometimes it is just purely and simply the inability of the Administration to provide the facilities, but it is necessary that the Blacks should know that some time in the future they are not going to be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin but that they are going to get equal treatment with Whites and that if they can pay for a first-class ticket they will be able to travel in first-class comfort. I know of many White youngsters, who are starting off in life and who do not have any money, who would be quite happy to travel third class at the present time. At the moment it all depends on how dark or how light one’s skin is.

You are a hypocrite. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Marico is making quite a noise. We all know he belongs to a section of the NP who will never accept integration in the transport services. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrite”.

I withdraw that.

All I can say is thank heaven there are now members on the other side who, I believe, are thinking in a more enlightened manner and who have decided, with the hon. the Prime Minister, that discrimination can have disastrous consequences in South Africa. I hope this hon. Minister will take the opportunity to announce the total scrapping of a considerable amount of the apartheid operating in the Railways in South Africa at present.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is only people who have become a grandfather for the first time in their lives who can know how the General Manager of the Railways is feeling. I feel as he does. I think we should establish a club for first grandfathers because I think that when one has become a grandfather for the second time, one has already forgotten how it feels to become a grandfather for the first time. We congratulate the General Manager.

The hon. member for Orange Grove amazed me again this afternoon with his general statements and vague allegations to the effect that some of the apartheid ideas should be done away with. One would like to know from him what apartheid ideas he has in mind.

The whole lot.

Now the hon. member says “the whole lot”. Just now he said “only some of the apartheid”. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member says “the whole lot”. I shall come back in a moment to this idea of the hon. member for Orange Grove, viz. his asking that apartheid should be abolished on the Railways. The hon. member also spoke about cost orientation and the subsidization of specific commodities. The only comment I want to make about that is that the Railways must necessarily convey high-cost commodities. I believe that the Railways also has an obligation with regard to specific low-cost commodities.

We are now in the closing hours of this debate and it is therefore very difficult to say anything new. However, I have listened very attentively to some of the matters raised during this Railway debate—including those raised during the Second Reading stage. Considering the scope of this budget, a budget with an expected revenue of approximately R4 400 000, and on top of that a capital budget of R1 600 000, one would really hope that the Opposition would put forward realistic and constructive ideas. One would hope that hon. members of the Opposition would approach this budget with the same responsibility with which a director would consider an economically sound business enterprise of the same size. Instead of that, however—and here I accuse both the PFP and the NRP—they competed with one another to use this budget to climb on the bandwagon of political and economic clichés. We have just had another fine example of this from the hon. member for Orange Grove when, in the final minutes of his speech, he referred to “some apartheid” and, when he saw he was being cornered, he immediately said “all apartheid”.

What are we dealing with when the hon. House discusses a budget of this nature? It is the budget of a business undertaking. After all, that is what the Railways really is. How does one approach such a business undertaking? The Railways is a business undertaking with a capital investment of R8 600 000, a business undertaking which must be operated and maintained—for which a staff of 265 000 people is required—and all of this has to be administered from day to day. The Railways has to handle almost 625 million passenger journeys per annum and see to it that those passengers get to their destinations on time. It is an undertaking which has to handle and transport 110,75 million tons of goods annually, and on top of that it has to see to it that as little as possible of it is lost or damaged. It would be better not even to speak of the ton-kilometre distances; they are simply too vast. And that is not to mention the 43,5 million tons of coal, the 2,5 million head of livestock, etc. All these things comprise only a few of the activities for which this enormous business undertaking is responsible.

The Railways is an undertaking which is not only concerned with certain specific facets of technology, but which has to acquire, establish and also implement skills and managerial ability across the entire technological spectrum, from the most unskilled manual technology to the most refined electronic and other types of technology imaginable. Then, too, there is the technological research that has to be carried out. We are aware of innumerable examples of this. Here I have in mind the bogie, for example, and innumerable other examples of successful research by the Railways to cope with South African conditions. This is truly an enormous operation. The S.A. Railways is, if not the biggest, then certainly one of the very biggest business undertakings in the world. It is an undertaking which is primarily dependent on revenue derived from a diversity of tariff structures to enable it to balance its books. In the budget we are discussing at the moment, tariff increases are essential. However, this is the first time in two years that tariffs have had to be increased in order to eliminate dificits.

However, what are the Opposition parties doing in regard to this budget? The speeches of hon. members on that side of the House are larded with popular political and economic clichés which are linked to this budget in a totally disproportionate and unmotivated way, with but one aim, viz. party-political gain. I have no doubt about that, and accordingly I want us to consider a few of the statements made by those hon. members. It was none but the hon. member for Orange Grove who summed up his Second Reading speech—as he did again this afternoon—with the statement that the tariff increases would not be necessary if the Government would only do away with apartheid. After all, we are aware of the recognized cliché of this Opposition party and its kindred spirits: “Apartheid must go.”

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member can put his question as soon as I have completed my argument. To be fair to the hon. member, I did take a look at the budget, and what did I find? There is no apartheid as regards the transport of goods. Nor can there be apartheid with regard to the transport of livestock. There cannot be apartheid with regard to the transport of coal either.

What about black sheep and white sheep?

The hon. member asks: What about black sheep and white sheep? Fortunately coal is black. Therefore we do not have to argue about it.

We must put them all in a coal wagon.

Yes, we must put them all in a coal wagon. Let us look at the conveyance of Airways passengers. After all, there is not a hint of apartheid in the transportation of Airways passengers. All that remains, then, is the trains. This problem surely cannot arise in regard to first-class and second-class train passengers, because on inquiring, I was told that first-and second-class passengers are provided with facilities as the need arises in the S.A. Railways. They are therefore provided on demand. In any event, the first-class and second-class passenger transport comprises only 17% of the total passenger journeys of the S.A. Railways. All that remains, then, is the third-class transport. I could never, in the wildest flights of my imagination, impute it to the hon. member that when he said that the Railways should do away with apartheid, he thought for a moment that the third-class passengers, the majority of whom are commuters, would have to bear the total burden of the whole deficit for which the Railways is experiencing this year. I do not believe that the hon. member meant that. He is being very quiet. It seems to me that he meant that the third-class passengers, those commuters, would now be burdened to such an extent that they would have to make up for the deficit of the S.A. Railways by way of tariff increases.

Let me ask you a question.

I do not believe the hon. member meant that. He may as well tell us just now whether that is in fact so, or he can do so through one of his colleagues who is still to speak. If that is so, then surely only one alternative remains. After all, we know who the people are who use the slogan “Apartheid must go”. My impression, therefore, is that the Opposition parties are using this budget to climb into the “Apartheid must go” bandwagon of the opponents of this Government. I accuse the PFP and the NRP of bandwagon politics in South Africa and of absolute unrealism.

Let us consider the second cliché these people used in their arguments. We all know what is the biggest single economic problem which not only South Africa, but the whole world, is facing. It is inflation. As far as I know, no one in this House has yet maintained that tariff and salary increases as proposed in this budget are not inflationary. We have all admitted it. Even the hon. the Minister admitted by way of interjection that they were inflationary. However, what do we see? Hon. members on that side of the House devote the greater part of their speeches to an attempt to prove what we all admit. They are doing so with a specific aim. By doing so they want to tell the electorate that the Railways is supposedly the cause of an unprecedented inflation spiral which will take place as a result of these increases. After all, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said, and I quote his Hansard—

That is the statement the hon. member made.

Correct or not?

The aim of blowing up this inflation cliché out of proportion is to make the voters see the Railways as the great bugbear of inflation. That is the only reason for that. They made a bugbear of inflation without also telling the voter what, in my opinion, a responsible Opposition ought to have said in this debate. In the first place, they ought to have said that an economically sound transport system is one of the arteries of the economy of the nation and that without it, economic welfare is simply impossible. That is what they ought to have told the people. In the second place, they ought to have said—and surely this is a recognized fact—that the Railways, more than any other undertaking, is also the prey of inflation, as the hon. the Minister expounded very clearly. Steel prices, fuel prices, electricity tariffs and the cost of capital and maintenance equipment such as aircraft and other goods that have to be purchased from countries where there is an inflation rate of between 16 to 20% and even higher, all make their influence felt. The third point is that the contribution of the Railways to the rate of inflation by way of these increases will not even be a full 1%. That they omitted to tell the voters. They omitted to give their positive support in this House to the efforts made by the Railways to increase productivity. I accuse the Opposition of having omitted to appeal to the private sector not to use these tariff increases as an excuse for general price increases. We have heard what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said in this regard. I want to repeat that the official Opposition is using these clichés in order to climb on the inflation bandwagon in this regard as well. This is yet another example of bandwagon politics.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is so afraid that the voters at large, particularly those in his constituency, will form the wrong impression of the salary increases. He therefore states in his speech—

I shall come back to this—

Then he goes on to say that these increases are going to prejudice growth. He adds in the course of his speech that he will prove this. However, he never gets to the proof. On the contrary, he concludes with the words I have just quoted, to the effect that they will result in a tremendous price hike.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti then came up with what, in my opinion, is the extremely stupid argument that higher consumer spending—and he himself admitted that this would be stimulated by the salary increases—does not stimulate growth. He also said that he was going to prove it. As I said, however, nowhere in his speech did he mention this proof. I cannot believe that the hon. member is not aware of the fact that consumer expenditure that has been stimulated is, next to manufacturing, the biggest contributor to the growth rate of a nation’s economy. This contribution varies between 12% and 15%, depending on the price indexes, and can be even higher. I maintain that this is yet another example of how hon. members, particularly that hon. member, are using the budget to project an image of negative growth. It is also a fine example of how they practise bandwagon politics.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether or not he believes that the passenger services on the S.A. Railways should be integrated?

Mr. Speaker, I do believe it should not be integrated where it is to the advantage of the people concerned and to the economy of the country as such. It should not be integrated … [Interjections] but be integrated where it is necessary as in the case of first and second-class services as explained earlier in the debate.

*Finally, I want to dwell on the fine example of the question of the 10% increase in the provision made for depreciation. As a member of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti sat innocently during the meeting of the committee and heard, saw or said nothing bad, and the next moment he voted in favour of the increase of 10%. However, when he came to this House, he had a problem, and was so eager to climb on the inflation bandwagon that he said it was because he did not have an economic advisor at the committee meeting that he voted in favour of the increase. Now, however, he is so eager to climb onto the bandwagon of his political colleagues that he says that he voted wrongly in the Select Committee.

He did not say that.

He did say that. He said that he was sorry that he had voted wrongly. [Interjections.]

He admitted that he made a mistake.

I shall quote the extract where the hon. member said that he had made a mistake and voted incorrectly. The hon. member said that as far as he was concerned, the increase of 10% in depreciation amounted to inflation book-keeping. However, that was simply another clinché he used in order to climb on the bandwagon. That was why he announced that he had voted wrongly in the Select Committee. The hon. member said that the S.A. Railways may not use inflation book-keeping techniques. He went on to say (Hansard, 10 March 1980, col. 2380)—

I think that what the hon. member really wanted to say and should really have said was: “The S.A. Railways is of the opinion that it is wrong to introduce excessive tariff increases tomorrow to pay for the inflation costs of yesterday.” That is what the hon. member should really have said. However, let us look at how he concluded his argument concerning this inflation book-keeping. I quote him again (Hansard, 10 March 1980, col. 2383)—

In other words, provision made for inflation—

Here he admits that from a sound, economic, business point of view, it is wise to take inflation bookkeeping into account in determining one’s profit structure. The hon. member admits it. It must therefore happen, but the Railways may not do it. Therefore the hon. member is admitting, by concluding his argument in that way, that he did in fact vote correctly in the Select Committee. The reason why the hon. member changed it in this debate is that he is terribly keen to climb onto this inflation accounting bandwagon.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to ask the hon. Minister of Transport Affairs when Delmas is going to get a new station? [Interjections.]

On behalf of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture I ask the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs when Delmas is going to get a new station. All he must do is tell the hon. Minister of Transport Affairs where Delmas is, and then the hon. the Minister may reply.

I therefore conclude with the statement that we on this side of the House accuse the Opposition of having, through the hon. member for Orange Grove and also the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, used this budget, which, as I have pointed out, is an extremely important budget, as a hook on which to hang political and economic clichés, and that they have done so for the sake of political gain for their own parties.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say that I have found this debate very interesting indeed. I appreciate the length to which the hon. the Minister went in his reply to the Second Reading debate to answer the questions which arose during the course of that debate. On balance I think much has been achieved as a result. I sincerely hope that in the future we might even hear more about how the Railways finances its operations and some of the details of it. However, as far as the hon. member for Wonderboom is concerned, I should just like to ask him one question. Why is it that the Receiver of Revenue does not allow the private sector to incorporate what is termed “inflation accounting” in their accounts at the end of the year?

May I answer? It is because they get such big cuts. They get 69% on a machine.

The fact of the matter is that while the Receiver of Revenue does not allow this, the hon. the Minister is asking us to allow this for the Railways.

That does not prevent them from applying it in their accounting system.

One thing that has arisen out of this debate is that this whole problem of inflation is an extremely important problem, and one which is baffling some of the best economic and accounting minds in the world. I happen to be an engineer not an accountant. I admit that quite clearly. The point is, however, that the accountants themselves are not in agreement on this particular subject.

This is the reason why we in these benches place so much emphasis on this whole problem of inflation because, as the hon. member for Wonderboom said, the Railways’ budget as a whole, a capital budget of R1 600 million and an operating budget of R4 400 million, has a tremendous influence on the economy. We believe that the hon. the Minister should use this massive budget as a weapon against inflation. I think that this is the whole gravamen of our argument, and I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has tried to reply in this regard. However, I should like to say that despite all that he has said—and the hon. member for Wonderboom acknowledged it—this budget is going to increase the inflation rate by 1%. Hon. members may argue: “What is 1%?” If we could control 1% here and 1% there we could bring our inflation rate down to what West Germany has been capable of, namely holding it at 5,5% instead of 14%.

It is because of that that I should like to spend the little time I have at my disposal during the Third Reading debate to comment on the subject of inflation accounting, which has been referred to during this debate, as well as to another term, and that is capital formation. I believe that it is firstly essential to clearly identify the differences between the two practices. It is one thing for a business to ensure that it recovers the real value of the items expended, which includes the capital invested in any business undertaking or enterprise. I think that is generally accepted. It is another matter, however, to ensure that the business undertaking itself allows for new capital to be formed as a result of its endeavour towards further investment for growth. I think that these are two distinct and different matters. The former, the recovering of capital, is a legitimate cost. I think we accept that. The latter, I believe, is not. In reality the latter is a profit.

And the maintenance of that capacity?

I shall come to that. I think that the hon. the Minister must concede that the one is a legitimate cost and that the other is not. I should like to submit to the hon. the Minister that these two matters have been mixed up, if I may use that expression, through the Railways’ depreciation policy, a because they are calling what is in effect a profit, a cost.

Are you arguing against depreciation at all?

No, I am not arguing against that at all. If the hon. the Minister would just listen for a moment, maybe he would understand what I am saying. I will concede that during a period of inflation there is a case to be made out for depreciating assets in terms of their replacement cost. I am prepared to concede that. I only wish the Receiver of Revenue would grant me this as a businessman and farmer, allowing me to depreciate items in the terms of replacement costs rather than on their original purchase price. I think that we can accept that. There is a very great danger, however, that such practices, if not kept strictly to the correct rate of inflation for each particular capital item, could add to the inflationary spiral which I have mentioned. This was my argument during the Second Reading debate. Over-compensation in this regard may simply add fuel to the cost-push fire of inflation. I think that the hon. the Minister should accept this. I said in my Second Reading speech that the hon. the Minister had in fact done that.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes at my disposal, but if I have time at the end of my speech, I am prepared to listen to the hon. the Minister. It is only when one sees the real implications of this increased depreciation rate policy of the Railways that one really appreciates the effect that it is having. I want to say that despite my hesitancy at the very beginning, when this matter was raised in the Select Committee, I agreed to increasing the rate of depreciation because of this problem of replacement costs. I agreed to that. I should like to ask, however, how many of the hon. members on that Select Committee, as recently as the last committee meeting, appreciated that the rate of depreciation had increased to the amount that it has. I posed the question at that meeting, and I was given a figure of approximately 50% in reply. However, it turns out to be 74%. What does this actually mean in the budget? If we study the budget, we see that there is an increase of R64 million in depreciation costs, bringing the total to R450 million.

However, when one analyses this, one finds that, if depreciation had been held to the original rate, it would have brought in R259 million. Because the Select Committee agreed to a 20% increase, then another 20% increase and then two increases of 10%, we now find that an additional R192 million has been budgeted for as replacement cost. In all fairness I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is a fair rate of increase in depreciation to cover replacement cost.

It is good business practice.

Does it involve cost or profit? This is the question we must ask ourselves. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really believes that this is a realistic capital recovery rate, even taking replacement cost at the present time into consideration. Is this not rather capital formation? Let us call a spade a spade. In business we would call that a profit and be taxed on it.

I realize that next year all the assets of the Railways are to be revalued and that the increase in the depreciation rate for the next 10 years is going to be based on the wholesale price increase, after which the assets will be revalued so that we shall be able, we hope, to determine the correct and realistic value of the assets. However, I want to question whether this is in the best interests of South Africa, especially in view of our fight against inflation. Should ground rules not be laid down in respect of depreciation rates in this regard? I should like to suggest that, firstly, there must be a scrupulous assessment of the correct value of assets at the commencement of the exercise. Secondly, there must be a realistic assessment of the useful life of the assets. I may be wrong, but I am led to believe that the 74% increase in depreciation rates now also applies to the tremendous capital expenditure at Richards Bay. Is this correct and fair? Is this a realistic rate of depreciation in respect of such tremendous works as concrete sea walls, harbour quays and so on? Does this increased rate really apply to such assets? Thirdly, I believe that the annual increment must reflect the true inflated price of the assets, calculated on an annual basis. The question of whether the wholesale price index or the CPI is going to reflect a correct rate of increase in the value of the assets purchased by the Railways, is open to question. If this rate of increase in depreciation is incorrect, it could overload the cost balance between depreciation and revenue. That means that the Railways are making a hidden profit. It is time we called a spade a spade. Fourthly, I believe an annual score sheet must be kept of the actual depreciation charges and the actual increase in the replacement costs of assets. That should be done if we are to be really correct and honourable, if I may use the word, in applying the replacement cost in respect of depreciation during times of inflation and if we do not want to feed inflation.

I believe these principles are extremely important, especially in the case of the Railways. One can make a study of the total capital expended in South Africa. I remember reading that in 1975 it was estimated that 50% of the total capital spent in South Africa was spent by the Railways, State corporations, the State itself, provincial authorities and local authorities, and therefore the rates which the State applies as far as its depreciation accounting is concerned, are of extreme importance to the whole cost structure of the country. If the amounts are too great, it is inflationary whichever way one looks at it.

This raises the question of capital formation. I think this is really the problem the hon. the Minister is having to face. I can understand his problem of finding capital. This problem is magnified during periods of growth in a country because the demand for transport facilities is then greater. The problem is also magnified during a period of inflation. As the hon. the Minister said during the Second Reading—and it has been repeated since then—growth capital is financed from profits in normal business. This is a serious dilemma for the Railways because, despite provisions for the Betterment and Sinking Fund allocations from revenue, there appears to be just not enough capital for the S.A. Railways to grow, and of course the Railways is not supposed to be a profitmaking organization.

This is the point I want to make to the hon. the Minister, namely that in the light of what my hon. friend from Orange Grove said, i.e. that the Railways should become more cost-orientated, perhaps we should consider that the Railways is entitled to make a profit in order to finance some of its own growth as is required from time to time. Perhaps some sort of formula which allows a reasonable net return on capital investments, which is profit—let us call a spade a spade—should be allowed as far as the Railways is concerned.

I believe it is wrong that we should have accounts brought to us which purport to be recovering capital expended in production or operation, when really what is happening is that it is being used to generate capital so that the Railways can expand.

Finally, I believe transport is not a primary producer of wealth. I think the hon. the Minister must accept this. In reality the Railways is a service industry.

Define that.

Transport is a means to an end.

Define the term “primary producer of wealth”.

Transport is not the end itself, and therefore transport costs and capital investment in transport must come second to the primary producing sectors of the economy. A balance must be maintained.

The hon. the Minister says I must define the term “primary producer of wealth”. Let me use the following illustration in the minute I have left. I am a sugar-cane farmer. It is essential that I transport my cane to my mill. If I do not, I do not receive any revenue. I know from my books that, if I can keep my transport costs to a minimum and can spend what capital I have on more fertilizer, on preparing my soil better and on establishing nurseries to grow disease-free cane, that expenditure will create more wealth from my farm. However, the money I spend on bigger trucks with beautiful cabs and on wonderful cranes does not really make my operation any more efficient. It certainly does not make it more profitable. What it does do is load, or inflate, the cost of production of my product, namely sugarcane, and in the end the consumer has to pay. No new wealth has been created as a result of having the best transport system in the sugar industry. In fact, the men who really make money in the sugar industry—and my colleague the hon. member for Umhlanga, who had a lot of experience of it in the early days, will agree with me—are those who keep an extremely tight rein on transport costs.

Quite so.

This is basic. I said I am not an accountant: I am a producer of wealth from cane which grows in the soil with the help of the sun and the rain, all of which the good Lord gives us. If I dissipate that wealth by having the best transport operation in the sugar industry, I go bust. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this time the hon. member for Amanzimtoti made quite sure that he obtained financial advice when he prepared his speech for the Third Reading. The hon. member is concerned about the rate of depreciation, replacement and writing-off. Surely it is sound financial policy to budget for replacement costs. If he wants to regard that as profit, then I shall not argue with him on that score. The replacement comes from the pockets of the consumer, the railway consumer, the ordinary member of the public, and it forms part of and is levied in the form of tariffs. Therefore it is only sound financial planning to do it in this way. The hon. member also mentioned another way of controlling inflation. In this regard he is concerned about the inflation spiral caused by the increased tariffs. However, I want to maintain that sound growth is a way of controlling inflation. I wish to discuss that at greater length at a later stage in reply to the argument of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

The importance of the S.A. Railways as a factor in the South African economy as a whole is not always perceived and demonstrated. In the course of the Committee Stage the hon. member for Bloemfontein East highlighted this when he referred, inter alia, to the role played by the Railways in, for example, the promotion of productivity, the provision of training and the creation of good relations in the interstate structure as we know it in South Africa. In the course of my speech I should like to refer to this again. The Railways is one of the biggest employers in South Africa. It has always been an extremely important economic factor with far-reaching economic implications. In the nature of the matter, the influence of the Railways on economic growth is very great. Poor planning, a limited vision of the future and an inability to keep pace with the demand for transport can have a retarding effect on the economy. Fortunately, it cannot be said of the S.A. Railways that it fails in these respects. The management ability of the Railways, its organized top management who, with almost super-human dedication and thoroughness, know exactly how to manage and how to plan, have succeeded in achieving the results of working reflected in the annual report and in the budget. When one studies the budget and looks at the annual report, there is only one conclusion that can be reached, and that is that there is thorough planning and a confident view of the future. We have had increased tariffs, tariffs branded as inflationary by the Opposition and also by some economists. In his speech during the Second Reading the hon. member for Amanzimtoti waxed lyrical about this. Surely that is not the overall picture. Nor does it take into account the full implications. It is true that no increase is popular. Few people will say, “Thank you” when they have to pay more. However, what must not be overlooked is that the progress and expansion in the Railways cannot take place without additional expense and increased cost.

If the economy of the country as a whole is preparing itself for economic growth of from 4% to 5%, as foreseen by some authorities, it would surely be foolish of the S.A. Railways not to foresee the same growth. It would be negligent not to make provision for meeting the demands which such growth would entail. This is what is evident from this budget. Hon. members of the Opposition ought to study the Brown Book properly. If they did, they would agree that an adjustment must keep pace with the expected economic upswing and growth. Increased capital expenditure and the steady increase in running costs necessarily entail increased commitments, and this in turn means that there must be increased expenditure.

I also wish to maintain that it would be tantamount to poor management to rely solely on existing sources of revenue to meet the expected increased expenditure. That would really be poor planning. The increased tariffs may be necessary to deal with this expected growth which will also have its effect on the S.A. Railways. I have referred before now to an increase in productivity as one of the most important elements that are essential for sound growth. The Railways succeed brilliantly in this regard. Let us look at the recently published annual report in which statistics concerning the staff are provided. I just want to mention one aspect to illustrate what I should like to say. The statistics relating to the staff present a very favourable picture. On 31 March 1978 the staff establishment amounted to 268 121. On 31 March 1979 it amounted to 264 973. Therefore, in the course of a year there was a reduction in staff of 3 148. If the Railways was able to bring about this saving of staff, but was still able to achieve increasing performance, viz. increased productivity, then one can only say: “Well done; carry on with the good work.” Accordingly we have only the highest appreciation for all the officials of the Railways who have been prepared and are still prepared to face the challenge of dedication and resultant higher performance and productivity.

I also want to appeal to trade and industry to do everything in their power not to pass on the increased tariffs to the consumer in a violent and reckless way. The increased tariffs must not be used to cause reckless and excessive price increases and resultant inflation pressure. Increased tariffs of 10% to 12% do not mean an increase of 10% to 12% in the price of the article. The cost of transportation comprises only a minor proportion of the total cost of the product. In simple language this means that the increase in the cost of transportation cannot result in an increase of more than a fraction of a percentage in the cost of most consumer items. I am willing to accept that trade and industry are aware of the responsibility resting on their shoulders in this respect. If the increased tariffs are treated with circumspection and responsibility, the inputs of the increase in salaries over the medium term will result in a greater overall economic benefit for all, including trade and industry, because the abovementioned price increases can build up consumer resistance.

Another important role played by the Railways relates to the conveyance of passengers. This has always been an important component—not always the revenue-producing component but an indispensable necessity in the national economy. I just want to dwell for a brief moment on the role of the Railways in the regulation of sound and essential transportation, and here I refer in particular to commuters. Commuters are using rail transport to an increasing extent. The suburban service in the Peninsula is a prototype of high consumer usage. The commuter who is happy about using rail transport has a real advantage. Where one’s place of residence and place of employment are not close to one another, it is essential that the rail links be established when it is a question of mass transport. The need for the worker to be at home in the evening after a day’s work is of the utmost importance. Let me dwell on that point for a moment.

The family is the backbone of any people, and disturbing this unity can and will have serious consequences. For the Black worker too, it is of the utmost importance that the family ties be maintained and disturbed as little as possible. The Black worker is not a commodity. He cannot be brought to the White area to provide labour there without proper arrangements being made for him to move between his place of employment and place of residence. The Black worker has a right to his family and his family has a right to his presence too. The Railways is already playing an important role in strengthening this bond and will be of increasing importance as the Black States reach maturity. The time is certainly past when the Black domestic servant in particular has to stay in her backyard room weekend after weekend and night after night. Accordingly I should like to associate myself with the reference made by the hon. member for Wonderboom to the Mabopane-Belle Ombre project. I say that just as the rail traffic of the Peninsula is a prototype of suburban train traffic, the project in question will be the future prototype on the basis of which inter-State commuter traffic will contribute to sound race relations. The interdependence of the various Black States, both the independent and the national States, surely cannot be questioned. Particularly as a result of economic dependence there has always been a constant traffic, and this will continue in the future. Black workers from the States in question will continue to rely on employment in the White area, and will continue to require transport to and from White areas. The Railways will have to meet this need effectively. The Railways will have to accept the challenge of ensuring that the Black commuter has effective and rapid means of getting to his home and his place of employment. Then, too, there is the creation of ordinary and essential facilities such as proper platforms, public facilities, and regular service.

Something else that is needed, of course, is reasonable tariffs. By way of its tariff adjustments the Railways has again succeeded in accommodating the Black commuter. However, the employer will have to take cognizance of this. The Railways cannot continue to offer this service below cost. In his search for labour, the employer will have to take this into account as well. Contributions on his part to assist in transport costs will become more and more necessary.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the role which the Railways already plays and will continue to play in the future in giving effect to the initiative of the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the constellation of Southern African States. The hon. member for Humansdorp also referred to that. The Railways will be the connecting factor, the umbilical chord, in this interstate interdependence and co-operation. In the annual report this set-up is spelt out very clearly under the head “The SAR’s relations with and assistance to neighbouring States. We are looking forward to watching the future role of the Railways in the development of sound race relations and the implementation of the policy of this side of the House and, with appreciation, seeing it develop.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gezina has cast his net wide and covered a number of aspects of Railways Administration. It is not my intention to join issue with him on each of those aspects. They have been fairly well covered in this debate as we reach its closing stages.

However, as regards the question of inflation, the hon. member’s attention is directed to the report issued by the Rand Afrikaans University on the Railway budget and circularized by the Association of Chambers of Commerce. In that report it is stated quite categorically—

I do not think we need argue about that.

I accept that. The hon. member did not dispute it.

I want to return to the argument I advanced in the Second Reading and again in the Committee Stage with regard to the role of private enterprise. I can assure the hon. the Minister that I did not read this report from the Rand Afrikaans University until this weekend as it had been sent to my Johannesburg address. It is significant that in this report of the Rand Afrikaans University the following is stated—

I am therefore not the only one who has had that thought, as unbeknown to me the RAU, in looking at the Railway budget, made a similar request and suggestion with regard to the role of private enterprise.

I want to deal with the importance of relations with, and assistance to, our neighbouring States. Now, more than ever, with the emergence of the Mugabe régime in Zimbabwe, it is necessary to maintain our links with our northern neighbours, and in particular Zimbabwe, which will now find ideologically that it has so much in common with its neighbour, Mozambique, and which has direct rail links with Maputo and Beira from Salisbury. We are indebted to the hon. the Minister and Dr. Loubser and his executive for the progress which has been made in relations with our neighbouring States, and in particular our northern neighbours. Much has been achieved to date that deserves South Africa’s praise. It is, however, vital to maintain the actual rail links, and through these links to cement our relationship and to prove our goodwill. The channel of physical communications must be secured at all times.

A brief examination of the coloured map following on page 10 of the excellent annual report of the S.A. Railways and Harbours shows that extensive rail links exist at present. From Cape Town a rail link extends through the Transvaal into Botswana and then through to Bulawayo and Victoria Falls to Chingola in Zambia. From there the line extends to Ilebo in Zaïre. From Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia a rail link extends to Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, from where a branch extends to Nairobi in Kenya. This line appears to be continuous on the coloured map contained in the report. From Salisbury there is also a rail link to Maputo and to Beira. From Beira a line extends into Malawi. So, as can be seen from the map in the report, there are extensive rail links in Southern Africa.

Let us examine for a moment our commitments to some of the States in relation to the argument I want to advance. We have an agreement with Botswana which is being investigated through the Zimbabwe Railways. Zambia hires 12 diesel electric locomotives while we hire out four South African Railways diesel locomotives to Zaïre. In February 1979 an agreement was reached with Mozambique which marks improved relations with South Africa. We give technical advice and know-how to that country as well as providing it with spares and accessories. South African Railways also provide 16 steam locomotives and 100 goods wagons to Swaziland. Lesotho is wholly dependent on South Africa for harbour facilities and surface transport. In Transkei the S.A. Railways operates two branch lines at Qamata and Umtata, as well as operating 20 road transport services for passengers. After the independence of Bophuthatswana on 6 December 1977 the continued operation of Railway Unes was guaranteed by the S.A. Railways. Venda has five departmental road transport services which convey passengers and freight. I think these are substantial agreements which is very meaningful to us and our neighbouring States. Based on the map in the annual report, and on what I have said, I submit that the key to the north Ues through Zimbabwe, and these rail links can forge bonds of friendship between us and the States to the north of us. They need us now. In this regard we find the following contained on page 13 of the annual report—

In our present relationship with Zimbabwe we actually have a business agreement which provides for a current account, operated by the S.A. Railways, into which all revenue is payed on the rail traffic to Zimbabwe, Zambia and Zaïre. A scheduled passenger train service operates 25 diesel electric locomotives, and 12 steam locomotives are on hire to the Zimbabwe Railways. S.A. Airways operate 15 weekly scheduled flights to Zimbabwe and they in turn operate 20 scheduled flights per week to South Africa. On the basis of this established relationship we must now look at the position, because Mr. Mugabe has made certain statements leaving the door open for communications between South Africa and Zimbabwe, and he appears to want to continue relations with South Africa. However, I ask with a measure of concern: What assistance does the Government give in order to cement these relationships? Are statements not being made by hon. members of the Cabinet and senior hon. members of the Government which are detrimental to our prospective relationships with them?

Order! Statements, apart from those involving Railway matters, are not relevant.

I am merely submitting that the Government cannot afford to project any image other than one which shows friendship to the people with whom we have agreements. With great respect, this is from the report. In order to cement our relationships it is absolutely imperative to have a Government which speaks with one voice and which does not insult any person of colour. Otherwise it is going to be very difficult for Dr. Loubser and for the hon. the Minister to suggest this proposal.

Order! The hon. member is not in order. He cannot, in any way, pursue that line.

I wish to conclude by making an appeal to the hon. the Minister, who has just taken over the portfolio but is by no means a new member of the Cabinet, being in fact a senior member of the Cabinet, to make contact as soon as possible with our neighbour in the north, and in particular with the relevant Minister in charge of railway matters in Zimbabwe, and to go on a goodwill tour with Dr. Loubser and his officials in order to cement the relationship and to ensure the continued goodwill that exists at the moment and will continue to exist in the future between Zimbabwe and the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have reached the end of a very important debate. I do not intend reacting to the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow now, except simply to say that I think it was an unfortunate one. If time permits, I shall come back to it again later.

Various subjects have been raised and questions put to me during the course of the debate, but in the nature of things, due to the time limit, I shall not be able to reply to all of them.

The hon. member for Umhlanga asked me what the position is at the La Mercy Airport. In all fairness I want to tell the hon. member that I shall reply to him fully when we discuss the Transport Vote, because it will be more appropriate to deal with it on that occasion. He will accept that, because my time is limited now in any event.

I should very much like to come to the speech of the hon. member for Bellville, to which the hon. member for Orange Grove also referred when he spoke about the question of tariffs. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Bellville on his speech, particularly on his positive, well-thought-out argument in regard to Railway tariff policy in this country. There is no doubt that the Railway tariff policy is a factor which plays a role in determining the efficient operation of all the activities of the S.A. Railways. The positive approach, and the suggestions which the hon. member made in this specific regard, are really in glaring contrast to the superficial approach which I had once again this afternoon from hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The hon. member argued that the basic philosophy of Railway tariff policy should be modified and brought into line with the country’s requirements and national objectives. He proposed that I should appoint a commission of inquiry to make a scientific investigation of the matter in order to achieve this. I agree with the hon. member that the Railways as such is an instrument for promoting national objectives and as such it constitutes part of the total national strategy. I should like to discuss with the hon. member whether it would be necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry. I agree with the hon. member’s basic point of departure, viz. that we should strive towards achieving specific objectives as far as possible. Firstly, there are the tariffs and the tariff policy which must be modified to suit the country’s needs as far as possible, so that we can achieve our national objectives. Secondly, I agree that the various services of the Railways should be operated separately as far as possible, and that internal crosssubsidization should be kept to the minimum. Thirdly, I agree that tariffs should be based on a free market mechanism as far as possible. Fourthly, I maintain that if tariffs cannot be utilized in the market situation in order to cover costs, and if such a service is essential, the loss must be recovered from the central Government, i.e. the central Government must compensate the Railways for this. Although I agree with the hon. member’s point of departure, as well as with the goal which we must set for the future I must, however, point out that there will be some practical problems in putting this into practice. In order to place this matter in the correct perspective and to understand it correctly, we must bear in mind that there have been a number of commissions and committees over the years that have investigated the Railway tariff policy in depth. These committees and commissions ensured—and I say this with complete conviction—that the tariff policy of the Railways kept pace with changed circumstances and needs. Indeed, we have a dynamic tariff policy in the S.A. Railways. However, it may be as well for me to emphasize our own approach. The last body that investigated this matter was the Schumann Committee, which submitted its report in 1964.

In this regard it is important—and I am also replying to the hon. member for Orange Grove—that in the main, the Schumann Committee recommended that the Railways should place more emphasis on the cost principle and less on the value-for-service principle. I want to explain that it was never recommended that the cost principle alone should form the basis of the tariff policy. The Committee recommended a change in emphasis, not a total replacement. It is important to note that the Schumann Committee did not recommend that the Railways should adopt a tariff structure based on cost, but that it should simply place more emphasis on the cost principle. The value-for-service principle is essential, and the hon. member will understand this. This is essential in a competitive tariff structure, and consequently we cannot throw it overboard completely. The Schumann Committee also recommended that the Railways should retain its differentiated tariff structure, but that as the hon. member for Bellville requests, it should be rationalized. In this specific regard the recommendation of the commission corresponds with the standpoint of the hon. member. Basically, the Schumann Committee laid down broad guidelines for a Railway tariff policy, guidelines which, to my mind, still hold good today. The committee also recommended that a research department be established in the tariff department of the S.A. Railways in order to carry out basic research and to ensure that the tariff policy of the Railways always keeps pace with the country’s circumstances and requirements, as identified by the hon. member. At the moment there is a very competent research unit in the tariff office of the General Manager which gives attention to these specific matters on a full-time basis, in order to bring about the necessary synchronization. Consequently, I feel that in this regard it is not necessary for us to appoint a commission to give attention to this, because the research necessary to achieve the objective that the hon. member is advocating and supporting, is already being done within our own set-up at organizational level. The hon. member for Simonstown supported the appointment of a commission of inquiry. In respect of the overall transport policy, I shall give attention to that in a moment.

However, I want to come back to the basic points of departure which were stated at the outset. We are continually giving attention to synchronizing the tariff policy with national objectives. In fact, it is important to point out the basic points of departure with regard to the proposed tariff increases which were announced in the budget. It will be clear from that, that attention is in fact being given to this, as hon. members requested.

Let us first of all take a look at a few aspects in this regard. The tariff increases have been effected so as to be in line with the broad economic strategy of the Government as far as possible. Where this could not be done, the resultant negative influence was kept as low as possible. Secondly, due to the adverse effect of price increases on the lower income groups, the tariff increases on staple foodstuffs were kept as low as possible under these specific circumstances. Thirdly, the Railways is attempting to bring tariffs closer to costs by means of a differentiated tariff increase and this, too, is being taken further by the tariffs that were announced in the budget. Fourthly, as a result of the adverse influence of fuel price increases on economic activities, the tariff increases on liquid fuel were limited to approximately 4%. Fifthly, since tariff increases generally have a detrimental effect on the development of the Western Cape and other areas which are situated far from the Rand market, and since container transport is more profitable for the Railways, tariffs relating to container traffic were not increased to the same extent as other traffic. In some cases they were even decreased, including the unit container tariff between Johannesburg and Cape Town. This shows that we are implementing that basic point of departure, in accordance with the hon. member’s approach.

As regards operating the different services separately, limiting cross-subsidization or severing financial ties, as the hon. member put it, I want to say that this is an ideal which is not so easily achieved in practice. In fact, if all services were to break even, it would not be possible to put into effect the directive with regard to development contained in the Act. By the way, it is an accepted principle in any business that crosssubsidization takes place, i.e. that there will be a financial link between the various activities. I maintain, however—and in this regard I associate myself with the hon. member—that this should be limited to the minimum. Furthermore, I just want to say that we must also accept that it is a sound business principle to subsidize between services from time to time, otherwise, it would have been necessary, for instance, to effect a drastic increase in air fares last year. I think it was as well that we did not do so and waited for a more suitable time, like the present.

In regard to the free market mechanism as a determinant of the level of Railway tariffs, the Schumann Committee recommended a good while ago that much more attention should be given to competition when determining tariffs. This is still being done as far as possible.

In regard to the last premise, viz. that the central Government should accept responsibility for certain socio-economic services, the mere fact that the Franzsen Committee was appointed and the fact that the central Government paid compensation to the value of R171 million, proves that we have given the necessary attention to this matter as well.

From the above, hon. members will understand clearly that we are dealing here with a dynamic tariff structure, one which has been and is being modified to suit present-day circumstances and requirements. Consequently there is no question of it being an “antiquated” tariff structure as the hon. member for Hillbrow called it. It is not the tariff structure that has not kept pace, but the hon. member for Hillbrow. He has not kept pace with circumstances.

Thus far attention has only been given to the role of the Railways and to the question of how it fits in with national objectives. I think it can correctly be said that since the Railways comprises only a part of the total transport spectrum, attention must also be given to the other aspects, particularly to the co-ordination of the transport media, in order to ensure that we will, in fact, be able to achieve our national objectives. I should like to react to this more fully at a later stage. Firstly, I think it is important to note that after the rationalization in the Government departments, it has now become possible for the first time for all transport media to fall under the same Ministry. Consequently, it is now easier to co-ordinate policy. Secondly, I also want to mention that shortly after I became Minister of Transport Affairs, I identified the fact that there was insufficient co-ordination between the various transport media, of transport contractors and transport users and transport policy-making and transport interests in South Africa. In order to solve this I am in the process of negotiating with various interested parties on the possibility of appointing a transport board or a transport advisory board to fill the gap caused by a lack of coordination. As soon as finality has been obtained on the body, I shall provide further information on it.

The hon. member for Musgrave asked us to give him more information in regard to the long-term recommendations of the Franzsen Committee, and exactly what the recommendations entailed. It is impossible for me to discuss this fully in the short space of time at my disposal. However, I want to sum it up briefly for the hon. member. The gist of the inquiry of the Franzsen Committee dealt with State compensation of the socio-economic component of the passenger services of the S.A. Railways. Consequently the essential recommendation is also that the Railways should be remunerated from external sources for providing uneconomical, but essential passenger services, services which are in the interest of the country, but the costs of which cannot be recovered through the market mechanism.

The Franzsen Committee also foresaw that in the long term a central transport fund would have to be established from which the following amounts would be made good: Firstly, reimbursement of the S.A. Railways for uneconomic passenger services; secondly, reimbursement of bus companies for losses in regard to the conveyance of passengers; thirdly, payments which are at present being made from the Urban Transport Fund; and fourthly, possibly also payment which is at present being made from the National Road Fund. Furthermore, the commission made recommendations in regard to financing such a transport fund. The possibilities which were considered were, inter alia, an employer’s levy and an additional levy on carriers. Although there is no objection in principle to the establishment of such a central transport fund, finality has not yet been reached on the introduction of other levies to finance the central transport fund. In conjunction with this the committee recommended that the Exchequer’s total involvement in passenger transport be included in one aggregate amount, and that for this purpose the capital which the Railways has invested in passenger services over the years from loan funds that were made available by the Treasury, be converted into capital upon which no interest is payable. This explains the amount of R171 million for this year. I want to say at once that at this stage it is not possible for me to go into this matter any further. When finality has been reached, however, I shall make an announcement in this regard.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point referred to the question of notice boards at Cape Town Station. In the time left to me I would like to discuss this.

*Let me say at once that when we discuss this subject, we must understand the multiplicity and diversity in the South African community. I think we must understand what immense potential there is for conflict in the communities in our country. I want to tell hon. members that there are factors that may cause conflict in every community in the world. I do not have to point out to hon. members of the Opposition that this potential for conflict is greater in South Africa than in other countries. We must never underestimate the emotional charge present in different races and peoples. In fact, I want to allege that there is no comparable country in the world where the intensity of this potential for conflict is higher than in our country and where it has nevertheless been dealt with so successfully. I listened to hon. members on the opposite side, and I have a great deal of appreciation for their standpoints. However, while I was listening to them, I wondered whether there was really nothing that they could find in this mighty organization to speak of with appreciation. [Interjections.] Secondly, I want to point out that, as far as separate development and its application in the S.A. Railways is concerned, we at least have to think in rather more fundamental terms than hon. members opposite. Why have I never heard hon. members of the Opposition emphasizing the developmental aspect of separate development? Why have I never heard them …

Such as?

The hon. member for Groote Schuur must please give me a chance first. [Interjections.] Why have I never heard hon. members on the opposite side say that as a result of what has already been done to give expression to the developmental aspect in various spheres—educational, economic, social and others—there are possibilities today of removing measures which previously existed? Why do hon. members on the opposite side never take note of how these things are manifesting themselves on the S.A, Railways?

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

I cannot answer any questions now. My time is limited and I have to reply to long speeches.

†I should like to submit in all sincerity that it is not good enough only to talk about good relationships if we do not also prove it in our everyday lives. This also applies to the hon. member for Wynberg. I do not want to become personal, but I can give the hon. member examples of where he could have done much better than he did.

But I did not even speak in this debate.

The Minister is referring to the hon. member for Groote Schuur.

Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the unique composition of South Africa’s population, I submit that it is a responsibility of each and every individual, of every group and of every organization, as well as of all State departments to ensure that those harmonious relations between the race groups which the Government has set itself the task of achieving—and I have set myself that task as well, and I shall prove it to the hon. member—are maintained at all times. As a transport undertaking the S.A. Railways has to cope daily with masses of people of all population groups. They converge on stations, on bridges, in subways, on trains, and constantly come into contact with each other. The hon. member for Pinelands stressed this very point in his speech. The S.A. Railways is not only responsible for the conveyance of these people in a quick way and with a minimum of inconvenience, but must at all times obviate friction.

*What I cannot understand now, is that hon. members on the opposite side really have no appreciation for the fact that 690 million passengers are conveyed annually by the S.A. Railways, practically without incident. However, what does the hon. member for Orange Grove do? He takes one isolated case of a child who was removed from a train, and blows it up into a principle. I think it is disgraceful. [Interjections.]

†Against this background the S.A. Railways has during the past years been busy removing unnecessary and outdated segregation notices where circumstances permit. Such notices are removed only in cases where it will not lead to friction. I am not prepared to remove any notice where it could result into friction.

There was no friction before they were put up. [Interjections.]

Surprisingly enough, the hon. member for Groote Schuur says now there was no friction …

Ask Boraine.

Give me one instance of friction before they were put up. [Interjections.]

Strangely enough, the hon. member for Groote Schuur seems to have a very short memory. He knows that notice boards were put up before the NP came to power in 1948. [Interjections.] It is, however, a matter of convenience. [Interjections.] Thus far … [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Groote Schuur want to hear my reply? Thus far some 6 000 notice boards have been removed. Considering the fact that the Railways convey, as I have said, more than half … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer those hon. members provided they want to hear the answer.

Do you not see the humour of it?

No. I only see the farce you are trying to make out of it.

6 000 out of how many?

Order!

The Railways conveys more than half a million people in the Cape Peninsula every day and 1,2 million on the Rand, and this is done without incident. Consequently it is clear that the implementation of the policy that I profess, is taking place without friction. I want to say at once that separate development, separateness or partition, is not an end in itself. Surely it is there in order to eliminate conflict. However, there is no appreciation for the fact that we are doing this. Those hon. members form their ideas in the isolation of the select residential areas in which they live. [Interjections.] It is true.

When did you last come to work by train, like I do most mornings?

I shall allow the hon. member to travel third-class. [Interjections.]

You need not talk like that. Andries is not in the House.

Order!

The presence of the hon. member for Bryanston in this House is usually disturbing and insignificant. Normal, good relations are important; it is important to all parties. When we deal with the general public on the one hand and employees work together on the other, all the staff members of the Railways are instructed to maintain at all times the norms of behaviour which are required by our population structure by treating everyone with courtesy. I challenge hon. members to allege that this is not being done. Hon. members should at least show some appreciation now and again for what is being done to establish good relations. Those hon. members are making one basic mistake. They are trying to deny the existence of differences between the population groups. They are trying to ignore the degree of intensity of the emotional approach to the racial aspect. While it is easy for them to theorize about relations, it is the Government’s responsibility, and the Railways’ responsibility too, to ensure that in practice there is peace and not tension and conflict. [Interjections.]

We have had an extensive discussion on both the financial background and the …

You have not replied to my question yet.

I am not prepared to reply further to the hon. member’s questions before he has asked the hon. member for Groote Schuur to behave properly.

But what is the situation at Cape Town Station?

I am not prepared to reply to that question before the hon. member for Groote Schuur has been asked to behave himself. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to conclude now. We have discussed the Railway budget in detail, both as regards the financial policy and the assumptions in regard to the probable course of the economy and traffic trends. In conclusion I want to assure hon. members that in the many discussions that preceded the preparation of the budget—it was discussed with a large variety of outside bodies as well as with the relevant officials from my department and other departments—my approach was that I wanted to present a budget to Parliament which would correspond as far as possible with the actual course of events. In this process revenue from all sources was placed at a realistic level and all the relevant items of expenditure were analysed thoroughly and analytically in order to limit it to a minimum yet ensure that the service rendered to the public and the standard of maintenance of all facilities remain at a satisfactory level. However, I did not stop here. By having a well developed system of financial control, the financial results are analysed carefully by all departments on a continuous basis with a view to improvements in collaboration with the department’s system of goal-oriented management. It goes without saying that the success achieved in this regard is going to depend to a large extent on the co-operation of the staff at all levels and—this is extremely important—on the continued close liaison and the maintenance of the existing good relations between the Administration and the various staff associations.

I am determined to give constant attention in the coming year to the further development of a healthy team spirit in our organization, without which we would not be able to manage so successfully as otherwise. I think it is also appropriate in the long term to assure hon. members that the S.A. Railways has pledged itself to rationalizing our national transport system further by means of forward planning, supported by interdisciplinary research on the technical, economic and management science levels, so that we can comply with future demands for transport in an efficient way. In this regard I want to emphasize that the S.A. Railways is in a strong position to play a leading role in Southern Africa, in regard to transport in particular.

I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. members who made speeches this afternoon, including the hon. members for Wonderboom and Gezina—for their views and their imagination. I want to conclude by referring to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I want to tell him that inter-state relations are sensitive ones and that in the nature of things, relations with Zimbabwe in particular are even more sensitive. I would prefer it if the hon. member refrained from making statements in this regard. I also want to tell the hon. member that the Railway Administration has established contractual relations with various countries in Southern Africa and that the Railways intends to comply with its contractual relations as long as it is possible for it to do so. I think the hon. member will understand that decision-making in this regard does not depend on this country or on the S.A. Railways alone.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, the first matter I should like to deal with today in regard to this Bill is the question of the availability of accommodation for hire. Much has been said in this debate about the fact that, if this particular measure is passed, we are suddenly and miraculously going to find that people are going to build flats for occupation by prospective tenants and in particular that the lower-income group and the middle-income group will suddenly find accommodation to be available. The remarkable thing is that there has been no rent control in respect of buildings not occupied in 1966 now for a period close on 14 years. What do we find? I want to quote from a financial magazine which is not particularly favourably inclined towards views I express. In that magazine it is said—

It is therefore not the question of the presence or absence of rent control that is material here. The fact is that what is required according to the philosophy put forward by people such as those involved with this particular publication is that we must have the situation that rent have to double and treble. I want to ask the hon. the Minister who is in charge of this legislation whether he approves of the principle that rentals should double or treble within the stipulated period. Is that what this legislation is designed to do? I believe that what is required in order to make the building of flats, particularly in the moderate price range, more attractive is that the State should grant concessions in this regard. The State should make it attractive to build flats in the moderate price range by giving investment allowances and proper depreciation allowances and by applying the same kind of principles to flats in the moderate price range as have been applied in trying to encourage the hotel industry in South Africa. If we were to do this, then perhaps we could get somewhere.

That is a policy matter for my colleague.

It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say that it is a policy matter. It is a policy matter that, in fact, the protection which has been given to tenants in terms of the Sectional Titles Act is being removed. It is no good saying to the thousands of elderly people who are being adversely affected that this is a policy matter. They are concerned about whether they will have accommodation or whether they will find themselves in the street. That is what they are concerned about. Of course it is a policy matter and it is the duty of the Government to see to it that a kind of policy is applied in terms of which private enterprise will be encouraged to erect buildings.

I want to say specifically that that is what is required in order to encourage building, and not this type of legislation. The reality is that, as a result of the repeal of this provision, not one single building will be erected, because the truth is that it applies only to old buildings which have existed for some considerable period of time and to buildings which are otherwise subject to control. Not one building, not one unit of accommodation, will come into existence as a result of this legislation.

I want to quote again from one of these less favourably inclined publications on what the effect of this legislation is going to be. The publication says that in Johannesburg alone “about 5 000 apartments of all types could become available over the next 12 months”. That is the effect of this legislation. 5 000 people are going to be affected in accordance with what must be a very conservative estimate because in this article the publication is seeking to defend the measure which the hon. the Minister is piloting through the House. Some fascinating things are said in this article. It is said for example—

That is, of course, not true.

You are, of course, incorrect as far as that is concerned.

It is not true because the reality is that a man who now buys a flat can have the tenant removed whether he is protected in terms of this, whether he applies for housing accommodation or whatever. It is utterly untrue.

You are incorrect, and I shall deal with that.

I am telling the hon. the Minister it is not true, because …

I am telling you you did not study the law.

I am telling the hon. the Minister that, in terms of the law, if a purchaser wants accommodation for his own use, he is entitled to give notice to the tenant.

Now you are putting it correctly.

That is what the position is and that is why this is an incorrect statement.

That is not what you said in the first instance.

Well, then the hon. the Minister was not listening to me. I am saying that the reality is that a man cannot stay there even though he pays his rent if the man who buys the flat gives him notice because he requires it as accommodation for himself. That is what this whole Bill is about. That is the whole ambit of the Bill; there is nothing else except this. We are changing the law in that respect and we are changing it in that respect only.

And what is the reality? The reality of the situation is that the people who can least afford it are going to be placed in the situation where they will have to look for cheaper accommodation. They will have to look for alternative accommodation and they will have to give up the improvements which they have made to their own flats by way of carpeting, alterations or anything else. All of that goes out of the window and they still have to pay the cost of moving. But—and I quote again from this article—the game is given away because this is what the article states further—

That is the attitude adopted. “They deserve to do so.” It goes on—

And they choose Yeoville—

That is the philosophy. The philosophy is that people must reduce their standard of living.

Let me give a classic example from the very constituency of Yeoville, which is referred to in the article, and which applies to me. I made representations to the hon. the Deputy Minister in respect of a building in which there were serious problems, and the hon. the Deputy Minister—and I give him every credit—behaved absolutely properly and sympathetically. I now quote from a letter which I received from a tenant in the building concerned and in which he refers to the interview which I had with the hon. the Deputy Minister—

And here comes the rub—

This man paid a rent, which was determined on 8 August 1977, of R114,67 per month. 10% was added then which raised the amount to R126,13. Another 10% was added which raised the amount to R138,74. Now he is being asked to pay R185 per month, which is an increase over the 1977 determination of 61,3%.

The hon. the Minister is not listening.

The hon. the Minister need not listen because he does not care whether people have to pay this or not.

Order! Is that relevant?

It is very relevant, Sir, because that is what is going to happen as a result of this legislation. This same tenant writes further—

He then goes on to deal with the fact that he has been living in this particular flat since 1965. One sees that within the period from August 1977 to date he is faced with a 61,3% increase in rental. What is this man going to do? He happens to be a man who has improved his flat, thinking that he will live out the rest of his days there. Then he is faced with the arrogance that he must reduce his standard of living because this sort of thing is taking place.

I am sorry, but this is not something which we can accept. The social consequences of this measure, the social consequences of doing this to aged people, people who can least afford it, are something I expect a more compassionate set of people in this House would not have allowed to take place. This is not unique. In today’s newspaper, again one which is not very favourably disposed, viz. The Citizen, we get another story: “Tenants told: Buy or quit.” That is what this is all about. An ultimatum has been served on the tenants of a block of flats in Rosebank, Johannesburg. They have been told to buy their flat or get out. Mrs. Barttlett, a 76-year-old pensioner who is a widow and who has lived in that block of flats for 14 years, quoted—

These prices range from R19 000 to R38 000. Who are they dealing with? They are dealing with a Mr. Press, who is 65 years old, a Mr. Columbic who is 76 years old, etc. These are the kind of people who are being dealt with by this kind of measure, and this is the kind of compassion which is being shown towards people of this kind. We have the argument which is used repeatedly: “You do not expect landlords to subsidize tenants. That is social welfare, and you do not do that.” However, I want to ask the hon. members who are qualified in law, and the hon. the Minister is: Is there not, and has there not always been, usury legislation in South Africa? Is it not something which goes back in the history of our law. Is it not so that when one lends money there is a maximum limit to the interest one can get on that money? I ask the hon. the Minister to explain to the House, in his reply, what the difference is between giving somebody the use of money, in respect of which there is control of the maximum interest rate, and giving a man the use of property for which there is now not going to be any maximum limit.

Didn’t you charge too much interest when you were in banking and making usurious profits?

The hon. member knows that is not true. †Mr. Speaker, it appears to be legitimate for the hon. member, who has now found his home again in this strange set-up, to make allegations of usury against other people. I think that he should rather look into his own conscience, because if we were to deal with his business practices, there would be much that could be queried in this House.

Order!

No, he started it, Sir. If he wants to talk about people’s businesses I can tell you stories about him that would make your hair stand on end.

Order! The hon. member must obey the Chair. The hon. member may proceed.

If they want to start they must see it through. [Interjections.] The question that has to be asked is why the old blocks of flats have suddenly gone up in value? Why are the old blocks of flats now miraculously being sold at higher prices than before? I shall tell hon. members the reason. It is very simply because of the hon. the Minister. By having announced and introduced this measure he has actually increased the value of the older blocks of flats. That is what the result of this legislation is, viz. to make some people richer, to put money in the pockets of some people, and to put other people out in the street. That is the nature of this legislation, and that is why I say that my party and I are unable to support this kind of legislation, because I like to believe that there are people in South Africa—as much as one may treat them with contempt—who believe in a caring society. There are people in South Africa who care when the under-privileged are in a difficult position. There are still people who are prepared to care for the little old ladies whom some people treated with contempt the other day. There are still such people, and they are sitting in these benches, and that is why we shall vote against this measure.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most distressing and frustrating aspects of this debate is the non-appearance and the non-participation of the hon. the Ministers who is primarily responsible for the implementation of the law, namely the hon. the Minister of Community Development. On behalf of the Opposition I want to say that we protest at the fact that the hon. the Minister has, by not participating, tended to make a farce of this debate, and that by not answering the questions he has run away from the assurances that have been given.

I deny that he ran away from his assurances.

I was not referring to the hon. the Minister of Justice, but to the hon. the Minister of Community Development.

Yes, but I deny that he ran away from the assurances.

Let him say so.

He can still participate in this debate. He has run away from the promises he gave to the needy people of South Africa.

He did not make any promises.

He has treated the tenants, especially the elderly and needy tenants of South Africa, with contempt. He has been warned of the situation. I must refer to correspondence in this regard. Apart from taking part in the debates which took place last year and the year before, I had occasion, after surveys in my constituency, to write to the hon. the Minister on 17 October. I drew his attention to what I believed were hardships which already existed. I wrote—

I wrote this on 17 October. I quote further—

Some six weeks later after the exchange of some telex messages in order to get an answer, I received this reply from the hon. the Minister. He acknowledged my letter under the heading of “Phasing out of rent control on dwellings sold under sectional title.” He dealt with this and said—

Later on he said—

He carried on, and in his final paragraph he said—

I would have thought that we would at least have been informed by the hon. the Minister who is absent, or by the hon. the Minister who is having to carry the can for him, whether this matter has been investigated. As late as December last year an undertaking had been given that this matter would be investigated. He said that he agreed that the state of affairs which had been described was not a healthy one, and that under given circumstances protection would appear to be justified. Not only did he not deal with the past legislation, but he also has the affrontery to ask the hon. the Minister to introduce further legislation which will aggravate the situation. We have not yet received a reply. The hon. the Minister is dealing with this as though it does not matter and, as though he is only dealing with so many cyphers. He is dealing with it only through the eyes of property owners. There has been an undertaking to investigate the matter, and I want to know from the hon. the Minister who is handling this Bill whether his colleague has investigated this matter. Has he dealt with it as he undertook to do in this letter to a member of Parliament? Did he investigate it and what was his report?

[Inaudible.]

What of the hon. the Minister’s promises? [Interjections.] Do hon. members want me to read out these promises given by the hon. the Minister of Community Development?

Read them out.

Yes, I shall read out the promises loud and clear.

One Minister covers things up so that he cannot see and the other one runs away so that he cannot hear.

I quote from a statement by the hon. S. J. M. Steyn, Minister of Community Development, issued at 12h00 on Thursday, 1978-04-06—

What about the deserving tenants now? Is there a single deserving tenant who would be protected from eviction under the Sectional Titles Act after this Bill has been passed? Rich or poor, strong or weak, everyone will become vulnerable.

That is quite incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I will motivate what I said and the hon. the Minister can reply to it. In the second place the hon. the Minister said he would prevent exploitation and that any cases of harassment or exploitation should be taken to him.

By all means.

However, once the Bill goes through the hon. the Minister will not be able to protect people from exploitation. The power of a person to evict somebody because he requires the flat for his own purposes is absolute. He rejected an amendment moved by, I think, the hon. member for Durban Central aimed at enabling the hon. the Minister to intervene in a needy case. The hon. member did not ask for a blanket intervention. However, the hon. the Minister said that he was not prepared to intervene, and that he was not prepared to accept the amendment.

This hon. Minister has linked himself with the hon. the Minister of Community Development. The hon. the Minister of Justice should have gone back to that Minister and he should have examined the situation. What has happened to the undertaking by the other hon. the Minister to keep the situation under review? Time and time again in the House, in 1978 and 1979, the hon. the Minister of Community Development said he realized there might be problems and that he would keep the situation under review. He invited hon. members to go to him if problems existed, but when we do go to him he agrees that there is a problem but then he comes with legislation which will aggravate the problem.

There are a few questions and issues which still remain unanswered. The hon. the Minister handling the Bill explained during the Second Reading that the purpose was really to regularize the de facto position. The hon. the Minister said that it was being done departmentally—later it was corrected—to by proclamation. Flats were being decontrolled in order to be purchased under sectional title. I want to say that, if that was so, it was a shocking affair, because what the hon. the Minister is saying is that, after the hon. the Minister of Community Development had said he would give needy people protection, he has in fact behind their backs been deproclaiming their flats and allowing them to be evicted—because this Bill only deals with the eviction of people. So the hon. the Minister of Justice has been telling us that his hon. colleague has been deproclaiming blocks of flats. Having said certain needy people would have protection, the hon. the Minister has used his power to deproclaim those flats so that people could be evicted. This deliberate action on the part of the hon. the Minister has resulted in people being evicted from their flats.

The next question which has not been resolved is what magnitude of problems could result. The hon. the Minister of Justice seems to think that very few people will be affected. Nobody knows how many people will be evicted in the end, but what we do know is that tens of thousands will become vulnerable immediately. The hon. the Minister knows that the Fouché Commission has said that of the 170 000 flat units which are rent-controlled, between 85 000 and 100 000 units are occupied by people who are entitled to assistance under the Housing Act. That is according to the report of the Fouché Commission, viz. that between 50% and 70% of the 170 000 units are occupied by people who are in need. The hon. the Minister of Justice is aware, because I mentioned it during the Second Reading, that the hon. the Minister of Community Development said that he did a probe in my constituency. That hon. the Minister said only about a third of the people were not requiring assistance. In other words, two thirds of the people in the flatlands of the Sea Point-Green Point area, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s own admission, are people who would ordinarily qualify for assistance. So the number of people affected is vast. Masses, many thousands of people, have a very real sense of insecurity.

I think it was this hon. Minister who shrugged the matter off by saying that those old flats were not suitable for subdivision under sectional title. I want to contradict him. It is in fact the old flats which are being sold in the spate of selling in my constituency. The hon. member for Yeoville has mentioned that the real money is to be made by buying an old, broken-down block of flats and trying to seel it under sectional title.