After the hon. the Minister had made his Budget speech last Wednesday, I had an opportunity to make a few remarks in regard to it. Today I want to elaborate on them. But before I do so, I am pleased to be able to mention two other things—the one relating to the Budget and the other to something which happened outside this House.

The first is that all of us, without exception, were pleased to learn from the Budget speech of the concessions which are being made to Railway pensioners. During last year’s Budget this side of the House made a strong plea for something like this … [Interjections.] … and that is why we want to place on record our appreciation of the fact that the Minister has done something about the matter. We like sound action on the part of the Government, even though it is delayed action.

The second concerns an experience I had on the Blue Train when I was recently travelling down for the Parliamentary session in Cape Town. At breakfast I happened to find myself with three American soldiers from Vietnam. During our conversation they told me that they had read in the American magazine Fortune that the luxury trains, the show trains, of the world were becoming fewer and that one of the luxury trains which still existed, one which was still partially driven by steam, was the Blue Train in South Africa. They had three weeks’ leave, and could choose where they wanted to go. Their first choice was South Africa, with the object of travelling in the Blue Train. In reply to my question whether they were disappointed, they said that although they had expected a great deal, the South African Blue Train had exceeded those expectations. I feel that I must place this on record because it will do the heart of every South African good to hear it.

But with that all the good things I can say are at an end. Mr. Speaker, to give you an indication on how we on this side feel about the Railway Budget, I want to move the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the Second Reading of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill, because, inter alia—

1. (1) it reflects lack of confidence in measures with which the Government is attempting to combat inflation;
2. (2) it increases the cost of living at a time when many people are already suffering unconscionable hardships;
3. (3) it gives no real evidence that planning for the future is such as to provide an adequate public transport system to meet the needs of the country’s expanding economy; and
4. (4) it fails to eliminate the anomalies and injustices under which members of the staff, especially those in the bread and butter grades, suffer”.

Last Wednesday I said that the Minister’s Budget would cause a shock throughout South Africa—among the housewives of South Africa and among the businessmen of South Africa. Not long after that we heard that this was in fact the case. With few exceptions the reaction was one of shock throughout. There were only two exceptions, as far as I know, i.e. Current Affairs of the S.A.B.C. and the financial editor of the Cape Times. These two were not. shocked. But all other people and organizations that reacted to the Budget, reacted with shock. Typical of these was the reaction of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. In a circular which they sent out on 12th March a statement is quoted which was issued by the president, Mr. Paxton, on the Railway Appropriation. In that statement he says—

He then goes on to suggest how better use can be made of the Rates Equalization Fund.

In his introduction to his Budget the hon. the Minister made a few general remarks on the economy of South Africa. From those remarks, as well as from the nature of his Budget itself and the steps which he has to take to meet his deficits, it is clear that the Minister himself expects a further increase in costs in the year which lies ahead. In other words, he accepts that the steps the Government is taking, and will probably still take when the Minister of Finance introduces his Budget on 31st March, will be ineffective in curbing increasing costs and inflation. In other words, he accepts that inflation will continue; he does not expect that our problems in this connection will be solved, except in one respect, and that is that he accepts that the Government’s steps will have a negative effect on our economy. In that connection he quoted, with approval, the findings of the Economic Bureau of Stellenbosch, the finding that the increase in our gross domestic product will grow only from 4¾ to 5 per cent. I cannot understand how the Minister can mention this without expressing his concern in regard to it. The Minister is after all the greatest employer of labour in South Africa. Numerous authorities have warned us that if the Government were to take steps which would bring our growth rate to 5 per cent or lower, our economy would reach a danger point, that our economy would then over-react and that we could then have unemployment. In support of this I want to quote the opinions of one or two authorities. For example, there is a well-known company of financial consultants, viz. Craighead Associates, who said—

Then I see, Sir, that Dr. J. J. Cloete, the chief economist of Barclays Bank, told us in December—

Then in a comment, the economics reporter of the Rand Daily Mail said this interesting thing—

Then there is Dr. Jan Marais, who on 2nd January this year, warned—

Not 4½ per cent or 5 per cent—

If the Minister’s judgment is correct as the greatest employer in South Africa, then it is time our hon. Prime Minister stopped sleeping, for he said that if there was one thing which caused him sleepness nights, it is the idea that we are going to have unemployment among our non-Whites in South Africa. This is a very serious matter.

And now you are simply saying there will be.

No, I am quoting the Minister. Sir, this is typical of the Prime Minister. Apparently he was not listening to what went before. Then he makes an interjection which he regards as being clever but which is not clever, for I was quoting the Minister, his own colleague, his senior colleague, where he quoted. with approval, the prediction of the Stellenbosch Bureau that the growth rate in the new year would be 4½ to 5 per cent. It is not I who quoted it; it was his own Minister who quoted it and if he wants to say things like that, then he must talk to his own Minister. Mr. Speaker, it seems as if the hon. the Minister agrees that the Government is losing the fight against inflation, because I see in Saturday’s Transvaler that a very eminent person, Dr. A. S. Jacobs, formerly member of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister and now economic advisor of Volkskas, stated that it was clear that the Government had lost the first round in the fight against inflation. He stated it as follows, according to the Transvaler (translation)—

This is exactly what the Minister is doing—

This is precisely what the hon. the Minister of Railways is co-operating with. He accepts it, and he co-operates with the inevitable; he has no other choice.

He has no confidence in the measures adopted by the Government, for if he had had confidence in them, one would have expected him to have overcome the expected deficit in the Railways Appropriation in a less inflasionistic and less drastic way, and that he would not have sent the cost of living of the consumers of South Africa and the production costs of the industrialists of South Africa soaring higher. Mr. Speaker, he has R91 million in the Rates Equalization Fund, which is sufficient to cover the present year’s deficit and the coming year’s deficit. If he had had any confidence in this Government’s ability to check inflation, he would have done this, because that is what the Rates Equalization Fund is there for, namely to overcome temporary difficulties and to avoid unnecessary fluctuations in Railway tariffs. But it is quite clear that the Minister does not believe that there is going to be an end to this inflation which we are experiencing in South Africa today. That is why he does not want to touch the Rates Equalization Fund, because he does not know what crisis he will still have to face while he is a member of this Government. That is why the people must pay; that is why the people must suffer. This is a pitiful tale of the price South Africa has to pay for this Government we have today.

Sir, not only does the Budget testify to a lack of confidence in the Government’s ability to do something about inflation, but the Budget itself is inflationary. There is the direct effect on costs, to which all the commentators have already referred. National transport, one which the Minister virtually has a monopoly, contributes to the production costs of almost every industry in South Africa. The Minister did in fact make certain exceptions. For that one must be grateful, but nevertheless R59 million must be found in new Railway tariffs and somebody must pay for this. And with these increasing production costs, which we are already experiencing now, and the increasing labour costs, it is unlikely that trade and industry can absorb these increased tariffs, even if they wanted to. The result of this Budget is a direct contribution to a higher cost of living. Viewed in conjunction with other burdens which are being placed on the nation, if one views it in conjunction with other inflationary aspects of this Budget, to which I shall come, then one realizes that not only is the Government losing the fight against inflation, but it is still preventing with the one hand and pushing with the other. One cannot go on like this.

There are many ways in which the Railways could have avoided these difficulties. They could have implemented the Schumann report of 1964 in time. They could have applied the cost principle in the determination of tariffs instead of the value principle. As we now see, it is again the 20 per cent of the traffic which supplies the Railways with the bulk of its revenue, which again has to bear the heaviest burdens, and where the fewest exceptions are being made. They could have accepted and put into effect some of the recommendation today that the Railways is apparently could have allowed private enterprise to play a greater part in transport. They could, as a result of the Marais Commission’s report, have placed our transport on a more rational basis. We have the situation today that the Railways is apparently so vast, so clumsy and so uncontrollable that costs are tending to get out of hand. One wonders sometimes whether we are receiving full value for the immense capital investment the Minister is making in the Railways. I see here in the memorandum which the Minister himself submitted to us, very interesting facts on page 11, where it appears that for every R100 the Railways spends, the revenue remains constant and the tonnage transported decreases considerably. If one uses the index given here, viz. 100 for 1962-’63, then the revenue index remains between 105 and 110, but the transport tonnage decreases from just over 100 to below 90, and there is a footnote which is interesting. The note states that during the seven-year period from 1962-’63 until today, the tonnage has increased by 24 per cent, while capital expenditure has increased by 43 per cent. It may be that there is a delay in the results which one can expect, from new capital investment, but it is a tendency which has existed for years now. Years ago I also referred to this. It may also be that inflation is lowering the value of capital which is being invested, but the Government is also responsible for that. It is quite clear that no proper proportion or ratio exists between the capital investment the Railways is asking us for and the results they are producing. That is why one feels unhappy that the hon. the Minister is still continuing to treat the recommendations of the Marais Commission so superficially and accusing them of having been superficial, and is even alleging that interested parties abused the commission, as if they were such stupid people that they would allow such a thing.

This policy of the Government of increasing the tariffs while it was not immediately necessary is also an unwise one from the Government’s own standpoint. If the hon. the Minister was really in his heart a supporter of the policy of the Government, then he should not have done this and he would not have done it either. Increasing the tariffs on the Railways must entail that it will become more difficult for industrialists to comply with the decentralization policy of the Minister of Bantu Administration and of the Cabinet. If one sees for example that the tariff on cement is being increased, but not the tariff on limestone, then surely this strengthens the motivation of the industrialist in preferring to manufacture the cement in the city rather than at the mine where he obtains the limestone. The same applies to all the factories where agricultural products are being manufactured and processed. This leads to people preferring to have island factories in the cities rather than base factories at the point of production. This counteracts centralization. This harms the policy of the development of all areas. Of course, the hon. the Minister has previously told us that he has nothing to do with apartheid. It seems that he is persisting in that direction. Then he must ask himself whether he is in the right Cabinet.

We have here, as the hon. the Minister of Transport has indicated again, a policy of give and take by the Government. One moment people are being given gratuities or perks, and immediately afterwards these are being taken back. I see, for example, that during the past year, the teachers received R35 million. That is a very good thing. Public servants received R68 million. That is wonderful. A further R18 million was given to Post Office workers, and R60 million to railwaymen. When the Minister announced this at Langlaagte in May he said that he was convinced that the railway-men would now work so hard that it would not be necessary to increase tariffs. Does the hon. Minister remember that? But what is happening now? All those wonderful favours were given, but now the hon. the Minister of Finance has come along with new sales tax to the tune of R47 million. The Minister of Posts has come along with new postal tariffs to the tune of R40 million. The Minister of Transport has come along with tariff increases amounting to R58.5 million. There are hire purchase restrictions. The cost of living is constantly increasing. What is going to happen on 31st March, the Lord only knows. What use is it giving people increases? What use is it pointing out during elections how well they are treating the people and how they are giving them one increase after another? After the people have received the increases, it is said that it is unpatriotic to spend that money, because it causes inflation. What kind of Government and what kind of Railways is this?

[Inaudible.]

As a Transvaler I shall make a point of repeating this speech at Witbank.

The trouble is apparently that the Department of Railways and the Cabinet have lost contact with one another. I want to suggest that the decision of the Government to increase its capital expenditure so combating inflation. Money and capital is and at the wrong time. The hon. the Minister even spoke in his speech of the persistent upward pressure on long-term interest rates. Then he comes along and asks whether he can spend almost R400 million on capital works this year. He is asking for R385.5 million. That is R91 million more than last year. For that purpose the Minister of Finance must now find R168 million for him. Eighteen million rand he wants to borrow abroad. I hope he is going to spend it abroad. If he is going to spend it at home, he is really going to promote inflation. Then he wants us to believe that he is co-operating with the Government in combating inflation. Money and capital is scarce. Earlier on in the year I read what happened to two of the loans the hon. the Minister of Finance tried to float. The public response was very poor. He was only able to obtain R64.59 million from the public. These two loans were intended to replace two loans of R174 million, which had become payable. The one attempt was a three year loan at 5½ per cent. The Minister received R38.6 million, of which the Public Debt Commissioners contributed R6.5 million. There was a 25 year loan at 7¼ per cent. Only R25.9 million was contributed, of which R15 million was contributed by the Public Debt Commissioners. The net result was that the private sector contributed R53 million and that there was a deficit of R120 million on the repayment of the loans which had become payable. Where is the capital going to come from? The hon. the Minister of Finance must find R168 million. Eighteen million rand must be contributed from abroad. The rest must come from our resources and particularly from the transfer from the Renewal Fund to the Sinking Fund. Others will be obtained from own resources and by the contribution to capital works which future users of railway lines are now having to make. This is a new principle. But there is no doubt at all that one must deduce that on 31st March the taxpayer will have to pay up again to meet the capital requirements of the Government, because the capital resources do not exist elsewhere.

Order! This is not under discussion yet.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but surely the source of the hon. the Minister’s capital requirements is under discussion.

Yes, but the hon. member must return to this Appropriation.

Then I return to my criticism that capital expenditure on this scale is inflationary. It must compete for the limited labour and materials in South Africa. It must push up production costs. It must cause the cost of living to go up. The railway lines which are being built, the harbours which are being built, require engineers, skilled workers, semiskilled workers, unskilled workers. Where are they? And the hon. the Minister does not have them, the public sector does not have them. The shortage is as acute in the public sector as it is in the private sector. But, as a result of an erroneous government policy, the hon. the Minister must at the wrong time ask for massive capital expenditure, capital which he neglected to spend when it was the time to do so. I see that the General Manager of the Railways complained that if people, such as the exporters of ore and coal, suddenly wanted to lay claim to transport, then they must “give the Railways fair warning”.

This is not a complaint. It is planning in advance.

I do not know why that hon. Deputy Minister does not participate on my side of the debate. I am very grateful to him for that. That is precisely the point.

I take it that the Railways was not warned in time that the demand for transport in respect of exports would become so heavy now. But they must have known, because investigation and planning in regard to this matter has been in progress, as far as I know, since 1961. That is all of ten years. I have here with me a statement issued by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs on 23rd October, 1961. I should like to read one or two extracts from it, for one forgets these things. It reads as follows—

1. (1) The question of increasing the national income and benefit derived from the country’s minerals is a matter receiving the constant attention of the Government. In this connection the value and benefits of processing in the Republic and South-West Africa as high a percentage as possible of the mineral output destined for export will be clear to everybody.

He goes on and in the second paragraph he mentions the fact that greater concessions had been made in the Income Tax Act to expedite the production of these minerals. In case anyone should now say that this deals with the processing of ore in South Africa, I want to read the entire paragraph 3 of the statement, which reads as follows—

So it goes on. Paragraph 5 reads as follows—

That is the Minister of Economic Affairs—

This was a powerful committee under the chairmanship of Dr. P. S. Rautenbach, director of planning of the National Development Council. The committee brought out reports. In 1963 the committee brought out reports on copper, manganese, asbestos and chromium. Further reports were brought out in 1964. Then, short reports on copper and manganese were brought out in the annual report of 1963. In 1967 the Department of Planning reported on these matters. In 1968 the Department of Planning also reported in this connection. When most investigations had been completed, it was reported that “attention is now being paid to natural building stone”, which cannot be processed, “including granite, sandstone, quartzite and marble”. So it goes on.

This process of investigation has continued since 1961, but apparently the Railways does not know about it. Apparently the Railways has never taken cognizance of what has been said in the reports.

But not only is there our own experience and investigations. It is also a fact that since 1964 they have been engaged in Australia in mining ore and transporting it to the coast because an insatiable demand for coal and ore, particularly iron ore, has developed in the world. Australia is now exporting as much ore in a month as we hope to do in a year in future. Australia shortly expects to be exporting ore to the value of 4 000 million Australian dollars to Japan alone. This is a few times more than our gold production. We knew it. We saw what they were doing. We knew that Japan wanted its sources of ore and minerals diversified; it did not want all its eggs in one basket. There were negotiations. But the Railways did not take cognizance of this. Our anthracite exporters first had to be asked to cut their exports for the new year in half. Subsequently they received a small concession. Exports must not be increased but must be cut!

Now we read that the Railways will ensure that we will within a few years be able to make massive coal exports through Richard’s Bay harbour. What almost amounted to guarantees were given. But now I want to know how matters are progressing in Richard’s Bay? Is the work there up to date now? I see that Dr. Kuschke recently stated as follows—

This is at Richard’s Bay—

Can one be certain now that the Railways, as things are going today with the labour shortage and the capital shortage, will in fact be able to meet the demands which are being made on it to make this coal export of R252 million possible in a few years’ time? I see that Mr. Fraser McDonald, in Saturday’s Rand Daily Mail, from which I do not have the cutting yet, expressed concern, for if the transport cannot be met there is a possibility that the contract may be cancelled. Can the hon. the Minister rise and give an unconditional guarantee that these problems will not arise in this way, so that uneasiness and uncertainty can be eliminated? That is the problem we have.

But I blame not only the hon. the Minister; I blame the Cabinet, I blame the Government. They do not have the vision to realize what South Africa is capable of. They keep on letting South Africa down-in the Post Office and in other infrastructural services, and also in the Railways. Every now and again they wake up too late.

But you are criticizing the capital expenditure.

I am criticizing the capital expenditure on such a scale at this stage. I am saying that with the knowledge they had, and which I referred to, it should have been done in time and in advance. One must plan in advance; otherwise you are not planning. If one merely follows after, surely you are not making plans. Then you are merely struggling to get out of difficulty. One plans to overcome one’s difficulties; and this Government is not succeeding in doing so. They wait until they find themselves in a crisis and then they want to do too much too late. All we can do is pin our hopes on the very intelligent people the hon. the Minister has on his staff. I just hope that the staff, who are trying despite the Government to do the best thing for South Africa, will be better off than the city of Johannesburg for example. The city of Johannesburg plans in advance and then this Government refuses to make it possible for them, when money there was more easily available than it is at present, to do what was necessary. I hope this will not be the Railways’ experience.

Then there is still the fact that the inadequacy of the Railways and the Railways’ inability to keep pace with the development of South Africa has resulted in the development of major problems with the staff. The staff of today is overworked and the staff is unhappy, as all of us who deal with them can testify. Most of us have more to do with them than the Minister. We now have a situation on the Railways in which people in the bread and butter grades have to be transported from one city to another in aircraft so that they can try to keep up with the work of the Railways, because there are not enough people. We still have the phenomenon that clerks are being used to do the work of people with bread and butter grades. The result is that grievances have arisen because these people feel that if a clerk can be paid overtime at a certain scale, they can also be paid at that scale. If a clerk’s work is worth as much to the Railways as that of a checker, why is he not worth it himself? This is a psychologically unbound position. It is psychologically stupid, but it is unavoidable. There are not enough people to do the work. The shortage of staff on the Railways is very serious. The hon. the Minister has already given us a slight impression of that. He told us that there are almost 6 800 vacancies out of a staff of 35 600 in the bread and butter grades. This means that it is more than 20 per cent of the full staff complement in those sections. Things are going as badly with the pupils. The General Manager of the Railways maintains that four people are having to do the work of five people every day.

As a result of this, the hon. the Minister, true to his own traditions of former days, is trying to implement United Party policy. We are getting very encouraging signs— also from the General Manager of the Railways. He has again said that the staff conference in the Transvaal at the Railways is going to tackle the matter and that they are going to change the labour pattern of the Railways. There is a standing committee and they will set about this task with great circumspection and care. We can only recommend it and we can only be grateful that there is one portfolio in the Cabinet where this is being done, and that is the Railways. They are going to do so, because they can see the practical value of the United Party policy.

There are too many grievances to enumerate now. Other speakers on this side of the House will deal with them. There is inequality between one post and another. There are tremendous complaints from the truck drivers of the motor transport system, that they are being paid too little in comparison with other people who are doing similar work. The locomotive drivers are complaining, as my hon. friend for Durban Point has already indicated, about the fact that a senior grade railwayman is being paid less than a senior chef on the Railways. Then there are the station inspectors, people who choose to follow that career, and stationmasters are then being given higher grades than these people and they are allowed to compete with these people for promotion in their sphere of work.

As I have said before, there is a need on the Railways for the work of these people to be revalued. The Minister maintains that this is being done departmentally, but from the results it is quite clear that this is not succeeding. The time has arrived for the hon. the Minister to get experts from outside who are impartial and who are not bound to the old traditions and the old customs of the Railways, so that they can reassess the value of the work of every type of worker on the Railways. In this way an adjustment can be made and the conflict and the discord among the Railway staff can be eliminated once and for all. There are great complaints about the merit assessment system, and there are complaints arising out of that, namely in regard to promotions. In due course we will go into that matter. There is the complaint that there is a lack of sympathetic insight on the Railways. People ask for transfers for good, honest and deeply personal reasons and then are refused. The situation is serious and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture who made an interjection a moment ago does not realize how serious the situation is. I want to remind him of how serious it is by using the words of the Minister himself. The hon. the Minister himself told us that from 1966 to 1967 there was a cumulative fluctuation of staff on the Railways of 101.2 per cent. This means that the yearly average is 24.7 per cent. He told my hon. friend, the hon. member for Green Point, that in the latest year for which he had figures, more than 10 000 left the Railways. They could not endure it. It does not often happen that 10 per cent of the people simply disappear.

It is quite clear that the Minister and his Railways Department are struggling because they are dealing with a Government whose policy is unpractical, unenforceable and of a former era. It is quite clear from what we saw from the Post Office increases and from what we have already ascertained from the Minister of Finance and will probably hear on 31st March, that South Africa is in a difficult, yes, a critical situation. The main cause is a poor Government, which is responsible for the existence of a shortage of labour in a country in which there is an abundance of people. We have had to listen to the Minister admit that not only he but also his contractors are having a hard time of it without labour. Out of an order of 2 000 ore trucks which he expected, only one-third were delivered in time—with the result that he in turn had to ask people who are exporting, who are doing South Africa good, who are earning foreign exchange for South Africa, who are counteracting inflation with their exports, to cut down on their export programme. The labour shortage is the direct result of Government policy. The Government has no answer, except to punish the people and to say to them, “You must pay for my incompetence”.

That is what is happening today. The Government is hitting the people hard after the elections. Before the elections there were generous gifts for the public. After the elections they come along to the people and say. “Now you must pay; now you must suffer, because you made the mistake of re-electing this Government. Now you must pay for our incompetence, our in-emptiness and our lack of policy.” The difficulty, Sir, is that this punitive expedition government is not competent, with its views and its insights, to govern the South Africa of the 20th century. They could perhaps have done well if they and Cecil Rhodes had governed South Africa a hundred years ago. But they are in the wrong era. They want to confine the South Africa of the 20th century in a straitjacket of 19th century prejudice. The people are beginning to realize this. When I say this I remember what the late Gen. Smuts said to us in 1948 in Pretoria at a Transvaal Executive Meeting of the United Party. When people asked him “How soon are we going to get rid of the new government?”, he said “No, it will take a long time.” He said that we must remember that the new government had hit upon something which was very deeply rooted in many people in South Africa, namely pure race prejudice. He warned us that, as long as we had a government which wanted to exploit that prejudice for political gain, we would have a difficult time in bringing home a sensible approach to our problems to the people again. He added: “I am afraid, before we get rid of this Government, the people will first have to suffer.” Sir, the people are suffering today. One can only hope that the prediction, the prophetic vision of Gen. Smuts will come true—that the days of this Government are numbered and that we in South Africa are shortly going to have a government which is geared to the 20th century, and which will not continually want to live off and elaborate enthusiastically on the dead prejudices of a bygone century.

I have no doubt that this House, after we have now heard what the hon. member for Yeoville has had to say about this Budget, will agree with me if I say that the only possible diagnosis is that we are dealing here with a person and a party suffering from political sunstroke. What we heard here, was nothing but incoherent statements. Is this not a case of political sunstroke? I wonder whether the hon. member’s mother did not bring him up on pyagra, for all we got from him was bitterness and venom, and he is a person who at the beginning of his speech prided himself on also having a grain of national self-respect and pride. His whole speech consisted of quotations from reports and views held by others, and references to supposed grievances, grievances which he did not prove at all, grievances which, as he himself admitted, have been in existence for as long as he has been a member of this House. Indeed, they are as old as the hills, as anybody will find if he wants to consult Hansard. They are: “lack of planning, dissatisfaction amongst the staff, lack of vision, incompetence of Ministers, etc.” We have been hearing them for the past five years, without proof or substantiation—hollow statements and incoherent quotations. It would be an unhappy day if our country, in the economic situation in which it finds itself, could no longer rely on a positive contribution on the part of the Opposition, a positive contribution in the interests of solving existing problems, problems which have never been denied by the Government. When one deals with the defence of one’s country, it is an unwritten rule that out of national pride and the feeling of reverence the Opposition will support the State in regard to any steps which it may deem fit. The same applies when the economic future and financial stability of the State is involved, for these are just as important as its military security is. But what did we find here this afternoon? What we found here, was sabotage …

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

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. What we found here, was subversion and suspicion-mongering, without one single positive proposal towards offering a solution. Reference was made here to overspending of capital, but in the same breath it was said that it was “too late”. Reference was made to an unsound ratio between capital spending and production, the tonnage conveyed, but unfortunately it was “too late” again. What double talk, what contradictions! Mr. Speaker, as you know, the party opposite finds itself in a desert without an oasis. The hon. member for Yeoville is talented without being capable, and the country should know that. We are going to analyse some of his statements. He linked up with inflation, price increases and the cost of living, but did so without furnishing proof —he merely quoted what other people had said. What we want to know, is what his personal point of view and that of his party are. Apart from Dr. Jacobs, what stand is being taken by the United Party? What is its policy in regard to this problem? Mr. Speaker, we did not hear a word about these things. What we did have, was a deft circumvention of a situation which is by rights entitled to profound thinking and greater responsibility on the part of the Opposition.

In his introductory comments the hon. member for Yeoville made a few interesting statements. Amongst other things he said that they could now understand why the election was held a year earlier. This had nothing to do, so he says, with the insignificant Hertzog group. According to the hon. member the Government wanted to come into power before the people realized what its administration was going to cost the country. However, in his motion of no-confidence last year, his leader deemed it fit to say that the reason for the earlier election was that the hon. the Prime Minister wanted to wash his dirty linen in public and, secondly, that because of his people leaving his party he was so unsure of his own position that he had to go to the polls for a decision. That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advanced as the main reason for the earlier election. But here the hero for Yeoville comes along and says that that is not the reason at all and that the Hertzog Party had merely been an insignificant little party.

But worst of all is the brutality of the hon. member for Yeoville.

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. In that case, let me say the presumptuousness of the hon. member for Yeoville, who, having denigrated the Cabinet, including the hon. the Minister of Transport, invited the hon. the Minister of Transport to come over to Macedonia and to take the initiative in overthrowing the Government. What a total lack of political self-respect, what an admission of their desperate position this is if they need Minister Ben Schoeman to help them to get rid of the Government, after the hon. member had done everything in his power to disparage and undermine him!

In coming to an analysis of the Appropriation Bill, we find that it embodies, as far as I am concerned, a very sober, clear statement of the problem, not a circumvention of the problem, but a correct statement of it: lack of capital; understaffing; increases in prices, materials and services, and drought conditions, which placed a tremendous burden on the number of trucks available. The Minister frankly and openly stated the problems he had had— the shortage of steel, as a result of which the delivery of trucks was delayed. He stated this problem in this House and in public, and, in addition, he came forward with his splendid, positive recommendations as to how this problem may be met, i.e. through mechanization, automation, scientific staff and trained control. He stated the problem openly and frankly. We did not find any point for point comment to invalidate or criticize the Minister’s statement. No, what we did find here, was merely “sweeping statements”.

Sir, what is the solution offered by the hon. member for Yeoville? His proposal is that the increase in rates could have been avoided by utilizing the Rates Equalization Fund. Sir, ever since the time of Mr. Hamilton Russell we have been hearing in this House, also from the hon. member, pleas to the effect that we should not touch the Rates Equalization Fund; that it should be built up to R30 million, since it was the insurance policy of the Railway official …

And what is it now?

This afternoon the hon. member said here, “No, we are taking those words back; we did not mean them; wipe out the fund.”

Where does it stand now?

When we inherited the Rates Equalization Fund from them in 1948, it stood at R15 million, and now it stands at R91 million. We know our duty towards the staff of the Railways and the problem which our country has to meet. But the United Party’s solution is that we should exhaust the Rates Equalization Fund. On the other hand they are ingratiating themselves with the staff and expressing their gratitude for the concessions received by the staff. Sir, that is an arid, barren argument which cannot convince anybody and which contradicts itself.

Sir, the Minister was faced with a problem. For the reasons already mentioned, he had to decide where he was to raise capital for meeting his increased costs. He could do so in three different ways: He could utilize the Rates Equalization Fund; he could increase rates; he could borrow capital abroad or at any other place. He decided to increase the rates.

If we are agreed that the creeping inflation and the growing rate of inflation in South Africa are both a long and a short-term problem, we should also toe prepared to implement short and long-term countermeasures in order to meet this problem of inflation. These measures should not only come from the State or, in this case, the Railways; they should also come from the private sector and the individual. It is only by those means that we shall be able to fight this monster, and that is exactly what the hon. the Minister did. He distributed the responsibility; he loaded it onto the private sector and the individual and he also took his own share of it. Sir, figures show at present that the South African consumer is consuming much more than he is producing. The ratio between his imports and his own consumption is approximately 22 per cent, and there is only one alternative for coping with this problem, i.e. that we should encourage our people to produce more and to live more thriftily. That is also embodied in this Budget of the Minister. We said that the individual was also to contribute his share. Now, what is the Minister doing? He is appropriating R390.5 million for development, R90 million more than the previous year, and he is asking the public for an additional R58.5 million for the purpose of ensuring a growing infrastructure and an excellent service to the economy of our country, which is suffering under this creeping inflation. By these means he is ensuring not only the maintenance of his most essential service, i.e. railway transport, but also its reinforcement and expansion in order to stimulate the compelling needs of the South African economy and its urge to develop. Instead of admitting that, he is attacked for aggravating inflation and causing price increases.

In effect, it seems to me as though the United Party, through the mouth of their first speaker, would actually have liked to see the hon. the Minister reducing the salaries of the staff and exhausting their insurance policy, the Rates Equalization Fund, rather than following the course he did. No, this egg-dance of the Opposition will not get them out of the desert. It will bluff nobody.

We are dealing here not with a general increase in tariffs, but only with a partial increase. It is selective, as was stated by the hon. the Minister, and if one looks at the exemptions, it becomes apparent that the most essential industrial products, both for export and local consumption, have been excluded.

Sir, this is a clever Budget, a Budget which has been adapted excellently, almost perfectly, to the needs of our present circumstances.

In spite of this increase in rates the level of rates in South Africa still remains a relatively low one, especially as regards its low-rated goods. Viewed in toto the increase is a small one, and its effect on the cost of living is minimal. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to that, but he did not come forward with any analysis. He made a general statement. Let us just analyse it. With a family budget of R5 337 per year, the 10 per cent selective surcharge on rates which will come into force on 1st April, 1971, will have the effect that the family expenditure will increase by R11.43 per year or 95 cents per month, i.e. by 0.21 per cent. According to the hon. member this 0.21 per cent will make it impossible for the consumer in this country to live or subsist. The Minister said we had to distribute this responsibility; industry and the individual would have to contribute their share if we wanted to fight this problem. He decided that the share of the individual, the ordinary consumer, would be 95 per month or 0.21 per cent. The amount of R11.43 per year was calculated as follows: Food to which the surcharge on rates is applicable, such as canned products—0.25; alcoholic beverages—0.19; tobacco—0.18; fuel and air—0.03; washing and cleansing agents— 0.22; clothing—0.28; reading matter and stationery—0.01; goods traffic costs—10. These make a total of R11.43.

In regard to the private sector it is generally accepted that goods traffic costs in general, as a percentage of production costs, come to 5 per cent. If this 5 per cent were increased by 10 per cent, the surcharge on rates, it would bring about an increase of 0.5 per cent. As the basic foodstuffs and similar items such as petrol, fuel and power paraffin have been- excluded, the estimate at 0.21 per cent is considered to be an acceptable one. If, according to the random test taken by the Department of Statistics in respect of the latter eight items, the real, total expenditure per year is estimated at 2 207 and expressed as a percentage of 11.43 the percentage increase for the private sector is 0.52. This compares well with the generally accepted assumption that transport costs expressed as a percentage of production costs amount to 5 per cent. That represents an increase of .02 for the industrial sector.

The hon. the Minister was justified in expecting the private sector to make its contribution to the solution of this problem by these means, for it is the private sector that is demanding more extensive and a greater number of services, more trucks, faster transport, etc.

Actually the newspaper reports with headings such as “Ben Schoeman hits hard”, which the hon. member for Yeoville is so adept at echoing, quoting and reading out here, come from people who have not yet thought out this problem. They are very definitely not being guided by the healthy feeling of reverence towards the State and the problems we are experiencing today. We have said that the individual in the private sector should contribute his share towards combating this creeping inflation, and I would have been justified in expecting the hon. member for Yeoville to come forward in this House this afternoon with a positive recommendation or with an appeal to commerce and industry in regard to a possible contribution which they can make to help the Railways or to alleviate its position. However, this was conspicuous by its absence. Without his permission I want to claim for myself this afternoon that privilege of making a few of these recommendations and appeals.

In this tabled report the Minister pointed out to hon. members of the House that the loss of time owing to trucks which stood empty at private sidings during 1970, amounted to no fewer than 486 000 truck days. These are trucks which were in the possession of and controlled by industry and were standing at private sidings. If regards is had to the fact that at the beginning of the year there were approximately 148 000 trucks in service, it means that theoretically speaking every vehicle was standing idle at some private siding or other for 31 days. We heard the hon. Opposition referring to economy and increased production, but how can this be effected? Here we have a very simple manner in which it can be effected. What I would have expected from him as the patron of industry in South Africa, is that, having dealt with the Government, he would, with a balanced judgment, have spoken to his own people as well. None of those industrialists would invest a cent’s worth of unproductive capital in his own business. On what grounds does he expect the Government and the State to do so, unproductively, in season and out?

Has the hon. member ever heard of demurrage?

Such a reckless attitude must be corrected.

Now I come to commerce. I have dealt with the private consumer, the industrialist, and now I come to commerce. The experience of the department is that they have major problems in regard to delivering supplies, traffic difficulties in municipal areas and the unwillingness of the trader to unload goods after hours. The department feels that it is high time this matter was taken up with these people.

Knowledge and experience have shown that in countries abroad, where the same problems are being experienced, the solution is the extension and/or staggering of working hours and greater willingness to co-operate on the part of commerce and industry. The department said that they would be prepared to unload up to three trailer-loads after 5 in the afternoon. They have undertaken to give traders 8 hours’ notice of the fact that, say, three trailer-loads are on the way, and then the trader has to arrange for these goods to be received by making his staff work some overtime. Whereas the department is expected to work almost 100 per cent overtime in exceptional circumstances, it only asks the trader to work 2 hours’ overtime in order to solve this common problem of increased production and of economy. This is a fair demand. It is being asked by the department. I expected the hon. member for Yeoville to come forward with such a positive suggestion, since he realizes the extent and the depth of this problem. But, no, he did not deem that necessary.

In the second instance, there is the further recommendation that four and more trailer-loads may be delivered overnight with 24 hours’ warning to the trader. The trader merely has to rearrange the working hours of his staff and make people work, say, four hours’ overtime in order that these four trailer-loads may be offloaded. This would be to his own advantage and, at the same time, he would also be helping the Railways. In this manner, through this form of economy, he could avoid increases in rates in the future. Packing cases can also be delivered after hours, with timeous warnings to the trader. These packing cases are conveyed in trailers, which can be uncoupled. These trailers may be left in back yards and’ off-loaded the next day. Then they may be re-loaded on that same day, and the Railways may then send for them. All that is required, is to instruct the night-watchman to unlock the back yard, to allow the trailer to enter, to uncouple it, and then to lock up again. But, no, the reaction was indifference and disinterestedness. Through the mouth of their leader in this House, it is much easier to criticize.

Time does not permit me to go into other cases. I want to conclude with this one reference, namely that during the calendar year 1970, a total of more than 47 million tons of cargo was handled at the most important harbours, in comparison with just over 29 million tons in 1965. It is being assumed that an increase of 4 per cent per year is a normal one. Since 1965 it showed an increase of 12 per cent, but from 1969 to 1965 the increase was 20 per cent. In addition to that one should have regard to the fact that last year approximately 120 000 head of small stock in the South Eastern Free State and North Eastern Cape were conveyed from one pasture area to another, 40 000 short trucks were made available for the conveyance of roughage, 23 special roughage trains were put into operation, 100 000 head of small stock were conveyed from the south to the north of South-West Africa, and 27 million tons of roughage was conveyed by road in the O.F.S. by means of a doubled road motor service. In addition to that there is the reduced staff establishment of the Railways and the fact that in spite of this an increased tonnage could be conveyed last year. In considering all of these things one can, out of respect, except if one is absolutely shameless, raise one’s hat to a group of men who have in a practical manner, by their actions, proved that they are prepared to do something for their fatherland. They, irrespective of whether they are N.P. or U.P. supporters, were prepared and did in fact make sacrifices when it came to the economic and financial security of this country. We congratulate and extend our sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department for this sober and scientific statement of problems and the positive recommendations in regard to the solution of this current national problem. We want them to stay on this course and not to pay any attention to the U.P., for they are suffering from sunstroke.

Mr. Speaker, one can understand the hon. member who has just spoken getting a little worked up for after all he is the only member in this House who has a Horace in this horoscope. One realizes that he must make the most of the short time that he has to be with us in this House. However I want to destroy one little dream the hon. member might have. The sort of speech he has made today, this bitterness and this personal attack on my colleague the hon. member for Yeoville — the bitter attack with which he started his speech — even if it is an imitation of the tactics of the hon. the Minister on occasions, is not got going to get him a job as a Railway Commissioner. The last time they tried that experiment we landed up with the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation and the Government has now learnt its lesson.

Who is being personal now?

I am replying to a personal attack in the same language. If hon. members on the other side want to adopt that approach they must not squeal if they are paid back in the same coin. We on this side of the House are not prepared to take what is thrown at us and swallow it. We do not accept what that hon. member suggested, namely that irrespective of what the Government does we should support it. He said that in time of war one must stand by one’s country irrespective of what the Government does. How short is that hon. member’s memory and from what party does he speak when he talks like that? The hon. member went on and equated loyalty to one’s country in times of war — which was notably absent from the party to which he belongs when they were tested and called upon to show loyalty to their country — with non-criticism of the Government when it makes an economic shambles of its administration such as it is doing at the present time in South Africa. The R60 million “pat on the back” last year which we welcomed and which was merited and overdue, if anything was followed this year by a R58 million “kick in the pants”. That hon. member has spent his speech trying to make out that in fact this is a meaningless little burden which is being placed on the public.

You cannot deny it.

R58 million is nothing to that hon. member at all! In other words, the R60 million rise in Railway staff salaries last year was also nothing at all. What the hon. member for Randburg forgets is this. He says that this is going to mean nothing—that it will be no burden to the average South African family—and follows with the completely false argument that it is going to work out at 95 cents per family per month. This of course is utter nonsense because nothing ever averages out exactly like that. I want to ask the hon. member whether he has worked out what the R60 million meant to the Railway staff on a wage bill of R500 million. That increase was about 12 per cent. The hon. member for Yeoville has shown what has been taken back from that small rise in Railway incomes already. Last year the inflation rate was 6 per cent. R40 million was added to Post Office charges. Then there is the R47 million increase in sales tax. A petrol increase was also announced today. We now have this increase of R58 million in railway tariffs. What is left of the R60 million of last year? What is left of it for the average railwayman? After all the deductions from their increases most railwaymen in the bread-and-butter grades of the Railways received nothing more than R5 to R10. The man who really had a struggle to exist received an increase of R5 to R10 per month. Then that hon. member over there says that this means nothing. I want to say categorically that the hon. the Minister is taking back more than he has given to his staff. He and his Government have taken back more than they have given to the average bread-and-butter grade railwaymen, more than they gave to them in the wage increases last year.

You have no proof for that.

The hon. member says that I have no proof for that. I ask him to go to the wife of any man earning under R200 per month who is trying to bring up a family. Today I received an answer on a question I asked on the 4th March. It shows that there are 59 175, to be exact, White railwaymen who earn less than R200 per month. Furthermore 3 709 railwaymen earn less than R100 per month. This happens in 1971! Those 60000 odd people who received about a 10 per cent increase—which on R200 amounts to R20 per month—are now being loaded with all these extra burdens which are being placed on them. Then that hon. member asks me what right I have to say that their pay increases have been taken away from them.

Not only has this Budget shown a complete lack of confidence in the Government as my hon. colleague has said, but it is in fact undermining the fight of the Government against inflation. Against the sombre background of the hon. the Minister’s expectations that the economic growth rate will be between 4½ and 5 per cent and with all that that means to South Africa, we get the sort of speech which we heard today from the hon. member for Randburg. He has no concern for the future and no concern for the dangers which face us. All we had was an appeal from the hon. member to people to produce more and live more sparingly. Produce more and live more sparingly—I ask him whether that appeal is directed to the railwaymen who are concerned in this Budget. Does he ask them to work harder and produce more? Does he ask them to live more sparingly?

It is directed to all of us. Why not to them?

He expects more from people who are working 14 hours overtime a day. Does that hon. member expect them to work more?

Those who can.

He says that those who can must work more, but he knows of the large number of railwaymen who are working overtime of 14 hours and more a day. Some of them work 16 hours a day and more. I ask him whether those 60 000 people who earn less than R200 per month are the people who are wasting money and who must live more sparingly. They must live more sparingly, but on what? On what? Must they do it on pious hopes? Then the hon. member says that this is a clever Budget and that this Budget is perfectly suited for the circumstances.

I want to come back to the question of the strain which is placed on the staff. That is about the only point on which I could agree with the hon. Minister—the only point on which I could agree with the hon. the Minister in his tribute to the staff of his Department. They are being asked to perform miracles with what they have to do today. South Africans are fundamentally loyal, but I warn the hon. the Minister not to strain that loyalty beyond breaking point.

I shall come back to the question of staff, but I want to stand still for a moment on the question of planning, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has referred by way of interjection. This question was dealt with by the hon. member for Yeoville. I go as far back as the 1967-’68 Budget speech of the hon. the Minister, when he said:

He went on under the question of capital expansion to say:

We have just had a year in which the Railways were unable to move goods required. One of the factors, the hon. the Minister will have to admit, is the question of rolling stock, on which the hon. the Minister had a little fun at my expense last year, because I had carried over some trucks on order from one financial year and included them in another. But I want to follow the issue I raised last year in the light of developments this year—because what has been proven is that, while the Minister provided a little bit of light entertainment, I won the argument. I he facts are that the Minister has not answered his own demands on the Railways to plan for their future requirements.

If we look back over the last five years, we find that in 1966-’67 the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech said that they had placed 6 112 goods vehicles into service. The memorandum issued with his speech shows a different figure, namely an increase of 6 631. I do not know whether the Minister or his memorandum was right but I will not argue—either could be right. In that year trucks sanctioned or on order totalled 5 595. That was the 1966-’67 Budget. The next year the figure was some five and a half thousand—again there is a difference in the figures in the Minister’s speech and his memorandum—but either 5 200 or 5 600 trucks were placed into service, while 7 872 were sanctioned. Now this was planning! This was the year in which the hon. the Minister spoke of planning. What has happened since then? From 6 600 odd in 1966-’67, it dropped to 5 675 the next year, to 3 179 the following year and to 1838 additional trucks last year, which were put into service according to the memorandum. Judging by the figures the Minister gave in his speech, it is slightly more, but in the memorandum the trucks in service, are stated as net figures. This year the hon. the Minister did not say how many new goods vehicles had been put into service. But if we take the memorandum, there were 2100 up to November. So, over a period of growing traffic, the number of new goods vehicles taken into service has gradually decreased from 6½ thousand to 5½ thousand to 3000 odd to under 2000 and to an unknown figure somewhere around 2000, last year —a drop each year. And yet each year the number of vehicles sanctioned or on order has steadily increased from Si-thousand up to 8 257. What is going on with the Minister’s planning? Where is his planning? He knows that traffic is increasing. He is catering for it in his sanctioned orders and his orders actually placed. Yet, year by year, the number of additional trucks actually provided to carry the goods of South Africa increased at a reducing tempo over the last five years.

But what about the other facilities, for example, lines? The hon. the Minister himself said that many are reaching their maximum capacity and they are of such a magnitude that they will take years to complete. In 1966-’67 he was talking of planning ahead. Where is that planning if he now comes and says that lines and other facilities will take years to complete and that present facilities are reaching maximum capacity? Some of us had the opportunity of seeing the planning department and we were shown how every line was placed under the searchlight every year in order that there may be forward planning. What is wrong then? Is it not perhaps the case that it is not the planning that is wrong, but that at Cabinet level the planning proposals of the department have been negatived by a Government without the courage, the foresight and the confidence in South Africa to plan ahead? And yet this Government is the Government that talks about looking ahead. Even where they do plan, how long does it take to introduce even little things, little things which could have been introduced years ago? For instance, in the General Manager’s Report I find a meritorious report on the use of walkie-talkies by shunters. In 1966 this had already been investigated but only in 1970 did it became reality. Was it necessary to wait four years? Look at Safari, the Airways booking system coming into effect now—I think last month. Yet it was at least five or six years ago that we on this side of the House pleaded for the introduction of that system, a system which was then being used in other parts of the world. It always takes years and years for something to happen. The Minister comes along and shrugs his shoulders, saying that he did not expect this or that to happen; that we had a cold winter; that more iron ore was offered for export than was expected; that he could not know that he would have staff problems such as he has had. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the 101.2 per cent turnover in five years—24.7 per cent per annum.

But what concerns me is the 786 vacancies in 35 689 posts which the hon. the Minister himself classified as bread-and-butter posts. Take Durban harbour where the ships are queueing up and where there is a waiting time for berths. There we find that in the grade of checker 481 posts are filled, 72 temporarily filled and 302 vacant—almost as many vacant and temporarily filled as there are posts that are filled by permanent units. The position with fork lift drivers is satisfactory. In the case of crane drivers there are 60 vacancies, and there are 83 vacancies for shunters with 20 filled temporarily and 150 permanently—more than half the number of filled posts in the harbour. Those are the Minister’s figures. I have heard even worse figures given. These are the figures in the harbour itself, but I have heard the figure of 800 checkers etc. short in the Durban complex. Sir, this is the bread-and-butter group which I believe is the forgotten legion of the Railways and Harbours. This is the group of people who cannot be replaced by machines; they cannot be replaced by computers. They have to be there physically, with a pair of hands, doing the job. They can be made to work more efficiently; they can be given greater and improved aids but they must be there physically to do the job.

What is your suggestion?

My suggestion is that the time is overdue for a fresh look and a fresh re-evaluation and rationalization of this group of jobs—exactly what the hon. member for Yeoville proposed. I believe that among the staff themselves there is a growing realization that this is necessary. Because what is happening, Mr. Speaker? Many of the best men in these grades are resigning out of frustration. The Railways, because of the shortages, cannot be over-choosy in replacements, and so there is a tendency to look down on these jobs. They become degraded in status, if not in grade and in pay, because the Railways are in such a desperate situation that they cannot pick and choose. Whilst they are losing many of their better men, the men who are carrying the burden today, are becoming more and more frustrated and they themselves feel that something urgent must be done about this. It therefore comes back to the question of re-evaluating this work and seeing, in consultation and in co-operation with the men themselves, to what extent many of these posts which at present are vacant and which are forcing thousands of hours of overtime, can be taken out of this critical situation by classifying some of them for non-White occupation and by raising the status of others, according to their responsibilities, so that people will be paid a living wage without having to work 14 and 16 hours a day.

What jobs are you actually referring to?

I refer, for instance, to manual jobs …

Which manual jobs?

I refer to some of the manual jobs which are still being done by Whites.

Which?

I refer, for instance, to the job of a forklift driver. Has the hon. the Minister negotiated with the Association to see to what extent …

I am trying to get information from you at the moment. I will reply to you.

Yes, the hon. the Minister will reply and his answer will be, “We are negotiating and the trade unions will not give in”. I ask the hon. the Minister whether there have been any discussions at all in regard to the rationalization of the work of a checker.

What do you mean by “rationalization”?

Rationalization so that the Europeans there can act more in a supervisory position and so that more non-Europeans can be used in that work. Sir, these are fields in which there is a tremendous shortage; they are fields in which a re-evaluation of the responsibilities of the work of the White man is necessary. Where it is found that the White man should have a more responsible position, non-Whites can then be brought in for some of the routine work. The Railways cannot carry on, as they are, with what I call the airborne overtime group, who are flown in when there is a crisis—the week-end train excursionists whom we have heard about who are driven from one centre to another in order to help out in a crisis over a week-end. Sir, this cannot go on.

Last year I had a run-in with the hon. the Minister on the question of the pay of checkers. I have not got time to deal with it at length but the hon. the Minister will acknowledge that he said last year that under the new scale checkers now started at R160 and went up to R200 per month after five years. He said that when a man received the maximum of R200 per month he could apply to become a special class checker, and then he started with R210 per month and went up to R230. I repeat that the Minister said this was on the new scale. I challenged him and said that there were men who had been there for seven and eight years but who had not yet been placed on the new scale. He asked me to write him a letter, which I did on 24th August, and I gave him a few random cases, six or seven of them. My letter was acknowledged on 26th August—a quick acknowledgment, Sir. I had another letter on 14th October saying that the matter was still receiving attention. Finally on 27th November, some three months later, I got an answer, and of course I was quite right. Taking one of the examples which I had quoted, the person had started at R120 and was then on R190. Others were on R170, R160 and R180. Because my time is short I want to quote only from an official letter, which says the following. This was written to one of these men…

Not the Minister’s five years, but 10 years’ service—

Not 10 years, but 11 years, and the hon. the Minister tried to quibble over the extra year last year and tried to make fun of me. Here is the extra year, the extra year after 10 years, plus a good record and a revision test. These are the conditions under which existing checkers work today. So the result is that a new checker who joined last year after five years is on R200. He waits another five years with no increase and then a year before he can qualify. But the man who has been there seven or eight years is earning R180 and R190. I have one case here of a man who joined in 1963 and he will not qualify until 1974, as a special grade checker. What sort of morale does the hon. the Minister expect when this is the situation in his department, that new people coming in are given the benefit of earning more than a man who has already been in the Service for seven and eight years. He is not only earning more but when it comes to seniority that man will be senior because he will have been on the top scale longer. Therefore he will qualify for further promotion.

It is this sort of thing which is causing unhappiness and disgruntlement and if the Minister does not know it he is not doing his job. He cannot say that this is an isolated case; it is general throughout the Service. The forgotten legion are the men in the bread-and-butter grades who have worked seven to 10 years, who have worked too long and have too much to lose if they should resign, whose pension and established position are too much to throw away and start again, and who have wives and families by that time. They are the captive workers of the Railways, and the Railways think they can do with them as they will because they know they are captive and most of them cannot afford to resign. So they are forgotten and overlooked and they are put in the position where juniors coming in long after them have greater benefits in regard to pay and seniority. Sir, I have not the time to deal with the other points I wanted to raise in connection with staff dissatisfaction. But there are later stages of this debate. There will be later opportunities. I will then give the Minister some of the matters which have been raised before. The hon. member for Randburg said that these were old complaints. They may be old, Mr. Speaker, but every year they become more and more serious. Every year they become more and more true. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Durban Point. At the end of his speech that hon. member alleged that there is a certain portion of the staff with whom, as he expressed it, the Railways does as it likes. That is not so. If one were to take the Railway personnel in general and ask them: Where are you the happiest? Under this Government or under the then U.P. Government? 98 to 99 per cent of them would say that they are happiest under the National Party Government. The hon. member then goes along and links up the amount of R58 million in respect of the increase in rates that must be collected, to the Post office Budget He then tries to create the impression that it is only the railway people who have to pay those increased rates. He then asked what use the increase is that the hon. the Minister gave them. If the R40 million and the R58 million are compared, there is nothing left. He says that only the railway people have to pay it. He must be completely honest and say that the Republic of South Africa must pay that amount, including the Bantu and the Coloureds.

The hon. member for Yeoville is unfortunately not in the House at the moment.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked me to apologize for him. He will be back in a moment.

The hon. member for Yeoville hit out strongly at the increase in rates.

Before I deal with that I should first just like to congratulate our esteemed new General Manager on his promotion. I must honestly say that he obtained his promotion in a very difficult year. 1969-’70 was one of the most difficult years the South African Railways has ever experienced.

Any year under a Nat Government is a difficult one.

No, much happier than under a U.P. Government. I want to congratulate him warmly on the promotion and on the compilation of the Annual Report which I examined very closely. It is a beautiful piece of work and a book that one ought to keep. That report contains a great deal of knowledge that ought to be circulated amongst our people.

I now want to deal with the question of the increase in rates. Hon. members propose that the additional amount should come from the Equalization Fund. This reminds me of the farmer who sends the Coloured servant to milk his cow every morning. However, he does not tell the Coloured servant how much milk to take from the cow. This cow had had twin calves. After a week the farmer found the two calves dead in the kraal one morning. When he asked the Coloured servant what had happened, the latter told him that every morning he had extracted all the cow’s milk. The calves died because there was no milk for them. That is what hon. members on that side of the House are trying to do. They want the Rates Equalization Fund to be sucked dry so that nothing remains. My hon. friend referred to the Fund as a guarantee. It is like standing surety for someone. You cannot spend that money that you have stood surety for. After all, such a person would become dissatisfied.

The taxpayers are being bled to death.

The hon. member says the taxpayers are being bled to death. That is the United Party’s attitude exactly. One of their backbenchers now says that the taxpayers are being bled to death. Hon. members who have taken part in the debate thus far have not said one word about salary increases for Railwaymen. That will not make any difference, because eventually they simply try to get that one little vote in any case. My hon. friend must be courageous enough and make a suggestion. He must stand up and suggest that we decrease salaries by 10 per cent. He must be man enough, but I know that he is too cowardly to do it. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Did the hon. member for Yeoville and I not both welcome the increases?

Is the hon. member speaking of the salary increases?

Yes.

Now the hon. member is speaking of the increase in rates to which he is opposed. How can the two be assimilated? One cannot on the one hand increase salaries and on the other hand decrease rates. The hon. member for Yeoville made an economics speech here and he wanted to increase the wages. Wages must increase because we want both. Wages must increase, but the cost of living must decrease.

At Langlaagte the Minister said that it would not increase.

I am now busy making a point. Wages must increase, but the cost of living must decrease. Surely this cannot be done. It is a fact of economics that if wages increase so must production prices. The hon. member must have attended a school that I do not know of. I cannot say where that school is. It is, however, an established fact of economics that the higher the wages become, the more expensive is the product. One can surely understand that. It has already been claimed on that side that the prices of products that will be transported on the South African Railways will now be increased. Why should they not increase? They ought to increase now, and they will do so, because the rates are now higher. Eventually the price for the purchaser is also greater. Hon. members must surely understand that, because it is logical, but how that side can claim today that if wages increase prices will not do so, is completely beyond me.

As I said at the beginning the new General Manager has taken over during a very difficult period. This was one of the most serious drought periods we have ever had. The demands made on the Railways were greater than they have ever been. We acknowledge that all demands could not immediately be complied with. After all, this is not something that one denies. The demand for trucks was such that everything could not be done in one day. For example, we had a bottleneck in Bloemfontein. It is true that trucks piled up there. The reason for that was that all fodder that was purchased came from the north. If it had been spread out between the north, the south, the west, the north-west and the south-east, things would not have been as bad. But every truck of fodder came from the north. That is why the bottleneck developed in Bloemfontein. I must congratulate the System Manager and his staff there. I was in touch with him almost daily, and he asked me just to give him the truck numbers. Then, after two or three days, those trucks arrived at Colesberg, De Aar, or what-have-you. But one must at least be reasonable. One can surely understand that with such a demand there will be difficulties.

The hon. member also spoke here of salaries. In 1966 we had an increase in rates. Since 1966 wages increased by more than R100 million. Now I want to ask my hon. friend again whether he wants to take back that R100 million out of the railwayman’s pocket, or does he rather want to let him keep it, increase the rates by 10 per cent and retain the Equalization Fund? The hon. member must give us replies to this so that when there is another election we can tell the people what the United Party wants. We must not make statements here that we cannot prove. I acknowledge that more overtime and Sunday time is being worked. I made a point of asking conductors, ticket examiners, shunters, stokers and drivers whether they are satisfied with the overtime they are working, or whether this should rather be taken away from them.

But they cannot exist without the overtime.

No, the hon. member must give me a chance. They told me that their wages were good, but that they would like to earn extra money by working overtime. It is not too much for them. What is there in working fourteen hours a day? I do not want to imply that everyone can do it. But just look at any farmer on his land. He easily works from 12 to 14 hours a day. He does not work himself to death. To tell the truth, I have never heard of a man working himself to death. However, I have heard many times of people sitting around idly and getting fatter and fatter. They will die.

You are therefore in favour of a 14-hour working day?

No, wait a moment. The hon. member now wants to make political capital out of this matter again, He now wants to say that on such and such a day the hon. member for Colesberg said in the House of Assembly that he was in favour of a 14-hour working day. No, I am saying that the persons who are doing this are not opposed to it.

The hon. member for Port Natal asked a question in the House about the large number of trains that were cancelled. That is so—many trains were cancelled. But we must remember, as I said at the beginning, that 1970 was one of the most difficult years. To crown it all we still had that tremendous outbreak of influenza across the entire country. Not hundreds, but thousands of railway workers caught that influenza. That is why a lot of trains were cancelled. That is true. I took the trouble of doing a little checking. In 1970 there were 2 330 208 trains running. In 1968 there were .058 cancellations in respect of trains. In 1969 it was .04 while in 1970 it was .08. On paper it seems as if quite a lot of trains were involved. But if this is compared with the number of trains that actually ran, only a small percentage did not do so.

For the financial year 1970-’71 there was a shortage. In his Budget Debate the hon. the Minister announced that this shortage would be supplemented from the Rates Equalization Fund. The fund is therefore no longer R91 million, but in actual fact R91 million minus R13 million. But in the meantime a wage increase of R60 000 000 was granted. Money cannot simply be spent arbitrarily. In order to keep pace with the expenditure on wage increases and other works that I shall mention at a later stage, the Administration is compelled to increase rates. We must remember that everything has become more expensive. We on this side of the House do not deny that. Today the capital expenditure of the Railways is much greater. If we were to say that the capital expenditure 10 years ago was R100, today it would be R120 or even R125. That is why a great deal of capital is needed in order to carry out betterment works.

I can just say, in addition, that last year the South African Railways was asked to transport a little more than 100 000 cattle to better grazing in South-West Africa. If one now makes a small calculation one finds that 10 000 trucks were necessary to transport those 100 000 cattle. Now hon. members can see what immediate demands this made on the South African Railways. 10 000 trucks were needed in South-West Africa to transport 100 000 cattle to better grazing. If it were not for the drought, and those trucks were available in the Republic and in South-West, it would not have been necessary for the hon. member for Yeoville to complain, Neither would it have been necessary for the hon. member for Durban Point to complain. How many miles would 10 000 trucks not cover on a railway line! However, these matters are not mentioned on that side. For that reason I am today mentioning the extent to which demands are being made on the South African Railways at present. As far as the off-loading of trucks is concerned my hon. friend, the hon. member for Rand-burg, mentioned that commerce was not co-operating either. They do not want to work on Saturdays, nor do they want to work on Sundays. They do not want to off-load the trucks, and the result is that the goods that have arrived remain on the trucks because they are not off-loaded.

They do not have the people.

They can get people. Where on earth then does everyone get people from? The hon. member must not tell me that only commerce will not obtain people. Trucks also piled up at the stations with the transportation of cattle fodder and maize. There was not enough private transport to get that raw material and the maize away. The Minister was also embarrassed because trucks were standing there without being used. The average period for which a truck stood idle was three and a half days, as I understand it.

This year I made a special study of housing. It is a pity that my two hon. friends, who spoke on the other side today, did not mention the housing of the South African Railway man. The hon. members perhaps did not have enough time. I now want to go into this matter briefly. From the establishment of the house ownership scheme in 1938 up to 1970, 17 726 houses were registered in the Department’s name. Even so, we still frequently hear that the Railways neglects its people. In 1969-’70 more than R7½ million was spent on the house ownership scheme. That was all for Railway people. Then there is the housing scheme with the support of building societies. Since the establishment of this scheme, loans in respect of virtually 15 000 were granted, amounting to R15 900 000, i.e. almost R16 million. In 1969-’70 Departmental houses were built to the tune of almost R41 million. Previously I have frequently heard members on the other side flinging the statement across the floor that Railway people live in poor houses. I drove to one of the oldest stations in our country, i.e. Noupoort, where all the railway lines of the Eastern Cape intersect. I must admit that there were a lot of old corrugated iron houses. If my hon. friend for Durban Point ever drives past there one day he would do well to take the trouble of stopping there so that he can see how those houses have now been restored. I myself would be glad to stay in one of those houses at those rates.

It was said here this afternoon that the trains cannot cope with the transport. One must not mention too many figures, but I do just want to mention two figures here. In 1961-’62 the Railways covered nearly 119 million miles. In 1969-70 it was 142 million miles. This means that 23 185 500 more miles were travelled in this short period. When one looks at the mileage covered, one would perhaps wonder what the safety on the South African Railways is like. One sees that in 1970 521 528 981 passenger journeys were undertaken. That is a lot. The accident rate during this period amounted merely to 3 people killed and 14 injured. And that is a wonderful achievement, and that is why I think it is not quite right for the hon. member for Yeoville to make this dreadful accusation against the South African Railways to the effect that it has failed completely in doing what it is there to do.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that there was no planning on the Railways. I should now like to mention a few figures to show that the hon. member is wrong. In round figures there were 130 000 goods trucks in the service of the South African Railways in 1966; in 1967 137 000, in 1968 142 000, in 1969 145 000 and in 1970, up to November, 150 000 trucks. Someone here said that these figures differed from those of the hon. the Minister. However, this is the actual figure indicating the number of trucks in service in the South African Railways. What then of new orders? The hon. the Minister has not been sitting still, he has gone ahead with his planning. In 1970-71 rolling stock to the value of R128 million was purchased. This consisted of 50 electric locomotives, 50 diesel locomotives. 200 third class passenger coaches, 36 third class plain trailers, 900 open wagons, 1 000 drop-sided wagons and 500 slightly damaged trucks that were repaired. The same planning took place in respect of passenger coaches. Someone told me the other day that it was enjoyable to travel by train. All one needs to do is to go to a booking office and one gets a seat. I want to mention a few figures in this connection. The following figures are those for the number of passenger coaches in service. In 1966 there were 7 200 in service, in 1967 7 300, in 1968 7 500. in 1969 7 700 and in 1970 8 200. And where does the allegation from hon. members opposite come from that the Railways do not plan ahead? The hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point are making allegations here without supporting them.

As far as new works are concerned, the hon. member for Randburg has mentioned that during 1971-72 new works to the tune of R389.5 million are being planned.

I now come to the staff complement of the Railways. Both hon. members opposite, who have already spoken, pointed out that the staff complement of the Railways had decreased so tremendously. However, again they have the wrong end of the stick. In round figures the staff complement of the Railways was as follows in the respective years: In 1966 114 000, in 1967 112 000, in 1968 114 000, in 1969 111 000 and in 1970 110 000. During this five-year period the staff complement therefore decreased by 3 900. This is nothing to be concerned about. On page 10 of the latest annual report of the General Manager the following is said about the staff position:

No, Sir, the situation is not all that grave. Listening to the hon. member for Yeoville at times one would say that there are no longer any people working on the Railways! But in the meantime the General Manager and his staff are not sitting still—plans are being made to supplement the shortage through mechanization.

May I ask a question?

Sorry, my time is almost up. The South African Railways felt that its people were being paid too little. The General Manager m Johannesburg earns R16 000 at present. He received an increase of R1 300. The Assistant General Manager received an increase of R2 300. But the System Managers in Cape Town, Kimberley, Port Elizabeth, East London, Bloemfontein, Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria and Windhoek re-received a much more meagre reward for the responsible work they are doing. I can say that that group of system managers that I have mentioned earned R8 700 per year. Now there has been a considerable increase and most of them now earn in the region of R10 000. But what has made further increases in the rates necessary, is the fact that overtime has required a great deal of money. While the Cape Town System Manager’s office had to pay R130 000 for overtime in 1971, the estimate for 1972 is R145 000. In Kimberley it was R107 444—for 1972 it will be R156 580. For Port Elizabeth the figures are respectively R80 000 and R84 000. In Durban it was the worst. Where is the hon. member for Durban Point now? The overtime there amounted to R166 590 in 1971. The estimate for 1972 is R311 750. I now come back to Sunday time. I feel sorry for people when they have to work very long hours, but there is a sense of honour among our South African railway-men. They have never said—except perhaps in a few cases—while their trains are standing idle: “We are not going to drive them any further,” neither have the stokers said: “We are not going to do anymore stoking ” neither have the ticket examiners said: “We are no longer going to do our work on the coaches.”

As far as the staff is concerned I may just mention that since the National Party came into power—I want to conclude with that—that railwaymen’s financial position improved by R330 million. I now come to the conclusion. I cannot but congratulate the Minister, who has put a tremendous amount of work into this Budget, and the General Manager and his staff, on their achievement.

And the Government as well.

Never mind, that is a hint from the hon. member. I must do it. It is my duty. The hon. member does not need to do so. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Colesberg in his last few remarks about the necessity for the tariff increase, mentioned the excessive overtime that had to be worked and the additional expenditure connected with it. Well, that is exactly what we have been saying on this side. However, I shall deal with the hon. member as I go along in my speech.

Listening to the speeches here this afternoon, one can say that this Budget is the budget of excuses. The Minister’s speech consisted of apologies for this and for that. The only bright thing in the Budget is that he has not forgotten the pensioners. With the hon. member for Yeoville I am glad that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to help them. Mr. Speaker, this year, 1978, the Budget month …

1971!

Yes, 1971. When I said 1978 I was thinking of the Bantu. In any event, the year 1971 is probably the blackest since 1948. Everything is going to happen on 1st April; everything will rise on the first—on April Fool’s Day, and the public of South Africa will feel the pinch. They will not only have their Easter eggs but also a substantial rise in taxation in every direction. The Minister of Transport, like his collegues, has never been able to devise a plan to control the boom in South Africa or to contain inflation with the result that today it has got out of hand. But to devise an economic plan, taking into consideration the ideological policies of the Government, is well-nigh impossible.

The Minister of Transport has been known over the years as the lone wolf in the Cabinet when it comes to running his department. When he gets into difficulties and sees red, he taxes—regardless. This he has done in this Budget. On the one hand the Minister of Finance is trying to curb inflation while the hon. the Minister of Transport on the other hand accelerates inflation, as he has done once more by this selective increase in tariffs of 10 per cent. Of course, this will have the effect of pushing up prices notwithstanding what my hon. friend from Randburg has said. In this the hon. the Minister of Transport is being assisted by his colleague of the Post Office. We still have to hear from the Minister of Finance, who will no doubt do his little bit to squeeze something more out of the taxpayer on 31st March. Mr. Speaker, there is always the danger that we can kill the goose that lays the golden egg and put this country in a recession.

Of that the Government ought to be very very careful. The position in which the Minister finds himself today has not just happened. We suggested over the years that a commission be appointed to go into the whole transport question. As you know, Sir, we had the Marais Commission, the recommendations of which the Government rejected. We were hoping that as a result of the appointment of that commission we would be able to see the light and that we would be able to put this transportation monster on a proper basis.

We know that from time to time when this Minister gets into difficulties, he simply slaps on an increase of 10 per cent. We know that he did that on 1st September, 1962 notwithstanding the fact that he had just appointed a Tariff Commission. Sir, when the Minister introduces his indiscriminate tariff increases, it is strange to recall the words that he used here in this House in 1962-’63 when he appointed the Schumann Commission to go into railway tariffs. On that occasion he said—

In due course the report of the Schumann Commission was published. That commission took a considerable amount of evidence and did a considerable amount of research before arriving at its conclusions. They suggested how we could overcome our difficulties as far as the rating system was concerned. As we know, the Minister did not accept all the commission’s recommendations. He did, however, accept certain recommendations which he applied forthwith.

Sir, this was a very comprehensive report, and notwithstanding the fact that it is out-dated to a certain extent I think the principles established in that report still remain valid today. I am just wondering whether the Minister should not have another look at that report to see whether he cannot overcome the difficulties that he is experiencing in his organization.

Sir, as I have said before, the harbours, the railways and the pipeline are running at a profit. Our headache is the Railways. The last time they made a profit on the Railways was in the year 1967-’68 when we had a profit of R7.4 million after increasing rates. We have the sad story that in 1968-’69 we had a loss of R29.7 million, in 1969-70 a loss of R25 million, and from April to November 1970 a loss of something like R37.4 million which could rise to R56 million on an annual basis. The estimated revenue and expenditure of the Railways is a matter which should be of great concern to the hon. the Minister. This year, on the railways alone, he is expecting a loss of R102 million. Last year it was R70 million. That is where the problem lies. We were hoping that the report of the Marais Commission would put this right, but unfortunately it did not go far enough, and today we are faced with this headache of the railways being run at a loss. How can we overcome this difficulty? The introduction of a 10 per cent increase in rates on selected goods is not really sound. As the Minister says, it should be done on a scientific basis. We appreciate his position. He is running into the red and he has to balance his budget, so he simply slaps on an extra 10 per cent, and he does this at a most inopportune time.

He has always been inopportune.

We know—we do not have to be told by hon. members opposite—that this loss is caused mainly by increased salaries. But when you increase salaries you try to find other methods to recoup your additional expenditure, by way of increased productivity and other ways. It has been suggested here that he could use the Rates Equalization Fund. There is now a substantial amount of money in that fund. It is R92 million at the moment, and the loss could have been met there quite easily, but I think the Minister realizes that he has not the solution to his Railway problem. I am referring to the Railways as such. Therefore I think he is a little nervous of using this fund. It was mentioned that Mr. Hamilton Russell, when he was a member here, appealed that this fund should be built up because it was then at a very low ebb, and he did so for the very situation we are facing today. He said that one day we would require an umbrella for a raining day and that therefore we should build up the fund. Now we have acquired an umbrella but the Minister is not using it. It may be that he thinks things are going to deteriorate further and that he may have to use it for the rainy day next year.

The blanket increase of 10 per cent is selective. We see from the newspapers that the effect it will have on suburban commuters is to raise fares considerably, and that must have a chain reaction. We have not had any real details as to what the effect will be of this 10 per cent. Will it be 10 per cent on everything? Now the Minister says that oil and petrol will be exempted from these increases, but the matter does not end there. We know full well that the tankers bringing the petrol and oil to this country will have to pay the extra 10 per cent in dock dues, so it must have an effect; there must be some rise in Harbour dues. The railage rates may be the same, but there will be a rise. The port charges must go up by 10 per cent, if not more, but we do not know how this 10 per cent will be applied.

Now take us here in the Western Cape. We have over the years had the advantage that the Government has transported coal for power stations at a reduced rate, but now we have the imposition of this extra 10 per cent, it will be interesting to hear from the Minister just what he intends doing there. Escom has recently put up the charges in the Western Cape by some 10 per cent. If we are going to pay the extra 10 per cent on coal coming down here, I think there will be a substantial rise in the price of current in the Western Cape. Not only the Western Cape but also the Eastern Cape will be affected and everywhere where coal is conveyed by rail. But we are affected here considerably because we have just recently been told that we will have to pay an extra 10 per cent on electricity charges from 1st April. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to reducing the rates on, if not exempting, coal for power stations here because it will be a considerable amount that the consumer here will have to spend. It will affect industries to a large degree.

When you put up tariffs like this it is all very well for hon. members to say it is done percentagewise, but we know full well what the reaction was when tariffs were raised in 1962. Manufacturers in the Cape were affected because of the raw materials that had to come from the Rand, or because products had to be sent up to the Transvaal where the large markets are. We know that they had to pay the extra 10 per cent up and 10 per cent down. The percentage there was not as high as 10 per cent when it was worked out, I admit, but it does affect the production of those factories and sales. They have to compete on the market in the Transvaal, which is a keen market. It does affect industry, and there is a chain reaction. We have been told what the effect will be on petrol and fuel. The Minister has not exempted them completely and there must be some effect because there must be an added charge when you have to pay extra port charges. We saw an announcement today that there would be a very substantial increase in cost to the motorist also from April Fool’s Day, from the 1st, but they still have to feel the effect of this 10 per cent so there must be an added cost later on. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether that is so. One gets the impression from the hon. the Minister’s speech that there has been a considerable lack of planning in the Railways in the short as well as long term. As the hon. member for Durban Point has said, we had the opportunity of actually visiting and seeing how the planning council works. I have every confidence in this particular council. If one looks at paras. 75 to 83 of the Schumann Commission report one finds there a very comprehensive report on the whole working of this planning council. After all this the hon. the Minister made a most amazing statement in his speech. He was referring to ore and raw material exports and said—

How can the hon. the Minister make a statement like that? It amounts to a complete vote of no-confidence in his own planning council. I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point. One wonders whether schemes that are put forward by the planning council ever see the light of day once they come to the Cabinet. A statement like that by the hon. the Minister must be embarrassing to and a complete vote of no-confidence in the planning council. One only has to read the Schumann Commission’s report to see the comprehensive way and the great depth at which this planning council works. Right from the bottom to the top they have collated facts and figures over the years, figures which they have presented to the Government. An excuse like that just makes nonsense of the whole planning council. I think the hon. the Minister owes this House an explanation of that statement. We don’t want this sort of hit and miss planning which we have at the moment. I have already said that this is a budget of excuses: There are not sufficient trucks, and there is not sufficient steel and of this and the other thing. We know what happened in Australia in regard to their export of ores and how they were able to build a line and a port within 18 months and started exporting. We have the facts and figures given to us by the authorities in that country.

The hon. the Minister has over the years taken a very conservative attitude as far as capital development is concerned. He will not build anything unless, as he says, it will pay for itself. But we know full well that if you want to develop a country you will not get your money back over the first year. The net result is that we are in a position where we are forced to develop our railways on a large scale at a time when costs have risen considerably. I will give you an example. I hate to always have to hammer this one. It is, however, a very good example. I am referring to the Hex River tunnel. In 1947 this tunnel would have cost R2 760 000. Today it is going to cost R14 million and in reply to a question the other day the hon. the Minister said that this tunnel will not be completed until 1978. One wonders what this tunnel is going to cost when it is eventually built. There are probably dozens of other examples which I can quote where there has been delay by this Government in not going ahead with planning. This year there is on the Estimates an amount of R249 million which is going to be spent on capital development. We should have had a progressive policy of capital development in building our railways over the years. The hon. the Minister and his Department cannot tell me that they did not know there were coal fields in this country. There have been reports, investigations and commissions over the years on the potential of our coal fields. The hon. the Minister cannot tell me that he does not know of the enormous deposits of ore we have in the North-West Cape. Of course the Minister knows all this. But the position is that he has not been able to induce the Cabinet to take note of these factors and to spend the extra money required to develop the Railways. It does not make pleasant reading, when our imports exceed our exports and our balance of payments is in the red, that the hon. the Minister, in this Budget speech has to tell the people concerned with exports that they would have to curtail their ore shipments because he required the trucks for another purpose. It is all very well that they were probably required for a matter of necessity such as that of the drought. We will hand that to them, but how can we be in such a position that we are living from hand to mouth?

We have always been in the position that we just do not have sufficient trucks to carry our goods to the coast. During the short session last year I asked a question as to what was going to happen with the potential export orders for coal. Where would they take it? The Minister gave me the reply that, in the beginning they would go through Lourenço Marques and later through Richard’s Bay. That was his answer. This year we get a Bill, which is in front of us now, in which they state that they intend building a railway line to connect with another railway line so that the coal can be exported through Richards Bay. But Richards Bay will not be completed for a long time. In the meantime our customers will not wait indefinitely. Australia is developing large deposits of ore and is going ahead. Here we seem to be stuck in some way. If the hon. the Minister cannot manage it and if he finds that the financial position of the Government is such that they do not have the capital, he should turn to private enterprise and tell them that, as the Government is not in a position to finance these projects, they should do it themselves. They are doing it in Australia. I was pleased to see that the hon. the Minister’s Department is building a line and that he is going to raise the finance for the particular line from the contractor. The only matter that worries me is what interest we will have to pay on that money. I hope the interest is not too high. One would like to hear the terms of the repayment, but we will deal with that Bill when we come to it. It is actually mentioned here in the Budget. The hon. the Minister will probably tell us what the terms are of the repayment of that contract.

Is not the hon. member’s time up?

No, the hon. member can still listen for a few minutes more or he can go out and have a cup of tea. I have another six minutes. Concerning these matters, one could suggest that there is a lack of planning, but I do not think there is a lack of planning. The planning is there but it requires a little bit of energy from the Cabinet itself.

We know that the background of all the trouble with the Railways and with our country is the question of labour. The position as far as semi-skilled and skilled labour in this country is concerned, is very serious indeed. One would like to hear from the Minister, who is probably one of the biggest employers, of labour in this country, what his plans are and how he intends to overcome this position. The solution of the manpower problem must come from the Government, because it is based on Government policy. There is a retarding policy with the handling of labour, and we must look to the Government for a statement of what they intend doing about labour. A solution will not come overnight, because it takes time to train people. We have lost many years. We should hear from this hon. Minister and from his Government, but I think that we all would like to hear particularly from this hon. Minister what the plans are to overcome the labour situation that we have in the country and how he intends to help fight the inflationary period we are in.

Mr. Speaker, about a year or two ago in The Argus, as a result of the Budget, a leading article was written in which the writer stated the following—

At that time circumstances were normal, and then not only The Argus but also hon. members opposite shouted “Hosanna!” Now matters are not so normal and today we hear “Crucify him!”

I want to refer to the introductory words of the speech the hon. member for Yeoville made here last Wednesday, when he implied that the shortage on this Budget, the R58.5 million requested in the little Budget by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the R40 million tax levied by the Post Office, is only the first instalment which the people of South Africa must pay to keep the National Party in power. It is after all, according to him, under United Party pressure that the National Government last year granted general wage increases jointly totalling R170 million for Public Service officials and Railway officials in order to bring them into a competitive position with the private sector. This amount of R170 million is the figure which the hon. the Minister of Planning furnished earlier this year during the no-confidence debate. But then I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that this R145 million that he spoke of the other day is not even a large enough amount, surely, to cover these wage increases for Public Servants and Railwaymen. Why then does the hon. member see it in this context?

Oh no!

Yes, how does the hon. member for Maitland’s mind work? The hon. member for Yeoville said that he thinks the hon. the Minister could have used the funds of the Rates Equalization Fund to balance the Budget instead of increasing rates. I do not want to elaborate on the point. It has already been dealt with. He also said, in addition, that he thinks that the Schumann Commission’s recommendations would be implemented and that more emphasis should be placed on the cost principle rather than the value principle. Many of the recommendations made in the Schumann Commission’s report were implemented. But if the hon. the Minister were to have implemented it as it stands, as requested apparently by the other side of the House, and now again by the hon. member for Salt River, what would then have happened to industries in the Western Cape? The hon. member for Salt River—I do not know where he is now—has no idea of what this is all about. He comes along here, as naively as you please, and says that the Schumann Commission’s recommendations were not accepted by the hon. the Minister. He criticizes the hon. the Minister for that, just as the hon. member for Yeoville did. Then the hon. member changes front and says that the rates are hitting the Western Cape industries hard. Then he asks the hon. the Minister please to make certain concessions in respect of coal. If the hon. the Minister were to do what the hon. member for Salt River has just asked in his speech, i.e. to implement all the recommendations of the Schumann Commission, this means that there must be an increase in the coal rates. Does the hon. member not have any common sense? After all, he cannot make exceptions in respect of certain parts in the Western Cape. It is not that simple. Oh no, but it is very nice to have your bread buttered on both sides if you are not carrying any responsibility. When the hon. member for Yeoville spoke here about the implementation of the Schumann Commission’s report I knew that the hon. member for Salt River would presently come along and kick up a fuss about how the industries in the Western Cape are being hit by the rates that are already so high. Specifically to accommodate the Western Cape to the extent in which it can be accommodated, there is the present-day differentiation on the Railways between high and low rates. Does the hon. member for Salt River not know that it does not pay the Railways to transport coal from Witbank to the Cape? Does the hon. member not know that before the previous increase the Railways suffered a loss of R1.46 per ton on coal transported from Witbank to the Cape? Does the hon. member not know that the rates were not increased by 16 per cent in accordance with the recommendations of the Schumann Commission, but only by 7½per cent, and that this still results in a loss for us of R1.35 per ton on the transportation of coal? As I say, if one carries no responsibility one can come along with such stories. I would prefer not to call the stories by their proper name. I want to refer to another point the hon. member for Salt River raised, i.e. the Marais Commission’s report. He asked why after all the hon. the Minister had not implemented the findings of the Marais Commission’s report. The hon. member surely knows that …

I did not say that at all.

What did the hon. member say then?

I said that the Marais Commission’s report would have been the answer to his problems. That was what I said.

Well, now it is not. The hon. member is now differing, in other words, from the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the hon. the Minister actually offended the Marais Commission by not accepting its recommendations. The fact is—and I should now like to say this for that hon. member’s information—that the Marais Commission’s report wanted an increasing amount of transport to be taken away from the Railways and given to private cartage contractors. It wanted the Railways to concentrate largely on the transportation of bulk. This is, of course, not all that the report contains, but this is the part to which specific reference is always being made. There are very good reasons why the hon. the Minister of Transport could not accept the recommendation, because what would that entail? In the first place I think it is right not to accept the recommendations, because the private cartage contractors make no contribution to the development of our national transport. They make no contribution to the development of our roads. On the other hand, millions upon millions of rands of State money, interest carrying money, has been put into the Railways, money on which an amount of R100 million per year is already being paid in interest. This must be protected. On the other hand, if the Marais Commission’s recommendations were to have been implemented, it would have meant that increasingly more of the high-rated traffic, the cream of the transportation, would have been taken away by the private cartage contractors. Do hon. members really think that the private cartage contractors are interested in the low-rated traffic on which there is a small profit? The Railways have never had problems in coping with the transportation of high-rated traffic. The private cartage contractor is not interested in bulk transportation, and the Railways could not allow more and more of the cream to be scooped off. Many more goods are today being transported by road than by rail. That is what hon. members must bear in mind when they want to come along and criticize this Government about its attitude in respect of the reports that were published. The hon. member for Yeoville made another point. He said that the system of rates of the Railways, as it is being implemented today, is not helping along decentralization and the policy of border industries. Apparently the hon. member is now also anxious for border industry development to be a success. He said that the rates structure was not helping along border industries and the decentralization of our industries. I just want to tell the hon. member that the Railways’ standpoint in this connection has always been very clear. It was never the Railways’ standpoint that railway rates should be a factor of importance in the decentralization of industries to particular areas. This fact was also confirmed by the commission’s investigation. The Railways’ standpoint in this connection is that if special rates are necessary for this purpose, it must be the responsibility of the Central Government and not that of the Railways.

What about the 15 per cent for border industries?

I wonder whether the hon. member knows what he is talking about now? The hon. member for Yeoville also asked another question that I now want to deal with. He asked whether we were getting the full value from the large sums of money we are putting into the transport system. Immediately after that he made a great fuss again because an appeal was made to ore producers to export less ore. I want to deal at greater length with this point the hon. member made. I want to begin by saying that the provisions of the Constitution in respect of the task imposed on the Railways was summarized by the Schumann Commission as follows (translation):

My submission is that under present conditions this is virtually a super-human instruction to carry out because it embodies so many contradictions. An efficient, financially independent service run on business lines can today hardly be aligned with the various requests to the Railways from various quarters in respect of transporting uneconomical loads. I am now speaking of uneconomical loads in respect of national interests and uneconomical loads as a result of problems that have cropped up in the national economy. As a result of that the Railways have simply been forced to relinquish the principle of financial independence. As a result of this the Railways are frequently compelled to cope with traffic for which it cannot even recover the direct costs, let alone the overhead costs. Today I therefore want to dwell for a moment on the problems the Railways have in balancing their books. In the first place I want to point out how particularly sensitive the Railway finances are in respect of problems developing in the national economy. Fluctuations and instability in the country’s economy reflect very sharply on Railway earnings. These are factors the Railways can do very little about directly. It virtually has no control over that. What is more, today the earnings of the Railways are even influenced by economic trends in countries to which South Africa exports bulk goods. In this connection I want to mention a few examples. The fact that there was such a tremendously high figure for imports last year caused a tremendous surge in harbour traffic. There was an abnormal increase of 20 per cent in harbour traffic in one year. The average increase in harbour revenue is estimated at 4 per cent per annum. During the past six years an average development of 12 per cent has been maintained. Last year, however, there was a sudden growth surge of 20 per cent when our harbours handled more than 50 million harbour tons. Now we all know that harbour traffic is high-rated traffic. As a result of this high-rated traffic in the harbours the total high-rated traffic this year is 7.7 per cent greater than last year. This brings in a tremendous amount of money for the Railways, particularly if we bear in mind that only about 20 per cent of the transportation of the Railways is high-rated transportation. Even so, this represents almost 50 per cent of the total revenue. But now we cannot base our planning and future harbour development on this abnormal figure for a particular year. That would be wrong, because this year there could perhaps again be a restriction on imports. Then the picture next year would probably be just the reverse. This shows hon. members how these matters have an influence on the Railways’ problems in respect of its Budget. I want to mention another example. The restriction that was placed this year on the export of maize has meant that only half the maize was exported by comparison with what would have been exported, while the transport for local use was 190 000 tons more than it was last year. Even so the Railways suffered a great loss on this specific section of transport, because there is a higher rate on the transportation of maize that is exported. This shows hon. members again just what an influence these conditions can have, conditions over which the Railways as such have no control, or very little.

I mention the present shortage of steel in our country, in respect of which all the local bodies and Government departments have a problem. This means that the capital programme and the capital works of the Railways are being delayed. At a very critical time, when the Railways need it very much, rolling stock must be left, because it cannot nearly be delivered on time. It is not, as the hon. member for Salt River said, that there is no advance planning. The hon. the Minister of Transport cannot see years ahead to the fact that specifically this year or last year there would be such a serious shortage of steel. These trucks have already been on order for years, and their delivery is very long overdue. I say that these are factors that have contributed to the Railways’ problems with its Budget, and which are making its already tremendously big task even more difficult. Similarly the inflationary increases in the prices for materials and contracts and the general demand recently for wage increases have had their effect on the Railways Budget, as I said at the beginning of my speech. Capital expenditure is specifically a very important factor in the Railways Budget. Just as any Government Department today is faced with the problem that it can never obtain sufficient funds to finance its capital works, because the funds are not available, so the Railways has the same problem. What is the argument? Do hon. members want us to curtail these services? They are specifically saying that the State spends too much, and as a result of that it is promoting inflation. But on the other hand they want a transport system which in all respects can satisfy the demand that exists. I say that the Railways, just like other Government Departments, is faced with the problem that it cannot obtain sufficient loan funds with which to finance its capital works. This comes at a very inconvenient time for the Railways, at a time when there is an increasing demand, particularly for bulk traffic. It is specifically in connection with this bulk traffic that the Railways must tackle all its big, new works, and for which the large amount of capital expenditure has gone over the years. The Railways, as I said, has never had problems with the transportation of the 20 per cent of high-rated goods. In addition it comes at a time when the Railway system has, in many of its key sections, reached its absolute maximum physical carrying capacity. For example, the railway line to Lourenço Marques and other railway lines are today being utilized to their absolute maximum, and thus far the carrying capacity of the system has for the most part been developed by improvements to existing line capacity, by increased tractive power and increased productivity, by the use of more modern techniques and by other short-term improvements.

But now the Railways are coming up against a brand-new phase in respect of the planning and the creation of greater capacity and the greater carrying capacity. In future large sums of money will have to be spent on new lines and works that will have to be built from scratch because new economic growth points are developing away from the existing concentrations which have thus far been served reasonably well by rail links. In this process of development the Railways must adapt itself to numerous conditions, some of which are foreseen and others which are unforeseen. In this connection I should like to quote what Prof. C. Verburgh, a well-known transport expert, wrote a while ago in the Cape Times. He stated—

Sir, this is a fundamental problem.

I can just mention here today that the Railways are still in a relatively favourable position in respect of capital expenditure. As the hon. the Minister said in his Budget Debate, the Government is very sympathetic to the needs of our transport system, and this year it has specifically increased the capital allocation of R18 million to R168 million. In addition the Railways are also in the fortunate position that it can apply additional funds of its own in order to finance capital programmes—R30 million from the Reserve Account, R16 million from the Renewals Fund and R9 million from the Betterment Fund. In addition, as I have mentioned here, use is being made of the new approach of letting the contractor arrange for the financing of the project when large capital projects and contracts are issued. Thus the pressure on the Treasury for Loan funds is lessened. As a result of their favourable position, the Railways are able to tackle a capital programme of R390 million this year a tremendous increase of more than R134 million over a period of two years, an increase that is as great as half of one year’s Defence Budget. On new works alone R91 million more will be spent this year than was spent last year. This indicates the new trend in respect of the demand being made on the Railways.

Of course, the Railways must never lose sight of the fact that new railway lines, new terminals and new harbour facilities cannot be provided overnight, and neither must we, who make use of the Railways, ever lose sight of this fact. That is what we would like to get into the heads of hon. members opposite, i.e. that new railway lines, new terminals and new harbour facilities are not things that one can build in a matter of days, months or even in a few years; it takes years. That is why it is necessary in the planning of export contracts, for the availability of Railway transport to be given the proper consideration. The Railways must be notified in time if specific pre-requisites are going to be imposed on it. I want to mention this example, i.e. that in recent times numerous producers have appeared on the scene with demands for transport facilities for the transportation of ore. All of them are eager to export. We are all eager to export; we should like to earn foreign exchange, particularly at this time. The Railways are prepared to help, but it is not possible to make the necessary transport facilities available immediately for every producer that appears on the scene and submits a demand. The Railways’ existing facilities are already being tried to the maximum. This year the Railways are making provision for 40 per cent more ore tonnage to be exported by Port Elizabeth, but the Railways cannot possibly react positively to all the requests that are made to it.

We must realize, as people in all the industrial countries of the world realize, that we cannot always accept axiomatically that Railway facilities will always be available on demand. That is why in Western countries, when export contracts are being negotiated, proper consultations must first be held with the national transport system to determine whether the transport is available or not. In South Africa one finds another approach among some of our producers. They think they can simply make the demands and that the transport is just there. We must realize that it costs the Railways thousands and millions of rands in capital to improve its transport system so that it can meet the demands made upon it. Whenever it undertakes capital programmes, the Railways must always be careful that it does not eventually find itself with transport facilities that are not utilized or even underutilized. As a previous General Manager said, it is absolutely impossible to determine the actual needs in peak periods, and it is impractical to base future planning on such needs. This also applies to incidental traffic, such as these ships that have been diverted to South Africa from Suez. As far as we are concerned, this is a temporary manifestation. We cannot go and base our harbour development on this incidental traffic in our harbours. We can take this into account, but we cannot base our entire planning on it. Sir, these days no business undertaking can afford to have surplus capacity; it costs too much money and the Railways, as I have already shown, already carries a tremendous burden of interest on its capital. More than R100 million must be spent each year from Revenue funds in order to cancel the interest charges. Then there is still the R25 million that the Railways pays in interest on the funds it borrows from its own sources. We must also take into account that the United Party will be the first, as they have been in the past, to criticize us if we were to over-capitalize the Railways and if there were unutilized facilities.

Sir, I do not believe I have sufficient time to broach a new point; I just still wanted to mention that today one of the attacks on the Service from outside is specifically an attack on the harbours because problems and bottlenecks develop there from time to time. The harbours, of course, also have their problems. The harbours are very important. The harbours are that section of the Service which is described as the goose that lays the golden egg, because there one gets the high-rated traffic; because there the traffic has increased so tremendously in recent years, because in the past six years the harbours have brought the Railways a net profit of R87 million for its coffers. But in the harbours we have the same problems that we have elsewhere, i.e. a manpower shortage, particularly in the bread and butter grades. We have a shortage of steel which also interferes with the work in our harbours, particularly here in the outside harbour scheme in Table Bay. We have a shortage of capital with which to do the work that we have to undertake, and of course we have the tremendous increase in the freight tonnage that must be handled in the harbours. [Time expired.]

At the outset I would also like to congratulate the General Manager on his promotion and I hope he will serve the Railways for many years to come. At the same time I would like to thank his staff throughout the Republic for the work they have done through the year in very difficult circumstances.

The hon. member for Colesberg again raised the question of overtime. He also mentioned it last time. Sir, the staff of the Railways have learnt to live with overtime, so much so that they cannot live without it today. But what is the result? A very famous specialist told me that the strains and stresses of overtime cause coronary thrombosis, so it is a case of gaining on the one hand and losing on the other. I think the hon. member also mentioned the matter of trucks standing empty on sidings, but surely that is the responsibility of the Railways. Surely they must attend to that. Is there not such a thing as demurrage, and if a person is responsible for a truck standing empty on a siding he has to pay demurrage on it? I do not understand that argument at all.

The hon. member for Parow says that the hon. the Minister runs his Railways very smoothly.

The Argus said so.

In any case, now I have at least discovered what happened to all the oil that landed on our beaches recently. Sir, the Tariff Reserve Fund is there for the occasions that have arisen this year according to the Railway Budget. I do not know how much higher the hon. the Minister wants this fund to rise before he uses it for this purpose. Then the hon. member mentioned private transporters and that they do not contribute anything towards the working of the Railways. Sir, they pay their licenses and their taxes and I know that they do relieve the Railways considerably. The hon. member says we criticize the development programme of the Railways. The question is whether we should not criticize when criticism is necessary. And I am quite certain that the Railways can stand criticism, because healthy criticism is good for the country.

*It is generally known that earlier this year the wharfs in the Durban harbour were so congested with incoming overseas freight that the Railways could not clear them fast enough. This resulted in a large number of freighters having to lie at anchor outside the harbour for days before being admitted to it. To a certain extent this took place at the other harbours as well. The delay must have cost the shipping companies thousands of rands in lost revenue. Seen from an economic point of view, would containerization of goods not have been the solution for clearing the accumulated freight rapidly? For the record, Sir, the statistical information regarding containers is that they are articles of transport equipment, permanent in nature, strong enough to be used repeatedly, designed to facilitate the conveyance of goods for some method of transportation without reloading in between and equipped with apparatus for rapid handling, especially for transferring from one method of transportation to another. I do not think for a moment that the Department of Transport finds this statistical information necessary, because I am sure the Railways thoroughly investigated the data when they decided to change over to this modern method of transportation, but on the other hand the ordinary businessman and the public may find it interesting.

†In introducing this method of transportation, may I inquire whether commerce and industry have fallen in with the idea, and what consultation is there between them and the S.A. Railways in regard to the manufacture of the various containers in regard to standardization? I refer especially to the various sizes of cartons in common use to fit into the larger containers and using the metric system of measurement. I notice from the annual report that the demand for containers still exceeds their availability, but that approximately 50 containers monthly are manufactured in the workshops. In view of this demand, is it not possible to increase the output? Is it the ultimate intention to adopt containerization in respect of the variety of dry goods, liquids, fresh produce and even livestock, and also to introduce insulated and ventilated containers, to guarantee that onions, potatoes and other items of fresh produce railed in bulk, like watermelons, arrive at their destination in good condition? Presumably it is comparatively easy to adopt the various types of containerization from the hard-won experience of the world-wide shippers who have pioneered this means of transport. It would also be interesting to learn to what extent South Africa has joined in with the international shipping of containers, coastwise and overseas, and how the interchange of these units works, especially from the financial point of view.

Is it the intention to provide docking facilities for handling containerized cargo at all ports and are we doing so fast enough? Two statistical studies of the Republic have already been made by overseas experts and two further groups have just been here to determine the measure of its containerability. Their reports are positive and more favourable even than ours. According to the findings of the statisticians, approximately 70 per cent of our imports and 60 per cent of our exports are containerizable in the physical sense of the word. This would speed up matters and eliminate considerable handling and labour costs, as it is possible to reduce the number of harbour workers needed to load and discharge container ships. In shipping, as in any other business, time means money and container ships varying greater tonnages than conventional cargo vessels are able to halve the time of transit and turnaround. A plan to give dock workers in the Port of London a golden handshake on condition that they left the industry has been well received. The whole idea was to get rid of redundant workers and make the labour force employed in the docks more versatile and productive. I presume we will follow this ourselves once our docks can handle these container ships. It is far too costly to equip a harbour for peak periods and have both men and equipment standing idle when the flow of shipping in and out of the port is normal.

I notice from the hon. the Minister’s Budget that provision for equipment for container traffic at Table Bay and Durban Harbours has been made. I appreciate that harbour traffic has increased during the latter part of last year and this year, which increase is considered exceptional and unexpected, and also that cargoes brought to commercial berths were up 39 per cent. These abnormal circumstances inevitably led to ships sometimes having to wait for berths and then arriving simultaneously at harbours in great numbers. There were no less than 22 ships waiting in Table Bay Harbour yesterday.

This is all the more reason that containerization as a whole should have been introduced earlier and more expeditiously, as this is the only solution. It is an accepted fact that the Railways are blamed for the congestion of goods at harbours and depots, the reason being that business concerns are loath to accept the goods during lunch time, after 5 o’clock in the afternoon or on Saturdays. To my knowledge this problem is years old. Surely better arrangements could be made with the cooperation of commerce and industry. What liaison may I ask exists between the Railways and these associations at top level? It is impossible to believe that they are not prepared to assist the Railways and by so doing assisting themselves.

Plus-minus 20 container ships are operating to Europe on the Australia and New Zealand routes with a number of roll-on roll-off vessels. The South African trade with Europe is greater than that of either New Zealand or Australia. Therefore containerization is most feasible in South Africa.

I understand that in Durban two container berths are being constructed and that in Cape Town provision for container berths will be made in the new outer harbour. What, if I may ask, is intended for East London and Port Elizabeth? Will these ships have to bypass them? What type of wharf is to be built in these harbours? Will it be the long single type with one or two railway lines running down the centre serving ships on either side of the wharves? It is also pleasing to note that six loaders are on order for our harbours and that container cranes are being provided for in the 1973-’74 Budget. Although it is intended that full container service will be in operation on the European route by 1974-75, are we not running late in preparing for containerization? I take it that we may profit by the experiences and mistakes of other containerization countries. It is important that we seek flexible solutions.

I am given to understand that South Africa’s first container ships are already in service. Are they proving a financial success? Although containers could have their problems they have a profound effect on pilferage and damage losses. But what about insurance and customs? I believe it is already on accepted custom that the carrier automatically insures consignments of containers, the container itself and its contents. What have the Railway decided on this vital point? What company or companies of insurers have been contracted for this service? What has been arranged regarding customs inspection and clearance? Will this take place at the factory or at container bases? If the latter, the solution will therefore be a network of inland depots where full container loads can be consolidated under Customs control for detailed examination, or the import groupage of traffic at the place where the container has to be unpacked for delivery of consignments, or for occasional examination of full loads as containers are selected by Customs. The task of Customs is also to seal containers in order to safeguard the containerized merchandise against unlawful manipulations under way.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak about the ore trucks. It is observed that, as a result of the provision of modern pressure brakes on all new ore trucks, it has been proved possible to increase train loads from 2 000 to 8 000 tons over lines with a ruling gradient of I in 80 in the not so distant future. Will this be possible over the whole ore route to the present ore terminal at Port Elizabeth? Will the present proposed railway line which is to be built from the Northern Cape mines to Saldanha Bay be able to carry similar heavy loads? One of the most alarming disclosures made by the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech, is that of the 2 000 C.R. ore wagons ordered, only 979, which is less than half, have been delivered so far. This factor has disrupted the programme for the export of minerals and ores. His explanation is that these new vehicles on order from private industry have unfortunately fallen short of the expected number due mainly to the shortage of steel and labour. This is very queer. We are short of steel to build trucks to carry our raw materials which is to be exported so that the importing country can manufacture steel. In terms of the contract, did the Railways agree to supply private industry with steel to build the trucks, or did Iscor run out of steel, or do we export the ore and then import the steel from overseas? Surely there must be something radically wrong with our planning programme.

The second reason given is the shortage of labour. What labour, may I ask? I can only presume that it is Bantu labour. Surely contracting private industry, when tendering, must have stated its labour requirements, which should have been made a condition of the contract. During what stage of the contract did this labour shortage become apparent, and what did the Railways do about it? Was the hon. the Minister of Labour consulted? I presume that all that was needed was for him to issue a permit so that the manufacturers could obtain the labour.· How ridiculous can we be? Can the hon. the Minister inform the House how much foreign exchange has been lost on account of this inefficient exercise? What is the position now regarding the manufacture of the trucks? Was there a penalty clause in the contract? After all, I notice that the contract price of the trucks was over R12 million. To me it seems that it is undermining the hon. the Minister of Finance’s anti-inflationary efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to speak about the staff problem. The hon. the Minister reports that, with effect from June, 1970, there has been a slight improvement in the staff position in the professional and clerical grades, as well as those grades in which female staff are employed. As far as the female staff is concerned, is this a direct result of the hon. the Minister’s move of paying certain females the same as their male counterparts? May I ask whether the hon. the Minister is not prepared to go the whole hog and introduce equal pay scales for male and female employees throughout the Railway system? I am convinced that this would not increase inflation, but on the contrary, rather create a settled female staff with, as is more than likely, a higher production of work. Everybody will agree that this is something that is long overdue.

I am given to understand that with the introduction of Jumbo jets, instead of the air fares being reduced between South Africa and Europe, they will be increased appreciably. This is most disappointing. Is the Minister prepared to make a statement on this matter? Increased fares will no doubt reduce the lucrative tourist trade to South Africa. If full pay-loads are not always available for these large air liners, will cargo be carried with passengers on the same planes to offset the flying costs?

*Mr. Speaker, then I should like information from the hon. the Minister in regard to the duties of our air hostesses. I have been told that our attractive air hostesses were recently used at the Rome airport to search passengers before they could embark. Although the passengers, particularly the men, possibly had some fun because of that, I understand that the hostesses were not happy about it at all. Members of the security division of the airport must undoubtedly have been available for carrying out this important duty. I have been told that as a result of the young ladies’ complaint about this in which it was said that they were not happy about it at all, they have been relieved of this unpleasant duty. To say that these circumstances were inevitable is unacceptable in my opinion. The searching of passengers and their luggage in order to prevent hijacking is a very important duty, because the lives of the passengers are at stake, apart from the value of the aircraft, which runs into millions of rands. What we want from the hon. the Minister is the assurance that this important duty of searching is carried out properly at all the airports used by our aircraft, because we simply cannot afford to run any risk.

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment.

Order! Before I call on the next hon. member to speak, I want to point out that Standing Order No. 102 still stands and that henceforth I shall apply it strictly.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by mentioning a few points raised here by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City. The first one I want to refer to is the question of overtime. This is a happy day in my life because the Opposition now also accepts that overtime is not something evil. In the past they waxed lyrical about overtime truly being something evil and endangering the lives of the public. Now the hon. member has just said here that they realize that the people cannot live without overtime. I am grateful for that admission.

The other point mentioned by the hon. member was that the Rates Equalization Fund should shoulder this loss which the Railways would suffer in the next financial year. We all realize that the Railways are in the unenviable position of not receiving subsidies from the Central Government or from any other source. The funds required by the Railways, must be derived from tariffs. If we were to think that the funds of the Rates Equalization Fund should be used for covering the anticipated loss of more than R60 million in the next financial year, I think we would destroy the protection funds of the Railways altogether, because that would virtually exhaust the Equalization Fund completely.

The other matter I want to mention is the question of containerization and container-traffic. I want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Transport for the explanation he gave in his Budget Speech of how the Railways were applying themselves to containerization and its extended use, because I should like to associate myself with the hon. member’s plea in that regard. In addition the hon. the Minister gave a very clear explanation in his Budget Speech of the position in regard to trucks for the transportation of iron ore. I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point. He made a point here in regard to the salary increase of R60 million of last year. He said that at present we were faced with a deficit and that this had to be recovered by means of higher rates. I think it is important for us to establish what the position is. Is the United Party dissatisfied about that increase of R60 million which the officials were given. If this is the case, they must tell us so.

They said they were unhappy about it.

They said they were unhappy.

Who said so?

In that case, are the hon. members satisfied with that increase? Then why are the hon. members now trying to play the one thing off against the other? The hon. member for Durban Point said very clearly that the increases were given last year and that the money now had to be recovered from the taxpayers. The second question which the hon. member raised, was that people earning R200 per month and less, were being taxed so heavily. Those are the very people who benefit most from that R60 million increase. I simply cannot see how these two matters can be reconciled, because they all shared in that increase. I may just mention here that the people of my constituency are sincerely grateful for the benefits given to them last year.

The Railway Budget, just like an ordinary general Budget, is an important indication of the economic position of our national affairs. The survey of the activities of the Railways during the past financial year has proved once again that, in spite of the exceptionally high demands made on the Railways because of a serious drought which gave rise to thousands of heads of large and small stock having to be conveyed in addition to thousands of tons of fodder, the Railways were able to cope with all that traffic offered. I think this is an exceptional achievement, especially since they had to carry that task out with the same number of employees. There was no increase in the number of employees. The achievement is all the more remarkable if one has regard to the fact that 45 per cent more work was performed. Instead of the actual number of 22 200 persons who performed the work, I now Want to calculate how many people would have been required if every person had done only his normal work. That would have meant that we would have had to have 321 900 persons to do that same work. For this reason, I think it is a great achievement to do much more work with the same number f employees. I think this is an example which is worthy of being followed, especially by our other Government establishments. It is also an example worthy of being followed by the private sector.

Because of the exceptionally rapid growth of our national economy, a very heavy burden is being placed on the transport system so that the necessary services relating to the infrastructure may be provided. This trend towards growth is clearly illustrated by the programme of new works and capital expansion of the past three years. If we refer back to 1969, we see that our capital expansion of new works amounted to R256.4 million. In the next year it increased to R297.4 million. This year an amount of R389.5 million is being envisaged. This means that nearly R92 million more will be spent this year than last year. This is mainly aimed at the formation of an infrastructure for our national economy’s trend towards growth. This expenditure forms part of our long-term capital improvement projects, which include further expansions of centralized traffic control, computerization, marshalling yards and truck control. The acquisition of powerful locomotives of up to 3 000 horsepower, increases the hauling-power so that longer trains and heavier loads may be hauled. This special rolling stock makes an exceptional contribution to the greater efficiency and saving of manpower.

The Opposition tried to create the impression that the increases in rates were unexpected and that if they had been in power, it would not have been necessary to increase rates. What are the actual facts? By means of mechanization, electrification, advance planning in respect of the installation of standardized traffic control, increased productivity, the saving of manpower, the building up of a strong Rates Equalization Fund and the timeous planning and building of two oil pipelines which have yielded big profits for the Railways, the Railways have succeeded in postponing the evil day of increases in rates up to now. In the past three years these profits yielded by the oil pipelines have been of great value to the Railways. What would have happened if the United Party had been in power? As long ago as 1968, the hon. member for Yeoville pleaded for the profits yielded by the oil pipeline to be diverted from the Railways and to be returned to the small number of privileged private consumers using it. At the time there was an angry fight about that in this House. If the hon. the Minister had conceded to that demand by the hon. member at that time, it would have meant that the rates would not have been increased only now, but at least two years ago. In the past three years the profits on the pipelines were R47.4 million, R30.2 million, respectively, and in 1970 R35.5 million. If these profits could not have been used to the advantage of the Railways in general, it would have meant that these increases in rates would have had to be introduced two years ago. In spite of this, hon. members on the opposite side are boasting here that if they had been in power, there would not have been any increases in rates.

There was an increase in labour potential as well. In recent times there have been various factors which have contributed towards inspiring the railway employee to work harder and give his best for the Railways in order to make such a gigantic success of our transport undertaking. It was mainly because every employee realized that he was a shareholder in this gigantic undertaking and that the profits and benefits would be ploughed back to the advantage of every railwayman. These benefits include the improvement of their facilities at work, for example, restrooms, washing and eating facilities, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning. All these factors contributed towards making the railwayman a happy worker and enabling him to give his best for the Railways. Another tremendous contribution was in regard to housing schemes. I am not going to cover the whole field— the hon. the Minister gave us a fairly clear explanation—but I want to make special mention of the fact that a total of 44 000 housing units were made available to married persons, while a total of approximately 64 000 married White persons are employed by the Railways. To this we must add the hostel facilities for thousands of young men. In Bloemfontein alone there are more than 500 young men who make use of these, I may say, “luxury” hostel facilities which are situated close by. Numerous parents have expressed their gratitude because their sons are not sent to places where they are strangers and where they have to live in a small room or in some boarding house or even in a flat, where they may come under wrong influences. They are well cared for in these hostels and they are close to their work. I believe this is very highly appreciated. These funds which are made available for housing each year, have made an exceptional contribution to the improvement of the productivity of the Railways, because decent housing helps to create a happy family life. It is extremely difficult for a married couple to have a family and to rear children when they do not have a home of their own where those children can play freely. In recent times we have done a great deal in respect of housing. I want to mention that I believe we still have to do a great deal. I want to advocate here that it should be our objective that each married Railwayman should be able to acquire his own house. We must provide hundred per cent housing to our people. Then we would definitely be making a major contribution indeed. This should be our endeavour and objective in the coming years. I want to advocate, and I am convinced, that in the next few years, that extra capital expenditure will yield its dividends in the form of greater efficiency and perhaps an exceptional contribution to our population increase.

Another factor which has inspired and encouraged the Railway worker to serve the Railways with diligence and dedication to the best of his ability, is the fact that salary increases and adjustments have been made from time to time. I am not referring only to the last R60 million which was granted. I mentioned the figures in a previous speech, and therefore I do not want to repeat everything here. But since 1948, adjustments have been made or salary increases or further benefits have been granted virtually every year or two. If we look back at the salaries of 1958, we see that the amount paid out was R208.75 million. Ten years later, in 1968, it was R347.75 million. This year it is R416 million. From 1958, therefore, R208 million more has been paid out annually in staff wages. This is an achievement indeed.

The Railway workers were not the only ones to benefit; we think especially—this is one of the deeds of the Minister in respect of which I should like to express special thanks—of the pensioners as well. We realize that the pensioners, for whom the Minister announced these increased pensions, are people whose contracts of service have already terminated. These are people who have already retired from service. The contracts entered into with them have terminated, but from time to time the Minister has done something for these people and made the necessary adjustments in their pensions. [Interjection.] Sir, I can assure that hon. member that under the United Party Government, there were people who received a pension of less than R10 per month when they retired from service …

And in the Boer War they received even less.

That hon. member is becoming excited, but I can tell him that people who retired from service in 1947, received a pension of less than R10 per month, and those people receive a minimum of R104 today.

That includes allowances.

That is the pension plus allowances which they receive. The temporary allowances will not be taken away. That hon. member is concerned for no reason. They will exist as long as the National Party exists. They will be taken away only if the United Party comes into power; this is what they did in the past. These people are not concerned about the temporary allowance they receive, because they trust the National Government.

The basic pension is still less than R20.

Sir, I particularly want to say that those pensioners are extremely grateful for this increase they have received as well as for the 2 per cent compound increase, which is not being taken away now that these increases of 15 per cent, 12£ per cent and 10 per cent have come. That 2 per cent compound increase which was granted on 1st April, 1969, still remains operative. A further concession which has been made is that the 20 years restriction is no longer applicable. Sir, we want to express our sincere thanks for these benefits which are going to be granted to the pensioners, and also for the fact that the contributions of the Railway staff to the Superannuation Fund have been reduced to 4 per cent. This is another major concession which has been made.

The final point I want to mention and to which the hon. the Minister also referred in his Budget speech, is the steps which have been taken to encourage officials to remain in service for longer periods by laying down a lower retirement age for them and then encouraging them to continue working. Sir, in this regard I want to plead that when a person reaches the age of retirement, the full pension to which he is entitled, be paid out to him. Then he can continue to render further good services to the Railways. Many of these people retire in order to receive that small amount of money, and I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that the full pension to which they are entitled be paid out to them and that they then be given the opportunity of continuing in service if they are fit and willing to do so.

Sir, I have already mentioned a series of contributory reasons for the dedication and diligence on the part of the staff which has contributed towards increasing efficiency even more. One of the important factors is the special and intensive training given to the staff. Today every railwayman is an expert in his field, and it is because he has received that special training that he is able to render such fine service. I have had the privilege of visiting a considerable number of these training centres, and we feel that very good work is being done at these centres, also in the field of cultivating in the railway worker the characteristic of taking a pride in himself and making him aware of the important role he is playing in the service. The supervising officials especially are encouraged to feel that they are almost indispensable and that they form important, indispensable links in the organization. The fact that greater responsibilities have been entrusted to the supervising staff, has made them aware of the important role they play in the promotion of efficiency in the service. Sir, because of this dedication and diligence it was possible for the Railways to cope with all the traffic offered, in spite of the rapid growth rate of our country. With the achievements which have been ours in recent years under this Minister who has been able to develop the Railways in these difficult years to the proud position they occupy today, we may enter the future with confidence.

Sir, when I was a small boy there was a game called Happy Families. In this game, which was a card game, there was Mr. Puff-Puff, the engine driver, and Mrs. Puff-Puff, his wife, and Master Puff-Puff and Miss Puff-Puff. They were a very happy family. Sir, the hon. member for Bloemfontein District has been playing Happy Families. We have met them all—Mr. Puff-Puff, Mrs. Puff-Puff and two little Puff-Puffs. I do not want to spoil the hon. member’s simple fun, except to warn him that there is a joker in the pack and that the joker is inflation, uncontrollable by the Nationalist Government.

Sir, I would like to turn to another subject. I wish to speak about the problem of ore exports from South Africa. In dealing with this subject I would like to refer very briefly to the present balance of trade in South Africa. In 1970 we exported goods to the value of R1 500 million. In 1980, if we continue growing at a rate of about 5½ per cent per annum, we will have to export, if we are to balance our trade, goods to the value of R3 000 million. This means that between 1971 and 1980 we will have to double our exports, which means that our export growth rate will have to be of the order of 7 per cent per annum. This is a very difficult task to achieve, and it is quite clear that a major role will have to be played by the mining industry and that the major contribution to meeting this growing deficit will have to be made by mineral ore exports.

It has been unofficially estimated by responsible people in the mining industry that if it had been possible to export aft the ore which is mineable and saleable, if there were no transport difficulties, we would today be covering our trade gap, that there would be no balance of trade problems and that we could go on through 1975 and through 1980 covering our trade gap. This would have been the position if it had been possible for the mining companies to assume that ore that was economically exploitable and economically marketable was also transportable. Sir, this is something which is obviously a theoretical calculation because in fact the Railways have never been presented point blank with this problem. The fact is that the average mining company, whatever its prospects of exploitation and exportation, naturally is aware of the limitations of transport; it is aware of the limitations of railage and of the limitations of our ports, and therefore does not exploit all that it might have exploited.

The argument goes like this. If it did not restrict itself, if it were not inhibited by these limitations, we would today probably have had no balance of payments problems at all. Now, it is very important to any producer of mineral ore that he should be able to contract for the sale of his ore on a long-term basis. There is a great problem in contracting for the sale of mineral ores, because the buyers in various countries of the world take the line that they must be able to depend absolutely on the reliability of supply, on the availability of transport and the security of delivery of these ores. These are raw materials which they require as the basis of industries which are vast in scope. I think, for example, of the steel industries in Europe or Japan, which contract and therefore depend on raw materials which in fact are turned by them into manufactured articles on which further contracts depend. It is therefore absolutely essential that when they make these contracts, they should be able to count without question on the reliability of the supplier and on his ability to deliver the goods. It is a vital and cardinal rule in any kind of international contract of this kind that the contract should contain the elements of simplicity and certainty. If, for example, one makes a contract with a large Japanese manufacturing firm, it is most necessary that it should be able to read in the contract those elements of simplicity, so that it knows precisely what it is getting and when it is getting it and that there will be no uncertainty about this. It is vital also that it should have complete confidence in the arrival of supplies that it has contracted to buy.

It happened recently that our coal exporters, who were in fact committed to such contracts, found themselves in a position where they were unable to meet their commitments. I should like to quote from a newspaper report published on 10th January, 1971, which deals with a statement by the Anthracite Producers’ Association. It reads as follows—

It goes on in that vein and shows how a large number of important contracts have been lost or are likely to be lost and how in any event the country is losing foreign revenue through its inability to meet its obligations.

This sort of event, particularly in the context of our present imbalance of trade, is very disturbing. They are accompanied, also, by what we can only see as a certain degree of indecision about the way in which we should develop our ports and the railways which feed those ports. In the Budget debate last year the Minister of Transport stated that he was not in favour of the Saldanha development. He said that if Iscor financed the line and the harbour, he would be prepared to operate them but without accepting responsibility for the losses incurred. He said that the Cabinet had decided that Saldanha should be supported in preference to St. Croix. He would only reconsider St. Croix if Iscor failed to finance Saldanha. He then went on to say, in Hansard, Column 1202—

Now, there also comes the problem of how these schemes are to be developed. Here again the hon. the Minister leaves us in a position of some doubt and some uncertainty and, indeed, of some unhappiness in view of the economic condition of the country. The hon. the Minister has argued. and I think correctly in terms of the strict letter of the Constitution, that he is prohibited from incurring expenditure on the Railways which cannot be concurrently recovered from revenues. He said last year in the same debate, in Column 1182—

Now, the hon. the Minister has argued that this makes good economics, but I doubt it very much. In Africa, development over the centuries, and certainly over the last century, has very much tended to follow transport development. It is sometimes necessary to create a transport line, to build a line, shall we say, from South Africa to South-West Africa, to create a transport route from South Africa to Angola, and for this obligation to be incurred before we have certainty that the revenue generated by this transport line will in fact immediately pay for the capital costs and the interest, etc.

Sir, any businessman must be able and prepared to lay out money greater than he can immediately recover out of current revenues, and I believe that this orthodox method of financing, which certainly is enjoined upon the hon. the Minister by the Constitution, is in fact a limiting factor. It inhibits the Railways from rising to the demands and the needs of the present times. It inhibits their forward planning, and I believe that this is a major cause for the fact that in times of rapid growth the Railways have been unable to deal with the pressing problems of the day. But we see happy signs that there is nevertheless a tendency to grow out of this rather orthodox frame of mind. I notice in the current Estimates that the Airways propose to go overseas to borrow R18 million for purchasing aircraft. I think this is very sound and I have no quarrel with it at all, but what I find disturbing is the contradiction between what the hon. the Minister says and has told us in this House and what the Airways are now very sensibly doing. I also find this contradiction disturbing when one hears that the Railways will be going to private enterprise for assistance in the building of certain railway links. This again is very sensible and it would be admirable if those industries which are most concerned with the development of mineral exports, shall we say from an area like Wit-bank, and need facilities to carry vast volumes of traffic to Richard’s Bay, should make some contribution to the cost of the line if called upon to do so. In fact, the principle is also implicit in the Saldanha proposal, where it was in fact put to Iscor that they should land a contract which would guarantee the investment capital before the hon. the Minister would undertake to build the line.

We see here some glimmering of daylight; we see the light at the end of the tunnel, but what disturbs us is that on the one hand the hon. the Minister tells us that this is heresy and goes against the doctrine of the Railways and yet on the other hand we see it sensibly being done. We would like clarity from the Minister on this point, because if we knew where we were going, if he would confirm that he is in fact adopting this more enlightened approach, it would create a great deal of confidence in the country, particularly on the part of those industries which are struggling very hard to develop against this transport deadlock.

I have referred to these glimmerings of hope and I should like to commend the new General Manager of Railways for some of the statements he has made, which have in fact greatly encouraged industry. He has made statements which have certainly led to most favourable reactions from people with whom I have discussed these problems. I am glad to say, and should like to add my own congratulations, that the new General Manager of Railways has succeeded very well in gaining the confidence of those people who most need to be confident in the ability of the Railways to expand to meet the needs of a modern economy.

We would be grateful to the hon. the Minister of Transport if, when he replies to this debate, he would give us some light on what is happening as between the claims of Saldanha Bay and St. Croix harbour. It is important that the country should know what is happening because a great deal depends on the decision and on the order of priorities decided upon. A lot of people have been doing sums in this connection. Richard’s Bay is a commitment, and to quote round figures, is likely to cost in the order of R160 million. If the Government should decide, as it apparently did last year, that Saldanha Bay should have priority, we will then have two commitments running parallel. We shall have the Richard’s Bay commitment of R160 million and the Saldanha Bay commitment of about R400 million, making a total of capital to be found of R560 million. I do not guarantee that the figures are precisely accurate, but I think they are of that order. It has been calculated that for this capital outlay we will be enabled, through the use of these ports, to achieve foreign earnings of the order of R520 million by 1980. That is to say, we will spend R560 million between now and the time that these ports are ready and we achieve by 1980 some R520 million in foreign earnings. As against this there is the other possibility of proceeding with Richard’s Bay, which we accept as a commitment, and going ahead with St. Croix, for a total of R210 to R220 million, namely R160 million in respect of Richard’s Bay and some R50 or R60 million for St. Croix. That includes the strengthening of the railway line to Port Elizabeth, centralized traffic control and the new C trucks. It is all included in the total of R220 million, which according to a fairly conservative calculation will enable us, through these two ports, to achieve foreign earnings of R1 000 million, or double the foreign earnings which can be achieved through the other combination. The reason is quite obviously that these two ports can be made ready earlier and that these contracts that can be signed will enable us to earn a greater amount during the next 10 years when our needs will be the greatest.

We greatly welcome the information that the lines to Port Elizabeth could in fact carry additional traffic. We have welcomed the statements by the General Manager of Railways to the effect that with the use of new techniques such as centralized traffic control, ore to the extent of 20 to 26 million tons per year could be carried to the harbour of Port Elizabeth. This could make a great contribution to the economy of this country, a great contribution to our balance of trade and might help get us out of trouble at a time when our reserves are falling very low.

As against this whole background and against my own worries about the kind of inconsistency one seems to perceive in this situation, I have been looking at the Railway Budget. We find reassurance in the provisions made for the strengthening of the line to Port Elizabeth. We see provision made for signalling equipment and co-ordination by means of centralized traffic control. We take heart from this that, in fact, the Government has changed the order of priority mentioned in this House last year by the hon. the Minister when he said, all things being equal, all guarantees being obtained, Saldanha Bay would have priority. It looks as though things are going well for Port Elizabeth. We see further confirmation of what we hope will be quickly achieved, namely the building of rail links to Richard’s Bay. I see that, according to the Budget, a lot of money is being spent on the building of a line from Vryheid to the Empangeni-Richard’s Bay link. This looks good; it looks hopeful for the economy of this country. There is no evidence that money is being spent on the Sishen-Saldanha-link. I would be grateful to the hon. the Minister if he would tell us what is happening. We would welcome this link as well. We realize that one cannot do everything at once. But we do feel very strongly that it is most important to break down the bottleneck and to get our ores rolling to the coast as soon as we possibly can because our economy cries out for it.

We find then, in the Budget, these inconsistencies. We find, for example, that in the Witbank area there has been the purchase of a railway line in the Brood-snyersplaas area, but there is no indication whether in fact this purchase has anything to do with the link to Vryheid. It would appear not. This seems to be a different kettle of fish altogether, but we would be grateful to know what, in any event, is planned. Is the link between Broodsnyersplaas and Vryheid to be one of those areas where, in fact, private enterprise might be allowed to play a part? If so, as far as I am concerned, we would have no objection, and would regard this as a very enlightened move, though it would also be one which, as I have said before, appears to be inconsistent with what the Minister told us last year.

Sir, I speak purely as an economist and not as a railwayman. Therefore I stand open to correction. I put this more in the nature of an inquiry than a statement. Looked at from an economic point of view, we would like to have confirmation from the hon. the Minister that the Richard’s Bay plan is going forward according to programme. We would like to know from the Minister whether, in fact, the helpful and hopeful indication we have had of development towards Port Elizabeth, is in fact an indication that all is going well and that Port Elizabeth is receiving priority, because it is necessary for the economy of the country that Port Elizabeth—St. Croix should have priority for the simple reason, from the economic point of view, that we can earn more through St. Croix than we can do through Saldanha Bay. Furthermore we would be grateful if the Minister would tell us that he no longer believes, as he said last year, that there is no room in this country for two ports for mass transport vessels. We believe that the time is rapidly approaching when we will find that even St. Croix, Port Elizabeth and the other ports employed, such as Durban and Richard’s Bay, will be inadequate for the total ore export needs of this country. We believe that stage by stage, for economic reasons and for strategic reasons, we must begin to plan and to develop also in the direction of Saldanha Bay. My only plea is that we should get our priorities right.

I would like to conclude by begging this hon. Minister to take this House into his confidence. There is a great deal of uncertainty. The economy of this country and. indeed, the contribution of the mining companies who have so much to give to the economy of the country, depends on their knowing what is happening, on their being able to plan with confidence and on their being able to do business with their foreign associates and buyers with confidence. There has been a great area of uncertainty around this whole question and this breaks down confidence. I beg the hon. the Minister to take this House into his confidence because he can make or break the economy by either providing transport facilities for the economy at the right time or withholding them. In any event, while we feel that he will certainly be doing his best to provide what the country needs to break these bottlenecks, we implore him to tell us what the programme is, what kind of priorities we can look forward to and what kind of rate of achievement the industries of this country can depend upon.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Von Brandis made a plea in regard to the transportation and exportation of ore and coal. He made the accusation against the Railways that the ore and coal offering could not be transported and that large contracts had been lost as a result, and consequently foreign currency for this country as well. Whether this is true, I do not know. I believe the hon. the Minister will reply to it in due course.

Towards the end of his speech, the hon. member also referred to an aspect in regard to Saldanha Bay. I believe the hon. the Minister will reply to this too.

Mr. Speaker, five or six speakers on the United Party side have thus far taken part in this debate. I listened to them very carefully. When the hon. speakers spoke about the shortage of labour, they conveniently avoided mentioning the pleas made by the hon. member for Yeoville in the Budget debate last year, i.e. that non-Whites should be placed in posts which the Whites were prepared to relinquish to them. It is contained in columns 910 and 911 of last year’s Hansard. We are all aware of the double-talking which took place in that same debate when the hon. member for South Coast entered the debate.

Oh, no!

I hear one of the hon. members saying “Oh, no!” But if an hon. member wants to differ with me in regard to this matter, I can give him the Hansard columns chapter and verse where that speech appears. It appears in columns 1118, 1119 et seq.

You have played with that red herring until it stinks.

I must concede to the hon. member for Durban Point that he is the only member who conducted this debate on that note again. If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Durban Point again dared enter that field in this debate. If I took down my notes correctly, he said that “some jobs must be classified to be done by non-Whites”. Is this what the hon. member said?

It could be.

The hon. member says I heard him correctly and that my notes are correct. This is then in order to supplement the shortage of manpower. Now we again ask the hon. member in which posts he wants to place these non-Whites. Which posts must the Whites relinquish so that the non-Whites may be pushed in there? It will be of no use to the hon. members to make statements here and then to leave them hanging in the air. They must define their arguments clearly so that we. the hon. the Minister and the country outside may know what the policy of the United Party is in respect of this matter. In any case, the hon. member for Durban Point can define his argument further in the Third Reading debate and then he can tell us what exactly he meant when he said this.

We know that the South African Railways has to balance its own accounts. It cannot, of course, turn directly to the taxpayer in order to do that. An attempt must therefore be made to eliminate shortages by means of increasing its tariffs. This is one method. We know, too, that this is the first tariff increase in five years. For five years the tariffs have therefore remained constant. In the meanwhile, wages have increased drastically. The cost of material has increased in every facet of this undertaking. Furthermore, private contractors have submitted higher tenders and schemes have consequently become increasingly expensive. Now the hon. the Minister has levied an additional charge of 10 per cent, from which important categories are excluded, and now we have this great fuss on the part of the Opposition. The first speaker on the United Party side, the hon. member for Yeoville, said he was shocked. Now we ask how the Minister should obtain the money. How must the Minister finance the large schemes which are being planned and tackled, and how must he cover the wear and tear which is taking place all the time? How must it be done, especially if the increase in revenue does not keep pace with the expenditure incurred? Furthermore, all the speakers on the other side of this House made the allegation that there is a lack of planning. The main speaker of the United Party said last year that the South African Railways should be subsidized by the Government. Furthermore, he said that the Consolidated Revenue Fund should be used for that purpose. This year, however, the hon. member did not sing that same song. He has remained completely silent in that regard. Nevertheless, we should like to know from the hon. the Opposition and the hon. member according to what principles he and the Opposition would do it. Must the Constitution be changed and the independence of the South African Railways be forfeited? As regards the matter of the Rates Equalization Fund, which was raised here by various speakers, it is very clear from the Opposition’s argument thus far in this House, and also from what other persons have said outside this House, that the Opposition wanted the Rates Equalization Fund to have been used to cover this deficit. I am no great economist like the speaker who preceded me—to tell the truth, I am no economist—but I should like to make a little sum. The Rates Equalization Fund stands at R91.8 million at the moment. In his Budget speech, the Minister already indicated that the deficit of R13.4 million in the 1970-’71 Budget would be met from the Rates Equalization Fund. This will leave us with a balance of R78.4 million. According to the Minister’s Estimates for the current year, 1971-’72, the total deficit will be R64.8 million. Of this, the tariff increases should bring in an amount of R58.5 million. R6.3 million will then remain to be taken from the Rates Equalization Fund. In other words, if the entire amount of R64.8 million were to be charged to the Rates Equalization Fund, it would leave a balance of R13.6 million in the Rates Equalization Fund. The hon. members opposite have not told us how much money they want to take from the Rates Equalization Fund. I shall be very glad if one of the speakers after me would give us on this side of the House, the Government and the Minister an indication of the extent to which the United Party wants the Rates Equalization Fund to be burdened, especially in view of this shortage. Hon. members on the other side are not always consistent. I still remember, when I first started taking part in Railway debates, how insistent hon. members opposite, especially Mr. Hamilton Russell, were that no money should be taken from the Rates Equalization Fund. But now hon. members opposite are saying that this fund should be exhausted. I now want to ask hon. members opposite whether they want this fund to be exhausted.

Both statements, of course, are wrong.

In that case, the hon. member for Durban Point or any other member on that side should tell us what they regard as a safe amount to leave in the Rates Equalization Fund. This is my question, and I hope the next speaker on the other side will reply to it.

What do you regard as a safe amount to leave in it?

I am putting the question to hon. members on that side. I accept the arrangements made by the hon. the Minister in his Budget, and therefore it is not for me to reply to the question, but for hon. members opposite.

Various hon. members on the other side, including the hon. member for Yeoville at the beginning of his speech, said the amounts being requested for capital works were too large. In addition, the hon. member complained about lack of planning and about money being spent injudiciously, if I understood him correctly. He also said that the wrong time had been chosen for this. The question one involuntarily wants to put to the hon. member for Yeoville is when the time would be right. The hon. member for Durban Point complained blatantly about weak planning and as part of his argument to prove how weak the planning was, he referred to trucks which had not been delivered in time. I do not think the hon. member has a very good idea of what is going on. The reason for this was a shortage of steel, and this is not merely an “excuse”, as the hon. member for Salt River said. The undertakings manufacturing these trucks for the Railways are also experiencing a shortage of labour. As we know, a penalty clause is included in every contract. But we also know that this clause is applied in an equitable way where contractors who accept the work make it clear and provide proof that the circumstances were such that they were unable to complete the work and to fulfil the contract. They are then exempted from the provisions of that penalty clause. Two genuine reasons for this shortage of trucks are the shortage of steel and labour.

If I heard the hon. member for Salt River correctly, and I think I did, he very clearly contradicted himself in his speech. Initially, too, referred to the “considerable lack of planning”. Immediately afterwards, however, he said that “there is not so much a lack of planning as there is a lack of energy”. Now the hon. member for Salt River remains quite silent and will not admit that he said this. I want to repeat it. At one stage the hon. member referred to a “considerable lack of planning”. Only a few sentences later, however, he said, “not so much a lack of planning, but a lack of energy”. I do not know whether the hon. member has a “lack of energy” now so that he cannot reply to my question. Every year we hear these complaints about the hon. the Minister by hon. members on the other side. In the first place, we hear time and again that there is a lack of planning. In the second place, we hear that the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet lack the vision to recognize the growth potential of South Africa. In the third place, the Minister is accused of thinking too small. These allegations are not only misplaced and unfair—I think they are absolutely false. [Interjections.] Let us test them; those hon. members have no reason to laugh; I shall prove it. From the entire magnitude of this undertaking the hon. member for Durban Point extracted a few examples here and there in order to show where there was a lack of planning. I am going to cover a wider field now. Let us test the matter of planning by the true facts. The South African Railways has a Planning Board. I want hon. members to listen very carefully who serves on that board. The chairman of this board is a Deputy General Manager. Others serving on that board are the head of Planning and Productivity, the Assistant General Manager in charge of Harbours and Pipelines, the Assistant General Manager (Operating), the Assistant General Manager (Trade) and the Chief Civil Engineer. I now ask the Opposition and any person outside this House who can pass an objective judgment, where can one fined a more select group of persons to determine the future of an industry? When the Opposition accuses the Minister of lacking vision and of thinking too small, surely it is levelling an accusation at these select men?

Never!

The Opposition is definitely levelling an accusation at those select persons, those senior officials, as well.

On practically every page of this fine annual report for 1969-’70 of the South African Railways and Harbours, the General Manager mentions the results of judicious planning. What is more, every page of the Minister’s Budget speech exudes the spirit of judicious planning and positive thinking. This rapidly developing economy imposes tremendous demands and challenges on the Railways and its carrying capacity. We know that the Railways play a key role in the country’s economy. The enormous capital expenditure required by the large expansion planned, proves that the challenges are being accepted. The South African Railways sees it way clear to fending for itself, to obtaining its own funds without having to receive assistance from outside.

Expansion, modernization, mechanization and judicious planning are the watchwords of the hon. the Minister’s Budget. It is not an indication of stagnation and a standstill, as hon. members of the Opposition want to suggest. It indicates growth and progress. A person by the name of Paul Dold, who commented on this Budget in The South African Financial Gazette of 12th March, 1971, summarized it as follows—

This is precisely the field ventured into by the previous speaker a while ago.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.