Mr. Speaker, I am always very interested to see the hon. member for Yeoville perform. The contrast between his performance on Wednesday last and on Monday was simply unbelievable. On Monday he was moderate, sedate and he made a good speech. On Wednesday, however, he was as we have come to know him—more entertaining than any music hall turn. We had the flood of words, the simulated indignation, the emotional appeals, the exaggerations, the lowering and raising of his voice, the dramatic pauses, waiting for applause from the gallery. The hon. member is a consummate actor; I do not think there is anybody in this House who can compare with him.

You are jealous, Ben.

I am. As I have said, there is nobody in the House who can compare with him. But, having said all that, Sir, I want to repeat what I have said before : The hon. member for Yeoville is probably the best and most competent debater on that side of the House. I am really grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for having appointed him as chief spokesman on transport eight years ago. He is a worthy opponent. Just imagine, Sir, on what level this debate would have been conducted if, for instance, the hon. member for Orange Grove had been their chief spokesman on transport! [Interjections.] Or even worse, the hon. member for Hillbrow ! Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville has his weaknesses. He is rather wobbly on facts and figures, he does not always do his homework thoroughly, and sometimes he allows his tongue to run away with his mind, as it did last Wednesday. On Wednesday last, the hon. member for Yeoville made a statement to which I and all right-thinking South Africans must take the strongest exception. The hon. member said, “Devaluation is an act of insolvency”. When an individual or a company becomes insolvent, it means that that individual or company cannot meet its liabilities. That individual or company cannot pay its debts. In other words, that individual or company is bankrupt.

That is what insolvency means.

That is what insolvency means, and I am trying to explain it, so that the hon. member can really grasp the implications of what he said. Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville is not an insignificant back-bencher. After all, he is the de facto Deputy Leader of the United Party, and what he says is taken notice of. He has actually told the world that South Africa is bankrupt.

No, I said you committed an act of insolvency.

Well, what the hon. member said, comes to the same thing: South Africa is bankrupt; it is an act of insolvency. He told the world that South Africa is in other words bankrupt. [Interjections.] He told all the potential investors in South Africa: “Do not invest here; South Africa is bankrupt, because devaluation was an act of bankruptcy, an act of insolvency.” What other interpretation can one place on that?

It is set out in the Act. Go and read the law; find out what it means.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville told the world and potential investors that South Africa is bankrupt; that is what it amounts to. I cannot for a moment think that he really meant that; apparently not, if I listen to the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition.

I meant what I said, but not what you interpret it to mean.

Mr. Speaker, that is the only interpretation that any sane person can place upon what the hon. member said. He said devaluation is an act of insolvency.

It is.

He says it is an act of insolvency; in other words, South Africa is bankrupt and that is why we devalued. Sir, no other interpretation can be placed upon what the hon. member said. He said South Africa is in fact bankrupt. I think that if the hon. member denies that that is what he said, he owes an apology, not to me or to the House, but to South Africa. I do not know why loyalty to a party should come before loyalty to his country, and why he should deliberately harm South Africa for the sake of scoring a debating point. That is why I say he owes an apology, or otherwise he owes an explanation of what he really meant, when he has an opportunity of speaking again, so that South Africa and the world can know what he meant. I hope he will do so.

The hon. member complimented me on my labour policy. Sir, there is an old saying: “Beware the Greeks when they bring gifts”, and I am not flattered at all. I know that the real intention of the hon. member is to play me off against my colleagues. But let me say this: I want to debunk that; my policy is entirely within the framework of the Government’s policy. [Interjections.] My labour policy is controlled employment of non-Whites in positions formerly occupied by Whites. That is the policy, controlled employment of non-Whites, with the concurrence of the trade unions, in positions formerly occupied by Whites. That is the policy which has been time and again enunciated by my colleague the Minister of Labour. He has time and again said …

When?

Even last session. If hon. members would look at Hansard, they would see that during the last session my colleague the Minister of Labour said that the policy of the Government is the controlled employment of non-Whites. If hon. members will only throw their minds back, they will remember that he said that during the last session of Parliament. [Interjections.] I said that he said that time and again. The theme of speeches on that side was the labour shortage. Of course, they blame the Government for being irresponsible, for not allowing the non-Whites to progress, and for not allowing non-Whites to be employed in positions formerly occupied by Whites. And they always come back to job reservation. Mr. Speaker, that is a bogy. The impression is sought to be created that industrial development is being retarded because of job reservation. What are the actual facts? Statutory job reservation is applied to the following industries and undertakings : The clothing industry, for the benefit of the non-Whites; the Municipal Council in Durban, only for heavy motor vehicle drivers; in the Iron, Steel and Engineers Company, but that has been suspended for the duration of the Industrial Council Agreement; in the Municipality of Cape Town, but that has been suspended since 1962; lift-drivers of the Municipalities of Johannesburg, Bloemfontein and Pretoria; the building industry in the Transvaal and Orange Free State: the municipal undertaking in Springs, only in the health department; passenger transport in the Cape Peninsula, as far as conductors and drivers are concerned; heavy motor vehicle drivers in Odendaalsrus, Ventersburg, Virginia and Welkom; certain work in the abattoirs on the Witwatersrand and in Pretoria: the building industry in the Cape Province and Natal; barmen in the municipal areas of Durban and Pietermaritzburg; then again, heavy motor vehicle drivers in Durban: Motor Assemblies in the Republic of South Africa; barmen in the Western Cape and Natal; motor drivers again in the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and Natal: the furniture industry in the Republic of South Africa: the motor industry in certain districts of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State; motor drivers in Union Liquid Air Company in the Transvaal and Orange Free State; barmen in the Western Cape; barmen in the municipal area of East London; motor drivers in the municipal area of Port Elizabeth; assembly plant in Pretoria, and in the mining industry “inwerk verbonde aan monsterneming, opmeting en ventilasie” in the Republic of South Africa.

Are you trying to prove that it does not work?

Those are the undertakings to which statutory job reservation was actually applicable at the end of last year. Can anybody tell me that job reservation as applicable to those industries retards industrial expansion in South Africa? It is a ridiculous statement to make.

You have not mentioned moulders.

I have mentioned the steel and engineering industries; that has been suspended for the duration of the industrial agreement.

What are you trying to prove?

I am trying to prove that it is a bogy, a fantasy, when hon. members say that job reservation is retarding industrial expansion; that is what I am saying.

Why then do you keep it on the Statute Book?

I want to say another thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that in the Apprenticeship Act there is no colour bar. The indenturing of apprentices is in the hands of the apprenticeship committees, and the apprenticeship committees are composed of employers’ and employees’ representatives. There is no colour bar in the Apprenticeship Act, but not one single non-European has ever been indentured, as far as I know, in the northern provinces. Why not? It is not due to Government regulations or Government action. It is simply because the employers and employees are not prepared to indenture non-Europeans. Why do hon. members opposite not blame the employers and employees who are members of these apprenticeship committees for not indenturing non-Whites? Sir, I want to test the sincerity of hon. members on the other side. I want to know whether they are prepared to remove the colour bar in the Mines and Works Act if they come into power. If they are not prepared to remove the colour bar, will they undertake to endeavour to persuade the relevant trade unions to agree to the removal of that colour bar? I hope we are going to get a straight answer to that, because that will be a test of the sincerity of hon. members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville said that I was silent on certain points in my Budget speech. He said that I did not say anything about investigating the part which private enterprise would play in providing the infrastructure for our transport system. But the Marais Commission dealt with the co-ordination of transport and only reported a year or two ago, and we dealt fully with the recommendations of that commission.

You said they were superficial.

Yes, some of them were superficial, but others were accepted by me. Does the hon. member want another investigation, apart from the Marais Commission? Did he want me to say in my Budget speech that I was going to have a new investigation into the co-ordination of transport to help the infrastructure of our transport system?

You could have apologized to Dr. Marais.

No, I could not apologize; I told Dr. Marais that when he was in my office. Another point on which the hon. member said I was silent was that I did not say what the Railways were going to do now that the Japanese have broken off negotiations with South Africa with regard to the purchase of iron ore. But, Sir, I do not do those negotiations. I am not responsible for negotiating with the Japanese steel mills for the supply of ore. I am merely there to provide transport when those contracts have been entered into and when the producers start railing ore for export to Japan. I am not building the line to Saldanha Bay. Iscor is responsible for the building of that line.

Do you build the harbour?

No, I am not building the harbour. Iscor is entirely responsible for the financing and the building of the railway line from Sishen to Saldanha Bay and for building the harbour in Saldanha Bay. I am prepared to operate the line and the harbour as a guaranteed line and a guaranteed harbour. I am not building the ore terminal at St. Croix. If it is going to be built, it will be built by private enterprise. They are entirely responsible for the building and the financing of that project.

*The whole matter of Saldanha and St. Croix was fully debated here a few weeks ago, and my colleague the Minister of Economic Affairs replied fully to the debate. He mentioned the reasons why the Government had decided on Saldanha and not St. Croix. It is not necessary to repeat that debate here now. As far as I personally am concerned, I have to deal with the provision of transport facilities. I have nothing to do with the building of the lines either to St. Croix or to Saldanha.

The calculation of the cost as well?

No, that is the responsibility of the people who are going to build the line. I am responsible for the operation of the line; that is correct, but I am concerned in the matter only to that extent. It was a Cabinet decision.

†I told the hon. member for Von Brandis by way of interjection that if he can get Wilhelmi to submit written evidence to the Government that the Japanese steel mills are prepared to enter into contracts if St. Croix is built, then we can consider the matter. We cannot go on newspaper reports. I am not prepared to accept newspaper reports as to what the Jap steel mills want to do and what they do not want to do.

Why don’t you call them “Japanese”?

What difference does it make to the hon. member whether I call them “Japs” or “Japanese”? It is no concern of his. Sir, the hon. member also said that I was silent on the claims of the staff.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Wilhelmi cannot go on because of the rejection of St. Croix announced by the Minister of Economic Affairs, he will give at least conditional approval for the building and the operation of the ore terminal?

Mr. Wilhelmi must first of all get an undertaking from the Japanese steel mills that they will enter into contracts if St. Croix is built. I do not believe those newspaper reports. The Japanese have also abrogated their contracts with Australia. They are reducing their imports of ore because there is a recession in Japan and because of the overproduction of steel. I am not prepared to accept these stories in the newspapers. If Wilhelmi can get a written undertaking from the Japanese steel mill owners that they will enter into contracts for the purchase of a considerable amount of ore if St. Croix is built, then we can reconsider it.

Will you then approve of the building of St. Croix?

Then we will consider it.

Sir, the hon. member also said that I was silent on the claims of the staff. Did the hon. member really expect me to announce wage concessions in the Budget amounting to R70 million or R80 million, which would inevitably result in substantial increases in rates and tariffs? The hon. member and certain other hon. members, on that side said that they were very pleased that I was not increasing rates and tariffs. They cannot have it both ways. When there is a deficit of almost R40 million, you cannot make concessions to the staff costing R70 million or R80 million. The staff know what my position is; I have told them before that if the money is there, they can get the benefit of it, and if there is no money they cannot get any concessions, and they have known that for the 17 years that I have been Minister of Transport.

Sir, continuing his speech on Monday, the hon. member for Yeoville—as I say, he was very restrained and sedate—said that in my Budget speech there were no signs of a new militant, bright, imaginative approach to the problems of the Railways. “Militant, bright, imaginative.” Sir, that hon. member really knows how to use words; that is a very attractive phrase, but what does he mean by “militant, bright and imaginative”? When dealing with a business undertaking such as the Railways, I cannot allow my imagination to run away with me. I think that would be very dangerous.

The hon. member also spent some time in dealing with the disadvantages of devaluation. Sir, I never said that devaluation was a panacea for all our economic ills. I realize only too well that it has disadvantages, mainly as a result of high prices for all the materials we have to import. What I did say was the following. I said the general realignment of currencies and the devaluation of the rand have improved South Africa’s competitive position in the export markets, not only in the case of primary products, but also for many industries and the manufacturing sector; imports replacement industries will naturally benefit primarily, but exporters who are for example processing foodstuffs will now enjoy considerable price advantages over their competitors in countries like Australia and New Zealand, and the outlook for South African products generally on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, are now brighter. In summing up I said that it was expected that devaluation would provide a strong stimulus to growth generally and that economic activities will develop more favourably during the latter half of the year; it was on this basis that the Railway Budget for 1972-’73 was prepared. But I am not the only one to say that. All knowledgeable people and industrialists say the same, that this will be a stimulus to industrial growth. But I certainly did not say that it was a panacea for all economic ills, and I stand by what I said.

It was the only hope you held out.

My only hope is that there will be economic growth as a result of the measures taken by the Government and those the Government will take, and I hope that as a result of that my deficit might be wiped out at the end of the year.

The hon. member also said the following, and I am quoting now—

What are those things which amazed the hon. member? The first was the reduced contribution to the pension fund, but that has nothing to do with the deficit. It is one of a number of measures affecting the pension fund which was introduced from 1st April, 1971, as a result of the unanimous recommendation by the joint committee of management. This is part of those measures, a reduction in the contribution. Secondly, the hon. member spoke about reducing the contributions to the Renewals Fund in two instances. That was not disguised. I announced that in my Budget speech. But what is the position? The permanent way section of the balance as at 31st March, 1971, is R25 million. The pipeline is a new asset and has a credit balance of R11,5 million, and the expenditure for next year is estimated at only R52 000. The hon. member criticized the delay in the Kensington-Bellville line, seeing that the Construction Bill was passed in 1945. His words were, quoting again—

That was in 1945 and I interjected to ask why he did not build a line if it was so necessary. Do you know what the hon. member said, Sir? He said, “Why do you not ask his spirit?” [Interjections.] Why do I not ask the late Mr. Sturrock’s spirit? I do not know whether the hon. member has any contact with that wise old Scotsman’s spirit, and I do not think that wise old spirit will still concern himself with the Bill that was passed 27 years ago. In any case, I do not know where to find that spirit whom I must ask about this. If the hon. member can enlighten me I will be very pleased.

Then the hon. member quoted the Franzsen Commission’s report in regard to financing capital works from revenue, and he juggled with figures, which I do not want to deal with now. Apparently the hon. member has not studied the Brown Book neither this year, nor in previous years. It has always been my policy to take as much as I possibly can from revenue to finance capital expenditure. This year alone loan funds amount to R182 million. Funds from revenue that I am using for capital expenditure—and you will find it in the Brown Book—amount to R242 million. That 56 per cent of my capital expenditure comes from revenue.

The hon. member dealt with low-rated goods and he quoted the Schumann Commission, but not quite correctly. The Schumann Commission did not recommend that the only principle in rating should be the cost. What the Schumann Commissions said was cost plus what the traffic can bear, and that is the policy. The Schumann commission did not recommend subsidies. The Schumann Commission did recommend that the gap between low-rated and high-rated goods should be narrowed, and that probably will be done, but it will have to be done gradually. But you cannot accept the cost principle alone. If you accept that it means that gold, the most valuable metal, the transport cost of which is really negligible, must be compared with the cost of transport of vegetables, which is very high. If you accept the cost principle only, it means that gold must go at the lowest rate and vegetables must go at the highest rate. So obviously you must still combine the cost principle with what the traffic can bear. As I say, the Schumann Commission made numerous recommendations, many of which have been accepted and implemented, but there are certain recommendations I cannot accept.

One recommendation is that passenger services should pay for themselves. My loss on passenger services last year was R89 million. The hon. member will realize what the effect would be on the general public and on the cost of living in general, if I were to make passenger services pay to recoup the R89 million lost on the running. Agricultural products were transported at a loss of R57 million. What would the effect be on the cost of living if the rates had to be increased sufficiently so that that deficit can be eliminated? And, Sir, the consumers benefit by these low rates, and not only the users of the Railways; in respect of food, vegetables and meat the consumers benefit from these low rates. If the rates on raw materials were increased substantially, who would suffer? Obviously the consumer would suffer, because the manufactured article would be so much more expensive.

*The hon. member for Parow also referred to this and said that the Treasury should compensate for it. I think the day we accept the principle that the Treasury must make good the deficits of the Railways we would be accepting a very dangerous principle.

But you are doing it for Bantu passengers.

No, but that is where the Railways are instructed, in terms of Government policy, to provide certain services, and provision is made for that. If the hon. member would only read the Constitution, he would see that provision is made for that. But having general subsidies on vegetables, raw materials, coal and passenger services is a principle we simply cannot accept. Then these Railways would be placed in exactly the same position as the British Railways. In other words, there would be no interest in whether expenditure increased or not, because they would know that the Treasury had to help. It would be very pleasant for me if I had a deficit at the end of the year and could simply go to my colleague the Minister of Finance and tell him that I had a deficit of R30 million or R40 million and that he had to make it good, but I think it would be a particularly unhealthy principle, which we simply cannot accept. Furthermore, we must remember that in order to obtain that money, the State would have to levy taxation, and all the hon. members and all the consumers, as well as all the users of the Railways, would have to pay that taxation. I must agree that the gap between low-rated and high-rated goods must be narrowed, but it must be done very judiciously.

†One thing struck me very forcibly in the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville, namely that there was not one word of praise for the very fine achievements of the Railways during the past year. I can only mention a few. There are the heavy ore trains that are running now, the heaviest ore trains in the history of the Railways, the heaviest and the longest trains in the whole of Africa. There was not one word of praise although that was quite an achievement, ore trains of 12 000 tons running from Sishen. There was not one word about electronic truck control, which is quite a new innovation. I want to invite the hon. member to go to the head office in Johannesburg after the session and see how truck control works. He will be very interested. It is an exceptionally modern electronic method of controlling trucks and permits of knowing where every truck on a system is at a particular time.

Invitation accepted.

Very well. The hon. member did not have a word of praise for the Saafari Airways booking system which was introduced last year. There was no word of praise for the fact that the Railways had the highest productivity of any undertaking in South Africa. That is not only due to the workmen doing their job as they should, but also as a result of the introduction of modern methods, e.g. mechanization, automation and good management. The Railways have the highest productivity of any undertaking. I think we can set an example to all private undertakings. Not one word of praise came from that hon. member. A little bit of praise would have been a considerable encouragement to my people. Don’t praise me; praise the railwaymen who are responsible for this.

The hon. member for Gardens spoke about the dry dock that was going to be built, or about the construction of which there was some talk, in the Duncan Dock. There were no negotiations as far as I am concerned. This was merely a suggestion made by the I.D.C., namely that they would build a big dry dock in the Duncan Dock. I personally think it is quite impracticable to have a dock of that size in Duncan Dock.

The hon. member also spoke about the 747s. These were ordered last year in order to meet the demand, both externally and internally. We are quite sure that we will be able to fly them profitably.

I have nothing to do with the purchase and operating of ships belonging to private companies. He spoke about tankers that belonged to the I.D.C. I am concerned with the ports and not about the ships.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City spoke about the rail-on and railoff containers. This is a matter for the shipping companies. They have to build the container ships. In any case, I think the suggestion made by Travel and Trade that there should be rail-on and rail-off container trains is quite impracticable. Primarily it is the responsibility of the shipping companies.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the crash training programme, namely six weeks, was too short. It may be too short in certain instances, but if it is found that there must be longer training for certain jobs longer training will be given. At the moment the training period for Bantu train compilers is from four to six weeks, before they sit for an examination. Up to now they have done very well in their examinations after such short training. It all depends on the jobs they are going to do. If the training time is, however, regarded as insufficient, the training period will be lengthened.

Then the hon. member listed a number of staff grievances. I think it is quite wrong to discuss individual grievances across the floor of this House. I think it is most embarrassing to the servants concerned if their names have to be mentioned across the floor of the House. I do not think they would like it; I think it is wrong. The hon. member has an opportunity of getting both sides of a case. Now he only hears one side of a case and he raises the matter here. If he would only take the trouble of coming to my office, I would give him the other side of the case too. Then he could raise the matter if he is not satisfied. I want to give an example of some of the matters that he raised. I am not going to deal with all cases individually. Although the hon. member did not mention names, I immediately got the reports of those cases. In the first case I can name the person too because he has already resigned from the Railways. This is a certain T. A. Slater, a clerk, grade I. He was fined R15 for, as the hon. member said, taking leave for a longer period than he should have taken. In this particular case he applied for leave from 21st June to 30th July. He was told by the staff clerk in the presence of another clerk that he could only get leave from the 21st June to the 17th July. It simply did not concern him. He remained away and only arrived back at his work on the 29th July. A disciplinary inquiry was held where he was present. The disciplinary officer found that the charge was substantiated and he was fined R15. What is wrong with that? He had the opportunity of appealing further.

Then there was another case which the hon. member raised of a station foreman who had a small bottle of brandy in his cabin. Surely, the hon. member realizes and knows that a station foreman who has to do with the safety of the trains, cannot be allowed to take liquor while on duty.

Why did he stay on the job for five months afterwards?

Very often we do not suspend these officers until the disciplinary case has been dealt with. We do not suspend everybody. Obviously not. If we suspend them it means that they have no income at all.

The safety of the people are involved.

Yes, when they are drinking. Then you are concerned with safety; that is when he is under the influence of liquor. After five months he was dismissed from the Service. He appealed to the Disciplinary Appeal Board and by their unanimous decision he was degraded to a checker and taken away from the duties of a station foreman. The hon. member knows that the disciplinary machinery of the Railways is much better than any other disciplinary machinery in any other Government department. As a matter of fact, civil servants have no disciplinary machinery at all. When Railway servants are found guilty of a disciplinary infringement, they have the right to appeal either to the Disciplinary Appeal Board, on which they are represented, or to the General Manager and the Railway Board. Servants can make use of this right to appeal. Servants have their own representatives on the Disciplinary Appeal Board; in other words, they are judged by their own people. In this particular case the station foreman appealed to the Disciplinary Appeal Board and its recommendation was unanimous, namely that he was guilty, but that there were extenuating circumstances and they reduced his sentence from a dismissal to a reduction in grade.

The hon. member also said that servants had been fined for refusing to work overtime, but we cannot find any record of any servant in Natal having been fined for refusing to work overtime. What happened was that certain servants were booked to work 12-hour shifts and that they turned up at 10 p.m. instead of 6 p.m. Of course, they were fined for being late on duty. They were not fined for refusing to work overtime. My department could not find any instances where servants were fined for refusing to work overtime, and if the hon. member has any particular case he must tell me about it.

I gave you cases in the Cape last year.

I have had inquiries made in Natal and have been told that there are no cases on record where any servant was fined for refusing to work overtime. Certain servants who were rostered to work 12-hour shifts arrived at work four hours late and these were fined.

I could also find no record of any servant having been asked which party he was going to vote for.

Of course you won’t find it.

If the hon. member gives me the particulars I will go into the matter. If he supplies me with the servant’s name and a statement by that particular servant, I will investigate the matter, but we have no record of anybody having been asked that. As a matter of fact. I have never asked a Railway servant what his politics are. There are numerous railwaymen who serve on United Party committees and I have never stopped them from doing that. There are also numerous railwaymen serving on National Party committees and they are at liberty to do so. I am not concerned about their politics; I am concerned about them as railwaymen about doing their jobs like they should. There will always be grievances. As one railwayman to another I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will agree with me that the railwayman who has no grievance is no railwayman at all.

Then I suggest that you help no railwayman.

The hon. member was a railwayman and he always had his grievances.

The hon. member for Durban Point made some fair criticisms to which I can take no exception. I will briefly reply to his criticisms. The first was in connection with the Vryheid/Empangeni railway line. I readily agree that there was a slip-up when I spoke in my Budget speech about the electrified railway line. In December last year it was decided that that line would not be electrified. The reasons are as follows: The line was originally planned in 1966, specifically to afford relief to the Natal main line and to serve Richard’s Bay harbour. The intention was to electrify this line to fit in with the Natal electrification pattern prevailing at that time. The line was designed for vacuum-brake trains with a maximum possible load in the order of 4 000 tons. The Transvaal coal interests commenced negotiations with Japan in 1969-’70 and during December, 1970, the Government agreed to the export of some 9 million tons of Transvaal coal annually through Richard’s Bay harbour. To cope with the export programme the line had to be redesigned to cater for air-brake unit trains of 6 000 tons. It was doubtful whether multiple electric units could handle 6 000 ton trains. Diesels are much more versatile. Therefore we have decided to stop the electrification of the line and to switch over to diesels. The fruitless expenditure amounts to R500 000 but there is a saving in capital expenditure of between R5 million and R6 million.

The hon. member made a point about travelling concessions being withdrawn from servants’ children undergoing military training. Free-pass Instruction No. 46 provides that children must normally be resident with and dependent upon the servant for support and must not receive remuneration and other income in excess of R40 per month. This also applies for servants’ children undergoing compulsory military training, who are not resident with their parents and dependent upon them for support. Privileges received by them whilst undergoing training exceeds R40 per month. So my officials were quite right in issuing that circular. I am prepared, however, to make an exception in this case and to withdraw the circular and allow them to have these concessions.

In regard to the swamp area on the Empangeni-Richard’s Bay line, I can only say that, when the estimates were prepared, provision was made for a bank across the Nsezi swamp. From borings taken along the line of the embankment, it was known that considerable settlement of the bank would take place. Because of soft clay material up to 120 ft. the amount of settlement was not predictable. The final cost is not available, but it will not be as high as 200 per cent.

*The hon. member for Bloemfontein District requested that when steam locomotives are withdrawn completely, they should be kept available in case of emergency. This will certainly be borne in mind.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke about the proposed rail link between Mabopane and Pretoria. The Bosman Street station has also reached maximum capacity. The building of the line also entails additional railway stations. The only reason why construction has not been proceeded with, is lack of capital funds. As soon as the capital funds are available construction will commence.

The Soweto train service has improved considerably. There was an inspection on 24th November last year by senior officials. They found that, out of a total of 62 trains during the evening peak period from 4.15 p.m. to 6 p.m. from the Johannesburg complex to Soweto, eleven trains were 100 per cent full, seven were 95 per cent full, twelve were 90 per cent full, six were 85 per cent full, eight were 80 per cent full and eighteen were less than 75 per cent full. None of the trains shown as 100 per cent full were overcrowded. As in the past, inspection duties will be carried out from time to time in order to effect the most advantageous adjustments to the service. Considerable improvements are going to be made in those services. Seventeen eleven-coach train sets have already been strengthened by one additional coach each. Nine additional train sets comprising 99 new sliding-door coaches earmarked for other areas, have been switched to the Soweto service, making a total of 35 sliding-door sets. By the end of 1973 all swing-door coaches on this service will have been replaced. There are improved maintenance facilities, additional safety and communication measures, etc. There is a whole list of improvements that are going to take place on that service. I can give it to the hon. member in private because I do not want to weary the House with it.

Quite a number of hon. members on that side of the House spoke of the Opposition taking over the Government in the near future.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Durban Point was one and the hon. member for Constantia another. They seem to be super-optimistic. Even the greatest super-optimist on that side of the House, however, does not think that at the next general election the Opposition will win 40 seats from the Nationalist Party, which is the number they require in order to take office.

Yes, we will!

Even the super-optimists cannot believe that. It is simply impossible.

You do not even know what is happening in your party.

Let us for the sake of argument say that they might be able to take office in 10 years’ time, although I doubt whether they will be able to do it even then. Let us argue on that basis. The week-end Argus always has a comic supplement, but on Saturday before last it had two comic supplements, the usual one and one on the middle page. There was also a drawing of the rogues’ gallery naming all the shadow Ministers of the United Party. They were all sitting over here, as hon. members can see. Then they gave a short biography of all the future Cabinet Ministers of the United Party Government when they come into power. Remember, for the sake of argument we are taking it 10 years from now. They start with the Leader of the Opposition and they say—

They say that they are coming back into fashion, as is the man who has made them his trade-mark, Sir De Villiers Graaff. I do not see any wide lapels and a double-breasted suit; he is wearing a single-breasted suit. However, the main thing that I am getting at is that he is 58 years old now and in 10 years’ time he will be 68.

Still younger than you.

Yes, now, but in 10 years’ time he will be 68. That is quite old for a Prime Minister.

Are you getting out, Ben?

I realize that General Smuts was 69 when he became Prime Minister and I think we all agree that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is half the man General Smuts was.

How old was Dr. Malan?

Let me deal with the Cabinet and then the hon. member can fight back. The hon. member asked how old Dr. Malan was. He was 75, but does the hon. member expect to become Prime Minister at 75? [Interjections.] Then we come to the hon. member for Yeoville. He is 57 years old; so in 10 years’ time he will be 67, which is about my age at the moment. If he can do the job then as well as I do mine, he will be welcome. Then they referred to the hon. member for Parktown. What are his qualifications? It says—

I know the dome is bald, but I have not seen it tanned yet. He is 62 years old, and in 10 years’ time will therefore be 72. It is quite an advanced age for a Minister of Finance. Then we come to the member for Hillbrow. Now listen to what they say about him. They call him “the man from Heaven”. [Interjections.] If he is the man from Heaven, I would like to see what the man from the other place looks like! [Interjections.] Now we come to the hon. member for Durban Point. His qualification is his weight. They say he weighs 235 lbs., and he is the shadow Minister of Defence. They say the hon. member for Newton Park’s biggest qualification for becoming the Minister of Agriculture is that he was responsible for bringing up the issue of the R118 000 Land Bank loan to Mr. Haak, which was repaid.

Where is Mr. Haak, and where is he?

I am talking about the qualifications. The Argus have given him those qualifications, and not me. I know this is adolescent humour, but still it is supposed to be a responsible newspaper. Then we go to the hon. member for Green Point. He is 62 years of age; so in 10 years’ time he will be 72 years of age. The hon. member for Zululand’s main qualification is that when he was a Senator he broke the sugar scandal in 1968, when a Cape Nationalist was given the lease on 1 200 acres of South Africa’s best sugar-growing land. That is his main qualification to become a Minister. A Select Committee is going into that matter and they still have to report.

Will it ever report?

I hope so. I have been told they will report before the Budget debate.

The hon. member for Rosettenville is 66 years old, so in ten years’ time he will be 76. He would be even older than Dr. Malan when he became Prime Minister. The hon. member for South Coast is “the grand old man of the shadow Cabinet” at 75. In ten years’ time he would be 85.

You haven’t got members who can be Cabinet Ministers at 85 on your side.

It is going to be something quite exceptional. Just imagine a Minister of 85. I think there would be some, and they can be proud of them. I think the hon. member is going to be a very good Minister at 85.

Then I come to the hon. member for Wynberg, Mrs. Catherine Taylor.

How old am I?

They very tactfully do not give her age, but we all know that in ten years’ time she will be in her early thirties ! [Applause.]

Lastly we have to deal with the member for Bezuidenhout, Mr. Japie Basson. All I can say about him is, will he still be there? He is already half-way on the road to the Progressives. This is the shadow Cabinet. Well, I think it looks more like an old-age home where senility will be rampant.

In ten years’ time they will all have had seven years’ Cabinet experience.

Provided they become members of the Parliamentary Debating Society in Cape Town, they would probably have the experience of Cabinet Ministers by then.

What about Jan Moolman?

Yes, I have not mentioned him. He is there too, but I think in 10 years’ time he will be over 70 as well. Sir, there is an English expression “from the sublime to the ridiculous”. We have now passed beyond the “ridiculous”.

I readily concede that this is probably the most difficult financial and economic period this Government has ever experienced in the 24 years it has been in power. There is no doubt about that. The reasons for the economic lull have been explained repeatedly during this session to this House and to the country by my colleagues. This situation is not peculiar to South Africa, but is virtually a world situation at the moment. In Great Britain, in the United States of America and in European countries the economic lull prevailing there is accompanied by serious unemployment. In fact, in England the unemployment figure is over a million, while we here in South Africa are so fortunate that we still have full employment.

Of the Whites.

What does the hon. member know about the non-Whites and about their position? Has he any figure he can furnish to this House?

[Inaudible.]

Oh no, that is simply confused talk. I repeat, this situation is not peculiar to South Africa; it is a world situation. We have full employment in South Africa, and we are very fortunate. But, Sir, South Africa is resilient and is a country of tremendous achievement. Therefore I have great confidence in the future of South Africa and I am convinced that we shall solve our problems, overcome our difficulties and make our country prosperous.

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

Upon which the House divided :

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1 : Revenue Services, R1 144 922 000 and Schedule 2: Capital and Betterment Services, R257 500 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I request the privilege of the half-hour? Before I confine myself under the appropriation of the Minister’s salary to certain matters of policy raised by the Minister in his speech, I unfortunately have to beg your indulgence to refer to a certain incident which occurred recently in the course of a speech in this House by the hon. member for Rustenburg. On Wednesday, in the course of my speech, while I was speaking with appreciation of 1 250 rail-workers who had been promoted to graded posts on the Railways, I used the following expression in English: “No fewer than 1 250 poor White people in South Africa.” This is how it appears in the English version of Hansard. In the course of his speech the hon. member for Rustenburg accused me of having spoken of “poor Whites” — “armblankes”. I can understand that he could have made such a mistake; anybody can make such a mistake, but see what happened in the course of his speech : He was speaking (Hansard, 13/3, page TT.2)—

I then said by way of interjection, “poor White people”, as recorded in Hansard. The hon. member then said: “Here it is in Hansard—‘poor Whites’.” I am drawing the attention of this House to this because the hon. member alleged that he had Hansard in front of him and that I had used the expression “poor Whites”, whereas I had in actual fact said “poor White people”. I then repeated—

*Dr. P. Bodenstein: The hon. member for Yeoville spoke of “poor Whites”. Sir, I regret having to raise this, but it is something which can lead to ugly things in politics. We are all grateful in South Africa that, thanks to the action of the first United Party after 1933, there are no longer any “poor Whites” in South Africa, and I think it is a scandalous thing for the hon. member for Rustenburg to accuse me—falsely, as I have proved—of having used that expression. But I take it that the hon. member for Rustenburg, who is an honourable man, did not mean it. In some way which I cannot comprehend he acted unknowingly or under a misapprehension, and I shall be very pleased if he will avail himself of the first opportunity, as it is his duty to do as an honourable man, to rectify this mistake and to admit that he made a mistake.

Sir, I now come to the speech of the hon. the Minister. I do not want to attempt to equal the hon. the Minister in the jocular remarks he made about me. I must say that when it comes to the competition which has arisen between the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport to become the biggest joker in South African politics, then we cannot compete; we must leave it to them. The one tries to be funnier than the other while South Africa is going downhill and things are going wrong. That competition is something we expect from Pagel’s circus, not from the Parliament of South Africa. I do not want to join in the game; I prefer to deal with certain aspects of the Minister’s speech.

For example, he launched a tremendous attack at me and by implication at everyone on this side of the House because I had spoken of a deed of insolvency when the Government devalued. From that he wanted to deduce that I had allegedly said that South Africa was bankrupt. Sir, on what grounds can the hon. the Minister say something like that? There is a tremendous difference between a deed of insolvency and total bankruptcy. There are hundreds of people who commit deeds of insolvency each month of their lives, but they never lead to bankruptcy; they may lead to bankruptcy if they are not rectified. Here, for example, I have a classic legal book. The Law of Insolvency, written by Marsh. He describes the various deeds which may be regarded as deeds of insolvency, and the most interesting one one finds in the Act itself, in section 8 (e) of the Insolvency Act, where the deeds of insolvency are listed. Here is one—

In other words, the person who commits the deed—

What else is devaluation? What else did America do when it reduced the value of the dollar by 10 per cent and said that in future it would no longer pay 100 cents in the dollar but 90 cents per dollar? What did we do when we devalued the rand by more than 12 cents? We intimated that we regarded the rand as being worth only 87 cents.

We have to pay so much more for our foreign debt.

Mr. Chairman, the deed is committed not against foreign countries, but against one’s own people, the people who have saved, the people who have fixed incomes, the people who draw pensions, the people who have been putting money aside throughout the years; they are the people against whom the deed of bankruptcy is committed. I make no apology; I say that devaluation is a deed of bankruptcy towards thrifty people in one’s own community, and I am surprised that the hon. the Minister could have used an argument like that; it is not worthy of him and it is not in accordance with the facts. But the Minister was dealing with this point in order to create an atmosphere, and I forgive him. Subsequent to that he tried for a few moments to argue on merit. For example, he read out to us a long list of job reservations in terms of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, which would have been very interesting in a debate on the Labour Vote and the labour policy. He did that to prove that section 77 was not important; that section 77 was not part of the Government’s policy. This is what you must take note of. Mr. Chairman. I had not accused him; I had praised him for having departed from the Government’s policy and for not having prohibiting non-Whites from doing jobs previously done by Whites where Whites were not available. One of the hon. members on that side put a question to me concerning section 77 and I said it should never have been on the Statute Book. The hon. the Minister then read out a long list here in order to suggest that that had never been the policy of the National Party; that that section need not even exist. I agree with him; there is nothing which causes a United Party man more joy than when an old seasoned Minister of the Cabinet uses our arguments in support of our case; I am grateful to him. Sir, the hon. the Minister also availed himself of the opportunity to put a poser to me. He asked whether we, when we came into power, would repeal the Mines and Works Act of 1928. Sir, I do not know whether it is permissible to reply to this question; it has very little to do with the Railways, but with your permission, I should like to reply very briefly to it because Mr. Speaker had allowed the question. Many times we have said very clearly that as far as the conventional colour bar in the industries of South Africa is concerned, the United Party will respect it and that we include the Act in question in the conventional colour bar because it is so old; it is established in our practice …

It is not conventional; it is statutory.

I am not through yet; we include it although it is statutory; but we have said throughout—and we recommended it to the Minister before he wanted to do it—that the conventional colour bar—because that is what applies on the Railways as well—should not be regarded as the law of the Medes and Persians but that where one could negotiate with one’s trade unions and obtain their co-operation in the matter, one would then be able to amend it. In this way we should like to amend the conventional colour bar and the reservations under section 77 and the Mines and Works Act after negotiations with and with the co-operation of the trade unions in South Africa. Sir, surely the hon. the Minister knows that this is our policy. How have we not pleaded with him to apply this to the Railways? At first he refused; then he said that he was trying, but what should he do because the trade unions were refusing: we then told him : “Go back and talk to the trade unions again; they are not irresponsible people; keep on negotiating.” He did that and had success and today he is able to implement United Party policy. He ought to thank us for our loyal criticism as regards this matter and for the fact that he could succeed in doing that thanks to an Opposition that does not exploit the situation for political gain. Why does he now come forward with childish posers to us? When he is on the Opposition benches next year, or the year after that, we shall expect the same loyalty from him, and When we have to negotiate with the trade unions for an amendment to the Mines and Works Act, we shall also expect his sympathetic insight and his sympathetic support and his undertaking that he will not exploit the matter for political gain. Sir, this is fair. Where there is agreement at least between him and us—not between his Government and us—I do not know in what way we are promoting the matter if he attempts to do these petty things. He ought to know better; I believe he is a greater man than that. But the trouble with the hon. the Minister is that he does not realize what an important and responsible man he is. He is acting contrary to his own potential in this House.

Then I should like to refer to the fact that the hon. the Minister made a much better speech this afternoon, exclusive of certain subdivisions, than the one he made when he introduced his Budget. He dealt with the matters he had to deal with; he dealt with matters such as ore exports, a new harbour on our West Coast, and the staff position; these are things he ought to have done on Wednesday, but which he did only now because we had pointed out to him that he had failed to do his duty. I am pleased that we have been able to make a contribution to the image of responsibility of the Minister of Railways. But I must say that I am not at all happy and I believe that the people outside are not happy with his attempts to say something about the staff now. He reproached us for not having praised the Railways for their achievements. I think in many respects we did in fact do so, but I leave it at that. Sir, the Minister praised the workers of the Railways on two occasions in his original speech. He pointed out, inter alia, that during the past 10 years, if I remember correctly, the productivity on the Railways had increased by 70 per cent whereas the number of workmen had increased by 6 per cent. I think this is more or less correct. This is a wonderful achievement on the part of the Management. We on this side of the House have always said that higher productivity on the part of one’s workers is, in the first instance, the responsibility of the Management. The Management has to organize and bring forth that productivity. But one cannot do this without the co-operation of a faithful body of workers. The hon. the Minister has now paid the staff that tribute, but that tribute would have meant much more had he been able to give the workers a word of comfort about what is happening with them today, and that is that nothing remains of the Langlaagte Lift of R60 million of two years ago. It has been swallowed up by inflation; it has been swallowed up by rising prices. The people are entitled to ask what is to become of them, because henceforth the cost of living will rise further, and rapidly too, as a result of devaluation. Do they have to pay now for the incompetence of the Government by being satisfied with a lower real income? The Minister did not react to this. I had suggested that his labour policy and his wage and salary policy on the Railways should be twofold. On the one hand it must see to it that our workers were compensated for the declining value of their wages and salaries. In the days of the United Party we did this every quarter. And in addition to that, from time to time, as necessary, they must get an opportunity to share in the greater prosperity of South Africa where it existed, the higher real national income of our people. But there was no reaction from the Minister to this. :I have not spoken to the people, but I know how they feel and what they are going through today, and I can predict even now that the Minister has already received a request, or is going to receive a request, from the workers’ associations for compensation for the rise in the cost of living, and I hope the Minister is going to give them that, because the longer he delays the higher the price will be he will have to pay. I hope he grants it before they feel the pinch too much, before they suffer too much. One thing we must accept. Today there are no people with a fixed income, be they rentiers or salary earners or wage earners, who are not suffering as a result of the growing inflation and the increasing decline in the value of the rand in South Africa. [Interjections ] The Minister cannot evade his responsibility simply by pretending that it does not exist and by ignoring it. I think that before this debate comes to an end he ought to tell us what his plans are in connection with the railwaymen. He cannot say he cannot pay it and remain absolutely silent for the rest. Unless he does something they cannot afford to maintain the standard of living to which they are accustomed. It is very easy for the Minister to say he has no responsibility because he cannot afford it. But what does the working man do if he cannot afford to live decently? There is a conflicting approach here and it is for the Minister to settle this, because he is responsible for the welfare of his workers, and we demand to hear from him what his plan is with the workers before this debate comes to an end.

I am pleased the Minister said something about the Saldanha Bay débâcle. Again he ran away from his responsibility. He ran away once more. Now all of a sudden it is not his responsibility. He does not negotiate and he does not build the harbours and he does not build the railway lines. But surely he is responsible for South Africa’s harbour development. Surely he is responsible for Railways and Harbours.

Don’t be silly now. After all, you know what the position is.

I am not being silly. When I learned that the Saldanha Bay scheme had been accepted, I was enthusiastic. I did not know all the particulars, but my first reaction was one of enthusiasm, of excitement, about the fact that in South Africa, in a part of our country where this was necessary, where we had the problem of a Coloured population without any immediate future, a mighty growth point was to be established, at Saldanha Bay, so that a new part of South Africa could be developed. I was enthusiastic, but I discovered only later that I had to do with a State mess, with a Government mess, that whereas the Minister of Economic Affairs had told us on the authority of Iscor that the line would cost only R400 million, someone whose judgment I respect much more, i.e. the General Manager of the Railways had said in the newspapers that it would cost R600 million and more, which would mean that it would cost R6 and more per ton of iron ore from Sishen to the harbour to service the capital for that undertaking and to cover the daily cost of operating such a line. Surely this is impossible if one considers that in Western Australia it costs R1-20 from the mine to the harbour and in Brazil, where a tremendous iron ore industry is developing to the north of Rio de Janeiro, it will cost only 65 cents. How on earth is one going to make such a thing work at R6 per ton; but this does not mean—and this is the charge I level at the Minister—that because these particular negotiations have broken down one now has to forget about Saldanha Bay, that one now has to forget about the harbour on the West Coast of South Africa. It remains the responsibility of the Minister to see whether there is not another possibility of developing such a growth point along the West Coast of South Africa. Since there has been such a volte-face on the part of the hon. member for Algoa I want to suggest now that we should accept that the Railways is right as far as this matter is concerned, and that it is the best thing in the immediate interests of South Africa to develop the harbour at St. Croix without delay so that we may at least derive something from the possibilities which exist for the export of ore from South Africa. Let us concede this now; let us stop arguing about it and let us set to work and develop St. Croix.

†And I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to try to save face. His face may be very valuable, but the interests of South Africa are more valuable. I want to suggest that instead of saving face by coming with all sorts of formulae, he should say directly: I, the Minister who is responsible for railways and harbours in South Africa, am willing to develop St. Croix as may be necessary if I can have an assurance that there is a possibility of a contract for the export of ore. We, the Minister should confess, are to blame because of our rather stupid insistence on the development of Saldanha Bay for this particular purpose and for the fact that the negotiations have ended or have been postponed. The initiative to reopen the whole matter should come from the Minister. I ask him to be big for the sake of South Africa. I ask him to be big for the sake of South Africa and not to look for facesaving formulae but to make the right statement now so as to start the whole thing off again in the interests of South Africa.

I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister, a suggestion which I really do with no political motives at all. I do it, as he would appreciate as I go on, because I believe it is in the interests of our country, South Africa. I want to suggest that we should immediately investigate in an impartial and authoritative manner the future harbour development of the Republic of South Africa on all its coasts. It has been calculated—I do not want to go into this—that by the end of the century South Africa will have a population of 30 to 40 million people. This means that all our services will virtually have to be doubled. It will possibly have to be more than doubled because while our population is doubling, we will all work to see that the standard of living and the satisfaction of the needs of our people will grow at a higher rate too. We will need much more than we have today, much more in every respect, much more therefore in the way of harbours too. But this should not be done by way of an interdepartmental committee where Iscor can try to dominate the others and where the Railways may, in spite of their superior knowledge, be overruled by people with other interests. Let us have a truly impartial authoritative commission to investigate the future development of harbours all along the shores of South Africa.

Another commission!

Yes. I want to suggest a commission not to investigate Land Bank loans to relations or stupidities like that, but to investigate what can be done for the future development and growth of South Africa. I want to suggest that the commission should be representative of private enterprise, the Government. Railways and the public utilities concerned for this purpose. I should like to have represented on that commission representatives of the mining industry, the Federated Chambers of Industry and the Afrikaans counterparts of those organizations, shipping lines, the Department of Commerce and Industries, the Department of Planning, the Railways, Iscor and the Industrial Development Corporation. Some of these developments may be necessary now although they will not be immediately economic and private enterprise will not be interested. But, by definition, by origin and by object the Industrial Development Corporation will have to come into it. I want to suggest that it should be accepted that the St. Croix scheme should be implemented although this commission could develop what further possibility there is for St. Croix after the immediate development has been completed.

I think they should go into Richard’s Bay to see whether it has a greater future or to see whether its future is not perhaps in danger. Already Chief Buthelezi wants to claim it as part of the Zululand homeland.

I think that they should go into the position that we will be in in South Africa if the Portuguese develop the harbour that they plan on the southern border of Moçambique, as was confirmed by Dr. Fernandez Costa, the director of the Moçambique Harbours and Railways in the report in the Argus newspapers of 8th January, 1972. The Portuguese apparently plan to build a new deep-sea harbour near the Natal border in Moçambique. This can in some ways be a harbour that can be more advantageous, when one looks at its geographical position, than Richard’s Bay. We should not look upon this harbour as a threat to our own harbours, but as a further opportunity for the development of Southern Africa, because that is the unit that we should be concerned with for the future. This commission would be able to see how we could correlate our own activities with this Portuguese development. I think this commission should have another look at Sordwana and Kosi Bay. The hon. the Minister will remember that I spoke about Kosi Bay before but he does not understand it.

What don’t I understand?

Once before the Minister said that he could not understand why I was so concerned about Kosi Bay. He once said that to me and I do not know why. This commission should investigate it. After all, these harbours can be of great importance when we consider the potential of the area that they would serve, namely that of the Pongola Valley, the Makatini Flats, the Josini Dam and fast-developing southern Swaziland. Sordwana Bay was investigated by the Minister’s predecessor in 1952, and Kosi Bay was examined by the Smuts Government as long ago as 1922. It was favourably reported on but the report was not taken further because the Moçambique Convention created new circumstances. There was also a depression in 1922 and a change of Government in 1924. The situation has now changed. South Africa has developed tremendously since 1922, even since 1952. Such an impartial objective commission would do a good job of work for South Africa if they were to investigate these changes. I also think that this commission should re-investigate Saldanha Bay. Assuming for the moment that there will be no export of ore from that harbour and that there will be no contract with the Japanese concerning that line, it should still be investigated because it is quite clear that the Government—and there we will support it—believe that there should be a growth point in that area to develop South Africa in a more balanced way and to shift development to some extent from the Witwatersrand and Natal and to give the Western Cape its chance. It can also be a future growth point of peculiar interest to the Coloured people. There may even be dreamers who see it as the germ of a separate Coloured homeland. The Minister and I will not agree with that, but that does not mean that there should not be a growth point for the Coloured people. I want to suggest that this commission should also look at Boegoe Bay. I am not committed to any of these things and I am not the expert. I have read and heard of these things and I think they should be investigated. Boegoe Bay is a natural harbour ten miles south of the Orange River mouth and near to the Alexander Bay diamond diggings which will close down in about five years’ time, leaving a large number of houses ready-made. All the land in that area is owned by the State and there would be no land speculation as there could possibly be at Saldanha Bay. I think therefore that this should be investigated, especially when one considers that there are the copper ore mines at Okiep and the recent sale of the Aggendyk land north of the Orange River for R1 000 000 to a big mining company for the development of a major copper mine. When one looks far into the future, one must consider that Boegoe Bay is not 470 miles from Sishen but only about 300 miles. One would not have to build a line all the way, but would only need connecting links between Postmasburg and Upington and between Kakamas and the sea. According to Dr. C. Verburgh, who wrote a report on this possibility, it will cost about one-quarter of what the Saldanha Bay line would cost. I think these things are worth investigating. I think it is worth investigating what the effect on South Africa would be of the developments in Angola. They are developing a low-grade of iron ore to be exported through the harbour of Mocamedes, close to our borders. This too can be correlated in the interests of Southern Africa as a whole. I think we should consider places like Lamberts Bay and Mossel Bay. Why should the South Western Districts not have a growth point with the development of a harbour with which the Minister with his Railway and Harbour policies can have much to do? I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to give this matter serious consideration. There should be such an impartial authoritative expert investigation into the future development of the harbours of South Africa, seeing them not in isolation but as a great pattern for the establishment of growth points on the South African coast and to make advanced plans to meet the growing needs of a burgeoning Republic of South Africa, which he and I both hope will be one of the greater nations of the world by the end of the century.

Honestly, Mr. Chairman, never before in my life have I heard so many unpractical suggestions as I did this afternoon. I had to listen to a lot of contradictory statements and unpractical suggestions. Now, all of a sudden, investigations are to be made into all the possible places in South Africa where harbours can be built. The hon. member mentioned a few of these places. Surely, a harbour cannot be isolated from the railway lines that have to be there, from the hinterland that has to be there, from the industries that have to be there and from the users of that harbour. We have already investigated the particulars of every possible place along the entire coastline of South West up to the Portuguese border where harbours can possibly be built. This investigation was done years ago. It is not something new so that an “authoritative commission” need now to be appointed to investigate the matter. We have all the necessary information at our disposal. Kosi Bay was investigated. The disadvantages of Kosi Bay are, on the one hand, that it is situated close to the Portuguese border and, on the other hand, that the water is very deep there, which would greatly complicate the construction of any harbour. Sordwana Bay was investigated over the years. Richard’s Bay was investigated, and eventually we decided on it. Boegoe Bay was investigated. Furthermore, we know exactly what the potential of Saldanha Bay is. Why should an authoritative commission now be appointed to investigate it? It is a silly suggestion. I cannot understand it. What is that commission supposed to recommend? That is a matter for the future, in thirty or forty years’ time. We do not even know what the development is going to be. One of the disadvantages of Saldanha as a commercial harbour is that it has no hinterland. There are no industries. Except for agricultural development, there is no development between Sishen and Saldanha. There is even less development at Boegoe Bay. The distance from Sishen to Saldanha Bay is shorter than the distance to Boegoe Bay. That has already been investigated. The hon. member’s suggestion that a commission should now, all of a sudden, be appointed to investigate this matter, is merely a suggestion aimed at seeking publicity. I cannot see any advantage in it. Mossel Bay was investigated for years. Mossel Bay has no hinterland. Therefore Mossel Bay cannot be used. It is a small harbour. There is no direct railway connection between the North and Mossel Bay. A long detour via Cape Town will have to be followed in order to reach the North. We have at our disposal all the necessary particulars and the necessary information about all the possible harbours that may be established in South Africa. The only possible harbours are Richard’s Bay on the one side and Saldanha on the other. Boegoe Bay is not a natural harbour. There is nothing natural out there, not even a bay. Never in my life have I heard such unpractical suggestions as those of which the hon. member delivered himself here this afternoon. He did not have regard to the fact that there should be railway connections to these harbours.

It is not only a question of developing the harbour; you have to have the rail take-off. The hon. member does not realize that the extension of the Cape Town harbour, by way of the new berth that is being constructed, will be adequate for the next 20 years. At St. Croix there is no harbour. If anything is ever built there, it will only be a loading terminal for ore and for nothing else. It is not a harbour. Over the years plans were drawn up for the development and extension of the Port Elizabeth and East London harbours. We know what must happen and is going to happen at the Durban harbour. As I have said, never in my entire career have I heard such unpractical suggestions as those I had to listen to this afternoon.

You will still do so within the next few years.

No, I will not do it. What useful purpose will it serve? I have all the information at my disposal.

You do not have it.

I have. I have all the information in regard to all the possible places where harbours can be constructed. This matter was investigated over the years. Some of these places were investigated in the days of the United Party.

Then the hon. member said that I was evading my responsibility. In what way am I evading my responsibility? I cannot understand that. I have already said this afternoon what the position is in regard to the Saldanha railway line and building the harbour there. It will merely be an ore harbour. If it becomes a commercial harbour, I shall take over the administration of it. But if it will only be used for the export of ore, the harbour will come under the administration of Iscor. Iscor will have to finance it and have it built. The same applies to the railway line. The hon. member said that they were so shocked now because I had said that this project would cost more than R600 million. That is for Iscor to decide. After all, they are the organization that is going to mine and sell the ore, not so? They have to finance the railway line and the harbour. If they see their way clear to spending R600 million, why can they not do so? They are businessmen and will know whether the sale of that ore will be worth-while if they should incur that capital expenditure. It is their responsibility, not mine.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I see that they agree now that it will cost R600 million owing to devaluation. Does that mean that the Railways can push up their estimate beyond R600 million, to R700 million, owing to devaluation?

I expressed my own, personal opinion by way of interjection. This is not the opinion of the Railways, but my own, personal opinion. I have been Minister of Transport for 17 years, a period during which many railway lines and other works were built. Therefore, from the nature of the case, I must have some knowledge of the costs involved. It is my personal opinion that it will cost between R600 and R700 million.

Is your personal opinion that devaluation will increase it?

No, I say this is after devaluation.

It was like that before devaluation.

No, there was a different estimate before devaluation. Iscor will call for tenders before long. When those tenders come in, we will know exactly what the cost involved in the construction of the railway line and of the harbour will be. Then the cost of those tenders will have to be submitted to the Cabinet again, and after that the Government will have to decide finally on whether or not it will be proceeded with. That is what has to happen; this was said in this House before. He says I should say that I am willing to develop St. Croix. Why should I develop St. Croix? Does the hon. member not realize that St. Croix has one major disadvantage, i.e. that its capacity is extremely limited? St. Croix’s capacity is limited to 15 million tons, perhaps 20 million tons, of ore per annum. Its capacity is limited by the capacity of the railway line from Sishen to Port Elizabeth, whereas Saldanha’s capacity is unlimited. If the Saldanha railway line is built, and the local harbour is developed, 20 million, 30 million, 40 millions tons and even more can be exported every year, whereas this cannot be done at St. Croix. To increase St. Croix’s capacity from 20 million to 30 million, the entire railway line from Sishen to Port Elizabeth will have to be doubled, and that will cost hundreds of millions of rands. That is the major disadvantage of St. Croix. It is good for an interim measure, but it is not a permanent solution to the problem in regard to the export of ore.

Can I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Yes.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if the St. Croix project, even at 15 million tons or at 10 million tons per annum, can be amortized within ten years, does it matter if it does not have this increased capacity?

As regards the cost of the development of St. Croix as an ore-loading harbour and the conveyor belt from the beach to St. Croix, I may just say that this is the responsibility of the private enterprise that is prepared to finance it. Originally it was said that it would cost R28 million, but now there is talk of R47 million. I think that if one is eventually built, it will, owing to the escalation of costs, cost a great deal more than that. I am not taking into consideration the costs involved in the improvements effected to the railway line. We are improving it for normal needs so that we may convey 10 million tons of ore per annum, but to convey more than 10 million tons, a considerable improvement will have to be effected to that railway line, and that is something which will cost a great deal of money. It will cost hundreds of millions of rands. Then as I have already said, its capacity will be limited to the capacity of the Port Elizabeth railway line. That is why I said that Mr. Wilhelmi could now come forward with written evidence to the effect that the Japanese steel people were prepared to conclude contracts in regard to the purchase of ore on condition that St. Croix was built. Then we would have something tangible on the basis of which we could work, but I am not prepared to go on stories in newspapers.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? If evidence is given to the Cabinet, would we have a reasonable assurance that the green light for St. Croix should be given?

No, then it would have to be considered by the Government, for this decision in regard to St. Croix is a Cabinet decision, not mine. I said that the hon. member contradicted himself a great deal. Once again he made a moving plea for the staff, and said that I had said nothing which could reassure the staff. He said that I had given no indication of how I would help them. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. He should tell me whether he is in favour of increases in rates being introduced so that I may be in a position to improve the wages of the staff. One cannot say, on the one hand, that one is pleased that there have been no increases in rates, and, on the other hand, that the wages of the staff should be increased. Surely, one cannot do that. After all, it is not fair to make such statements. Why are the hon. members trying to gain the sympathy and the support of the Railwayman through his plea for salaries and wages to be increased, whereas, on the other hand, he says that there should be no increases in rates at this stage. I said this in my reply to the Second Reading.

I said the Railways had to be compensated for the goods conveyed at a loss in the interests of the State. That was my whole theme.

Amongst other things I dealt with that this afternoon. We are referring to what the hon. member said in this House a moment ago. On this occasion he did not say a word about that; he only made a moving plea for an increase in salaries. I told him this afternoon for what reasons this was unpractical and why it was a wrong principle that the State should subsidize the Railways from the Exchequer. That would not be in the interests of the country. I made this very clear this afternoon, and the staff know this. I have been telling them all these years, “If there is money, you will get the benefit of it; if there is none, you will get nothing.” That is what the position is at the moment.

I am very pleased that the hon. member straightened out the matter by saying what he actually meant by that statement of his on the so-called “act of insolvency”. I still say to him that the inference from his speech is undoubtedly that South Africa is bankrupt. This is not only my inference, but also that of everybody outside.

No reasonable person would think such a thing.

No, it is only reasonable people who would think so. That is what they will infer from the hon. member’s words. The hon. member for Constantia said the same thing in the Part Appropriation debate, and my colleague objected very strongly to it. At the time he used the same words. He also said that I had tried to prove that section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act did not form part of Government policy. I did not do that. What I did do, was to try to expose hon. members. They always see job reservation as the one obstacle in the way of industrial expansion in South Africa. I pointed out that job reservation was only applicable to a small number of industries.

The Minister of Labour says it remains a threat.

Of course. I want to repeat that over all these years it is still the policy of the Government and of the Party that the White workers will be protected against the undermining of theïr wage standards by cheap non-White labour and against their being ousted from their spheres of employment by non-Whites. That was the policy which I announced as Minister of Labour in 1948, and this is still the policy today. That is why job reservation was introduced. That is why that provision was incorporated in the Industrial Conciliation Act.

It is unnecessary.

It is not unnecessary. It is a sword above an employer’s head to prevent White workers being exploited and ousted from their spheres of employment.

I am glad the hon. member replied to my question in regard to the colour bar in the Mines and Works Act. In that regard he definitely said now that they would do their best to persuade that trade union to agree to the colour bar being removed.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to go into all the details of the St. Croix-Saldanha controversy this afternoon. I tried to state the case as reasonably and as fully as I could yesterday. But I must confess that I was disappointed with the reply, or should I say, the non-reply of the hon. the Minister of Transport. In the course of my contribution yesterday, I referred to five instances in particular where I felt that this House had been given information which I consider to be inaccurate or incorrect. I felt that these lay within the competence of the hon. the Minister or of his Administration. I felt they had knowledge of these matters and that the Minister owed it to this House to correct the information given by his colleagues, if in fact he agreed, as I believe and his Administration do agree, that this information was incorrect. I invited the hon. the Minister to reply to the five questions, which I made as specific as I could, and I am, as I have said, disappointed that the hon. the Minister has not taken up this matter this afternoon.

We are very concerned about this matter, not because it offers any particular advantage to this party as against that party. We have been concerned about this matter from its inception, because of our knowledge of the grave state of the economy and the vital need to enhance our ore exports as a means of bridging the growing trade gap. I believe, Sir, that the Railways have an important part to play and that the Railways, if they were entirely free to act in accordance with business principles and ordinary logic, would indeed have done the things which we are asking them to do. The hon. the Minister has now made a gesture which we would be ready to welcome if it were in fact practicable at this late stage. He has suggested that if Consolidated African Mines were to come to him now with a firm contract, he would consider, or reconsider, the position in regard to the St. Croix loading terminal.

I said the Cabinet would reconsider it.

Yes, I beg your pardon. The Minister said the Cabinet would reconsider it. What actually happened, if I may briefly repeat the position for the sake of clarity, is that Consolidated African Mines were in fact negotiating a contract with the Japanese. This contract had reached a state of completion or near completion; it was complete, but for the signatures. What they needed was the assurance that this contract, which depended upon the use of St. Croix as the loading terminal …

For what tonnage?

Approximately 5 000 000 tons, rising to approximately 8 000 000 tons per annum over the period 1975 to 1980. I do not have the exact figures, but it was of that order. It was, I believe, aimed at producing an export contract of 47 million tons over the six-year period. Sir, a contract of that order was in fact under negotiation. The actual tonnages may in fact have been reduced because of recent developments, but it was of that order. This was considered to be feasible by the Japanese who were in fact prepared to commit themselves to a contract, and they never do commit themselves to a contract until they are satisfied that the contract is practicable. When the Government took the decision that they were going to go ahead with Saldanha and that St. Croix would not be proceeded with, this, from the Japanese point of view, ruled out the contract which they had been negotiating with Consolidated African Mines. Mr. Wilhelmi of his own accord approached the Japanese and released them from them from the obligations they had incurred up to that point, because he realized that it would not be reasonable to hold the Japanese to a contract which had been based on the assumption that St. Croix would be available, when the Government had in fact firmly ruled that it would not be available. That is the position. The hon. the Minister now says that if Mr. Wilhelmi comes to him with a written contract, he will ask the Cabinet to reconsider the matter. Sir, this is not reasonable. Mr. Wilhelmi cannot possibly go back to the Japanese and say: “If you sign a contract…”

A did not say a contract; I said he must bring written evidence that they would be prepared to enter into a contract if St. Croix were built. That is what I am asking for.

I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could then explain what he considers to be the difference between written evidence produced by the Japanese that they are prepared to enter into a contract, and a contract.

A letter of intent.

Sir, a letter of intent is an obligation.

Yes, but it can be conditional.

Let me put it the other way around. The Government has in fact switched on a red light over St. Croix. In the face of a red light, neither Mr. Wilhelmi nor the Japanese steel owners feel themselves free to negotiate with any sense of security at all. They feel they might be wasting their time. Now, if the hon. the Minister were to switch off the red light and to switch on a green light, or even an amber light—I shall explain what I mean by an “amber light”—which would commit him to nothing final, then I believe something might be done. The amber light would be no more than the Government was prepared to give to Iscor in respect of Saldanha, which is to say: “If you will obtain the capital and if you will obtain contracts adequate to the capital involved, then we will allow you to go ahead”. That is all. “If you do these things, we will …” and not “we will refer it to the Cabinet for consideration”. The Cabinet, under other pressures, might well decide to turn it down again. Then what do these parties do? The Japanese cannot go on forever; they are trying to contract now for their iron ore supplies for the period 1975 to 1980, and it is getting late in the day. The date by which they hoped to conclude their contracts is 15th April, and we cannot go on indefinitely on this basis. In fact, I had a report last night in this connection which is unconfirmed. I tender it to the House as an unconfirmed report, but I believe it is probably true. It is that the Japanese have initiated negotiations with the Russians for six million tons of iron ore per annum. If that is done, we can forget about any iron ore exports either from Saldanha Bay or St. Croix. The Government must realize that this is the business world; it is no good going on on this “if” and “but” basis, where we say “if they will do this, we might do that or we shall consider it”. These people have to do business and they wish to commit themselves. We are asking for no more than an amber light, where a conditional approval is given, namely that if they can sew up a viable proposition, the Government on its part will agree, and say so categorically. They must say that if this is done, the Government will agree to let St. Croix proceed. I believe that that would be sufficient. Having said that, I leave the matter in the hands of the hon. the Minister to use the influence he has with his Cabinet colleagues. If this does not go through and we lose this contract, the consequences for South Africa and the prospects for ore exports will be grave, and the Government will bear the full consequences.

I want to speak very briefly on a point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, which was referred to by the hon. the Minister as “bog-pratery”. In the next thirty years, the next three decades, the Department of Statistics calculates conservatively that the population of South Africa will double, from approximately 21 million to over 40 million. This means that there will have to be a doubling of services, of exports, of cities, of amenities, and services of every kind, including the Railways and Harbours. I do not believe it is asking too much at this stage, bearing in mind the necessity of doubling up in three decades, and to do in those three decades more than we have done in the past three centuries, to suggest that there be a commission of inquiry to look not only at the topography and the geography of South Africa, which we know well and which the Minister knows better than I do, but also at the economic viability and the general development plan in this connection. [Time expired.]

Before calling upon the hon. member for Rustenburg to speak, I want to say that hon. members apparently inferred from the way in which I had put the Votes that we are actually dealing with Railways now. The idea was that we would deal with Harbours, Airways, Pipelines, etc., subsequent to that. Every year it is, however, very difficult for members to draw a clear dividing line between where the one begins and the other ends, because there is overlapping in many cases. Accordingly, for the convenience of members, I shall now put all the Votes. I therefore now put Harbours, Airways, Pipelines, and the Net Revenue Appropriation Account. In other words, all the Schedules are included.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville feels aggrieved about the words “poor White people”. I accept that the hon. member spoke of “poor White people”. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he is satisfied now. I have never in my life been afraid to state something in which I believed. Now I ask the hon. member: Is he satisfied when I say that I accept that he said “the poor White people”; is he satisfied with that?

I want to know why you said that you had Hansard in front of you and that the words “poor Whites” appeared in it.

Very well, then we proceed. I want it on record that I said in this House that I accept that the hon. member for Yeoville spoke of “poor White people”.

He accepts it now, after all.

I accept that, but he has not answered my question.

Mr. Chairman …

May I ask a question?

No, you cannot ask me a question now; you can do so later. I want to substantiate my statement here, and I think I have many witnesses who were present on Wednesday when the hon. member waxed lyrical and carried on. I indicated in my speech on Monday that the contrast between the hon. member’s performance last Wednesday and his performance on Monday was quite blatant. Sir, let us discuss this matter, and I want to deal with it in a decent way, but let us talk in the plural. The hon. member spoke of “poor White people”. What is the correct translation into Afrikaans of “poor White people”? Would it be “arm Blanke-mense” or would it be “armblankes”? Sir, let us have no illusions about this. I want to allege here that if a translator had to do the translation he could not speak of “arm Blanke-mense”, because “blankes” are people and “Whites” are people, but let us leave it at that. [Interjection.] I repeat: I accept that the hon. member for Yeoville spoke of “poor White people”, but I now want to make an urgent request to the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to ask him to refer to the “lower-income workers” in the Republic in this House in future, and not to refer to railway officials in that way.

As poor Whites.

Sir, I know the railway workers. There are 500 different grades in the Railway department. We have to do here with people who may not have the necessary qualifications for other posts, but I know of no other department or body in the Republic—and everyone who takes an interest in the railway worker can testify to this—which offers so many additional possibilities in order to improve the position of its workers. Just look at the housing schemes for the railway officials; look at the Railways Superannuation Fund, to which the Administration contributes on a rand-for-rand basis; look at the Railway Sick Fund. The Railway Sick Fund is one of the best sick funds I know of. Let us look at the housing loans granted to the railway workers at low interest rates; let us look at the subsidies granted to them, and let us look at what is to me the most important, namely the spiritual values and norms which are set by the railway worker, I want to tell you, Sir, that I move among the railway workers, including the lower-income railway workers …

[Inaudible.]

… where the hon. member for Jeppes has never moved in his life; he had better keep quiet. Sir, the railway people have a deep sense of pride, and it is not pleasant when they are referred to in this House as “poor White people”. I repeat that we must be careful not to cause a stigma to attach to these people. They do not deserve it, and the way in which the hon. member referred to them as “poor White people” was not pleasant. That is the inference which I drew and I am convinced that it is also the inference which was drawn by other hon. members here.

And if he had spoken of “poor Black people”, what then?

He did not speak of “poor Black people”. That has nothing to do with the matter. That hon. member knows the history of this country as regards “poor Whites”. He knows what a terrible stigma attached to those poor people, not through their own doing.

You are a poor White dolt.

The hon. member for North Rand does not know how it hurts people to be called “poor White people”. He knows these people; they are people who still have a sense of values; they are not obsessed with materialism only. Sir, we must respect the spiritual norms of our people in this country; the material norm is not the only one. I shall at all times speak out against it when mention is made of “poor White people” in this Railway debate. The hon. member for Yeoville made a statement and allegations here about the cost of living. That is the somersault of the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Langlaagte was elected at a by-election and subsequently it has repeatedly been said here that R60 million had been thrown into the sea. All those stories have been told here repeatedly. [Interjections.] Yes, it has repeatedly been said that we had to pay R60 million to get the hon. member into the House of Assembly. No thought was given to the workers on the Railways then. But I make the statement that the index of railwaymen’s salary increases is much higher than the increase in the cost-of-living index, and with all these additional services which are provided for the railway officials and with a Minister who is absolutely loyal to his officials, I know that it is one of his great ideals to assist the lower-income groups in the Railways where it is at all possible. But if we were to act in an irresponsible way and allow salary increases at this stage, there would be financial and economic implications which would prejudice a stable undertaking such as the Railways. The Railways are a stable undertaking today, but salary increases can bring about instability, and thereby lead to eventual unemployment for the lower-income groups. It is obvious from this Budget and also from what was said by the hon. the Minister and hon. members on this side that the development of the stability of this transport service of the Republic is being looked after with a great sense of responsibility. Finally, I want to emphasize that it is important that we should not speak of “poor White people” in this House or refer to any group of people in a disparaging way. Every person has the right to a little sunshine.

I immediately want to record my deep sense of shock at the action of the hon. member for Rustenburg. I cannot understand the mentality of an hon. member who wants to deny that there are poor people in South Africa. When one refers in a speech, as I did last Wednesday, to the poor White people in South Africa who have to be uplifted and should receive greater opportunities, and when I express appreciation to a Minister of the Government which I oppose, for his having done something to improve the lot of our poor White people, one gets this reaction from an hon. member on the opposite side. [Interjections.] This is my difficulty with that hon. member and with many hon. members on that side of the House. They have been in power for so long that they do not realize that there are White people in South Africa who are having a hard time and who are poor, and then they take it amiss of us if we refer to the fact that there are White people in South Africa who are poor.

May I ask a question?

No. What temerity! When he was refusing to apologize for his mistake, I wanted to ask him a question and he refused to allow me to do so. Now he expects me to resume my seat so that he may put a question to me. Has the hon. member no sense of shame? I repeat that we of the United Party are aware of the fact that there are poor people in South Africa, and there are also White people who are poor. We shall speak for them and we shall plead for them, and we shall say that they are poor White people.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must not get excited now. I want to know from him and I want to know from you, Sir, whether an hon. member is entitled to accuse another member of being a liar in circumstances in which the member who is being accused of lying cannot determine whether that member is speaking of him in good faith or not. This may sound strange, but I shall explain it.

The hon. member said the day before yesterday: “The hon. member for Yeoville spoke here of ‘poor Whites’.” I am reading his Hansard. “That was a scandalous thing to say”—and I agree. The term “poor White” has a special connotation which is derogatory of the people concerned. It is a historical term in South Africa. Then I said “poor White people”. I had remembered that I had used the words “poor White people”. Then the hon. member said:“Here it is in Hansard—‘poor Whites’.” Then I could not tell immediately whether Hansard had perhaps not heard me clearly and whether he was perhaps right in saying that it did stand in Hansard, that I had in fact said “poor Whites”. But then I repeated that I had said “poor White people”. Then the member persisted and wanted me to believe him because he had my Hansard in front of him. He said that he had my Hansard with him in which I had said “poor Whites”. After he had finished speaking, I went to Hansard and there it stood, quite clearly, without any correction, that I had spoken of “poor White people”.

Disgraceful!

What recourse is there now for a member in my position. If I had spoken derogatorily of those people as “poor Whites”, it would have been a scandalous thing that I had done. But I was not in a position to correct that member at that moment, because I did not know whether Hansard had possibly made a mistake. Then my Whip approached the authorities of this House with a request that this member rectify the matter. We received an undertaking that he would do so. I was warned not to expect it at the commencement of the proceedings, but in fact immediately after I had spoken. The advice given to me by the authorities was that I should refer to it in my speech and that he would then rectify the matter. Would any honourable man say it has been rectified? Or does he persist in saying that my Hansard proves me to be a liar and that I had proclaimed a falsehood in this House? I ask you, Mr. Chairman, for protection in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville is the last person in this House who should speak of arrogance, temerity and so forth. If there is one member who always speaks ambiguously in this House, it is the hon. member for Yeoville. With chapter and verse I shall prove this to hon. members here this afternoon.

My goodness!

Yes, I shall prove this to you. We have been listening to the United Party for a few days now. And what has come from that side which is of a constructive nature? Absolutely nothing, except perhaps from the hon. member for Maitland. He is the only person who made a constructive contribution to this debate. In the course of my speech—I hope the hon. member for Yeoville will be listening—I shall prove that he made blatant allegations here, I want to say that his utterances were distortions and that he broadcast them to the country.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I shall withdraw it, Sir. If he did not blatantly distort facts, then he did nevertheless twist them around. And if he did not twist things around, then he did so either out of ignorance or deliberately or with the purpose of pulling the wool over the eyes of the South African electorate and doing harm to the South African Railways.

The hon. member must also withdraw the word “deliberately”.

I withdraw the word “deliberately”. He nevertheless did so in order to give the South African electorate a false impression. I shall say then that he did so out of ignorance. If he did not do so out of ignorance, then the hon. the Minister is quite correct in telling the hon. member he did not do his homework.

I want to come back to the Estimates. I want to come back to the Opposition’s accusation. The hon. member for Yeoville accused the Minister—the Minister has already referred to that—by saying—

I ask you: What is the Minister concealing? The Minister referred to it. In his speech the hon. member insinuated that the contribution to the Renewals Fund in these Estimates was decreased by 50 per cent. I want to say that that is a complete distortion of the truth. The contribution to that fund is R74 million. What has been reduced, however? The smaller portion of the Renewals Fund contribution is for permanent ways and works, but the larger amount that was estimated for rolling stock was increased by R5 million. That is a false distortion which the hon. member has broadcast to the country. Why did he not also tell the country that in that fund there is an accumulated amount of R186 million? Why did he not go further and tell the country that an extra R74 million has been voted in these Estimates for renewal? He is surely being wilful, because those are the true facts.

I now want to come to a second statement the hon. member made. He referred to the deficit that is being “disguised”. He spoke of the “disguise of the actual extent of the deficit by reducing the contributions to the Superannuation Fund”. Here I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville some credit, and I will be glad if he would listen, because in this respect I do not think he was being wilful. I think that here he was plainly and simply being stupid. I just want him to look at page 16 of the Green Book of the South African Railways about the estimated revenue and expenditure for the year ending on 31st March, 1973. There the hon. member will see that the original Estimate for the year 1971-72, in respect of the Superannuation Fund, was R23 million. When the revised Estimate came before this House, the amount was reduced to R19 million, in other words a reduction of R4 million. Hon. members opposite, however, were then simply blinded by the increases in the revised Estimate. Now that the actual Estimate is before us and an amount of R20 480 000 is being budgeted for the year 1972-73, as against the revised amount of R19 million, I want to submit that the hon. member for Yeoville told the country a falsehood by stating that the Minister is concealing the Superannuation Fund’s money, because he is supposed to have decreased the amount, while in fact the amount is R1½ million more. Let us take a brief look at the ambiguity of the hon. member for Yeoville. He spoke of “the grand old Scotsman, Claude Sturrock” and said : “I say this in passing because I am old enough to remember how members of the party opposite stamped across South Africa and the propaganda they made and the tears they wrung from the withers of Railwaymen by saying that Mr. Sturrock was stealing the Pension Funds—the security and the help for the old age of the Railwaymen. He is now doing the same”. In other words, the insinuation is that the hon. the Minister is now stealing the Railwaymen’s money from the Superannuation Fund. That is where the hon. member for Yeoville’s ambiguity comes to the fore. That is the kind of thing he wants to tell the country. The hon. member knows that since the contributions to the Superannuation Fund were amended last year on 1st April, the contributions of the Railway officials to the Superannuation Fund were placed on an equal footing of 4 per cent and that the sliding scale was abolished. He does not say that. What did this entail? The result was that every Railway official’s personal contribution to the Superannuation Fund was less, and on the Rand-for-Rand basis, according to which the Railways contributes, it goes without saying that the Railways’ contribution would be smaller. However, the hon. member for Yeoville comes along with that distorted accusation. Why did the hon. member for Yeoville not tell the South African electorate that as a result of the new contributions to the Superannuation Fund, Railway servants have an extra amount on their pay-sheets each month? Most of the officials’ contributions were reduced by up to and including 50 per cent. However, the hon. member tried to present the case differently and he tried to inform the country accordingly. That is an absolute distortion of the truth. If my time permits me to do so, I want to come to the star of Constantia. We read in the English newspapers of the economic stars, but as my friend, the hon. member for Carletonville, says, I do not think that hon. member is a star, I think he is literally and figuratively the lowest pessimist in this House. What did that hon. member do? He also levelled an accusation here. Apparently the hon. member does not understand the matter and he did not do his homework either. He said that the interest on the capital and on the Superannuation Fund is now suddenly R25 million more. Does that hon. member not know by this time that the moneys in the Superannuation Fund are invested by the Railways and that the interest collected is paid back to the fund? In other words, the fund obtained so much more money because of the higher interest. Therefore the hon. member also left a false impression here with the statement that the interest on loans the Railways pays is now so much greater. For that hon. member’s information I want to say that it is not loan capital that the Railways is using, it is merely an investment of the fund. That is the bright star for you! I think we are dealing here with people who probably have the least faith of all in the future of their own country. That hon. member has the least confidence in the future of his own country. His predecessor was known as a Jeremiah, but I believe he is much worse.

I want to come to another matter. This matter deals with the staff. The hon. member for Yeoville had the temerity to have the concept of the Railways’ mismanagement introduced in his motion. Who administers the Railways? There sits the General Manager; there are his senior officials. They and the staff of the Railways all administer the Railways. Those hon. members and I all have a share in the Railways, but those hon. members do not want to give the Railways’ staff recognition for the loyalty and diligence they display on South Africa’s behalf [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I will not reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. I think the members to whom he has referred in his speech are quite capable of doing that and will do so in due course.

Since 1968 I have pleaded repeatedly that the Railways’ departmental inquiry system be scrapped. I feel quite certain that many members on that side of the House who also have large numbers of railway voters in their constituencies, must have received similar appeals to do away with this inquiry system. When an inquiry is held and the papers and evidence are collected, it is sent to a Disciplinary Officer. I presume, in Johannesburg, who then gives his verdict and decides on the sentence if the person is guilty. The accused has a right of appeal and he is then represented by a Prisoner’s Friend who is nominated by a staff organization. This person may know the regulations. But I am quite certain of the fact that he knows nothing about law and court procedure. Several of these men have repeatedly admitted that they know nothing about a court of law. Very often they say that they have never even been in a court. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to replace this bush court of the Railways which, unfortunately, is known by that name today, by a properly constituted court martial for the Railways. Why should civil servants, policemen and kindred services have a Criminal Procedure Act, and a court martial, to protect them? They are also entitled to have a legal representative and then they have a right of appeal to a High Court of South Africa. In Hansard. col. 2532 of 1968 I quoted several decided cases proving conclusively that every South African citizen has the right to be legally represented at all times. The type of justice handed out by the present system is absurd. To give hon. members two cases, a married bus driver with two children is summarily sacked for being short of approximately R2 in his bus fares. I would like to know whether this case was referred to the Attorney-General and whether he declined to prosecute because I presume that he was charged with theft. On the other hand, a unit driver disobeys a signal and smashes rolling stock worth thousands of rand, but he is only warned and told to be more careful in future. This just does not make sense. Then I want to read a paragraph in the General Manager’s report for 1970-'71, a paragraph headed “Disciplinary Appeal Board”. I quote :

Can you give us the page number please?

Page 114. What happens then to the divided cases? Does the accused get the benefit of the doubt or do the Railways get the benefit and convict in each case? I shall be glad, and I say it again, if the hon. the Minister would kindly do away with this inquiry system on the Railways.

Mr. Chairman, at this moment I do not want to refer to the previous speaker and neither do I want to refer to the Opposition. In the first place I want to turn to the hon. the Minister. I want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister and his staff for their unbelievably quick action in restoring the railway line along the Sundays River after the big deluge. I also want to thank them for having restored communications so quickly between Uitenhage and Port Elizabeth, and Glenconnor and Uitenhage, after the floods in the Gamtoos Vally took place. We specially want to say thank you to the Railway staff and to the Minister for so quickly making the necessary railway buses available so that those products could be transported. As a result of that the loss in farm products was minimal and Port Elizabeth could receive its usual supply of vegetables. I also feel it is my duty to say thank you, on behalf of Port Elizabeth, for the efforts being made to combat the dust pollution of the ore quay. The Deputy Minister recently announced the efforts that are going to be made and I just want to say thank you very much in anticipation. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that the Blue Train between Pretoria and Cape Town will shortly be replaced by an optimum luxury train. That train will, of course, be a great advertisement, for the Republic, particularly as far as the tourist industry is concerned. Then there is also the Trans Karoo Express and the Orange Express which is a supplement to the Blue Train. The Orange Express runs between Durban and Cape Town. I now want to ask the Minister …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member surely knows that my time is limited. I shall answer questions at a later stage. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to also give us such a luxury train such a prestige train, between Pretoria and Port Elizabeth, so that Port Elizabeth can also have its share of the tourist industry. Such a luxury train between Pretoria and Port Elizabeth will give the tourists and those in the North the opportunity to make use of that beach at Port Elizabeth which is one of the best beaches in the Republic. It is a beach that is particularly convenient at times when Durban and other places are too hot.

And too full of sharks.

It will also give those tourists coming to port Elizabeth the opportunity of travelling the Garden Route in the luxury buses the Railways has purchased, because they can go through the Tsitsikamma region, travel further through Knysna and see the indigenous forest there, then they can go over George and the beautiful Outeniqua Mountains, view the Cango Caves and those ostrich farms at famous Oudtshoorn, where the United Party men are going to get a thrashing one of these days. This is the natural and nearest route and the most worthwhile one for tourists and those from the North to see, travelling in such a luxury train to Port Elizabeth and being transported from there in the luxury buses to the Cango Caves. Port Elizabeth also has a university which is going to be unique in the world because it is situated at the coast. That university is eventually going to accommodate 50 000 students. That in itself will be a big attraction for the tourists to Port Elizabeth. I then want to go further and ask the Minister, if it is possible, to have that train called the President Paul Kruger—we already have the Blue Train, the Trans Karoo and the Orange Express. If not, we could call it after the Minister or Dr. Verwoerd.

I should like to come back to the Opposition. They have been beaten to such a pulp, but I think we may dwell on them for a moment. After the Brakpan election they congregated in small groups in the lobbies. Do you know, Sir, they were drunk, drunk with joy. They embraced each other there and sang “On the road to Pretoria”, or “On the train to Pretoria”. The actual purpose was that they wanted to storm the Union Buildings and set themselves up in Libertas. But when they eventually went off to the train they found they had not got the tickets. They have to get the tickets from the public, and the public did not give them those tickets. After that joyfulness they entered this Chamber and I counted them. I remembered that before the Brakpan election they totalled 46. After that jubilation I counted again; there were still 46 of them. But then I cast my mind back to 1948 and counted: At that time they totalled 77 and the Nationalists 83. After their jubilation I see that the Nationalists now total 119 and the United Party men are still 46 in number. Mr. Chairman, after all the jubilation about the United Party numbers increasing to 46, I am reminded of the dream Pharoah had. He dreamt, did he not, that seven fat cows were grazing in the valley. Then seven lean cows came along; they eat up the seven fat cows and are then even thinner than they were previously.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Railway debate.

Sir, I am coming back to the Railways in a moment, but I just want to refer you to their Cape leader, who is sitting there. One would at least have thought that after they had sat on the Opposition side for 24 years they would have had the opportunity of adding to their knowledge, and enriching their minds, particularly since they are dealing with wise men such as those sitting on this side of the House. But instead of adding to their knowledge, they are now even less intelligent than they were when they took up their seats there 24 years ago. Sir, do you know what this can be ascribed to? It is ascribable to the fact that in the Cape the Opposition has a leader who would not qualify as a group leader in any National constituency.

Order! The hon. member is still off the rails. He must please come back to the subject now.

Very well, Sir, let me come back and see what the Railways looked like in 1948, when we took it over from the United Party. In 1948 we inherited from the United Party a lot of obsolete trucks. The old trucks were dirty and neglected; they were obsolete. The passenger coaches were in such a condition …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member is derailed.

What is the question, Sir? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member who has just sat down was so pleased with the train that takes him from Pretoria to Port Elizabeth that he fell asleep and had a most delightful dream. He forgot all about the Railway Budget debate; all he was concerned with was going home for the next election. One can well understand that the hon. member does not have much idea of what is going on in this particular debate, so I shall leave any comments on his speech for another occasion.

I should like to deal particularly in the few minutes at my disposal with the question of the wages of the Railwaymen in the bread-and-butter grades. Some members on the other side said that these grades, the bread-and-butter grades, did not really exist, but the hon. the Minister has referred to the bread-and-butter grades, which are probably the lowest rungs on the ladder. I refer to checkers, lorry drivers, and so forth, men who earn salaries in the region of between R190 and R220 per month. I must plead with the hon. the Minister on their behalf, because they have hitherto, for some years, existed only because of the fact that they have been able to earn overtime pay. This they have had to do in order to earn sufficient to maintain themselves and their families. Whilst one can understand the hon. the Minister’s difficulty when he says that he does not have the funds to give them additional salaries, I think he should bear in mind that, despite the problems he faces, they face even greater difficulties in the continual spiralling of the cost of living. They have no backstop; they have no reserves; they have no Rates Euqalization Fund behind them; they have no investments to give them interest; they have to rely solely on that same pay packet to feed and clothe themselves and their families and to provide those amenities which a family needs. I have a statement here from someone in the constituency of Jeppes, to which the hon. member for Rustenburg sneeringly referred. I am sorry he is not here, because I wanted to tell him that there are many railway workers there who have had personal contact with all their representatives in Jeppes. Jeppes today has no Nationalist representative and this, of course, is the answer of the Railwayman to the attitude of the hon. the Minister and his Government. These people have had contact with the United Party representatives. Here is an example of what a checker says: “After 18 years as a checker on the Railways I am earning a total of only R213 a month.”

What letter do you have there?

This is an absolute fact. I have the name here and I will even show it to the hon. the Minister. I have no fear of doing so. There are many people in this boat. Here I think of a man who tells me that he has five children to feed, and he has to work from 3 a.m. until 6 p.m. per day,—that is a period of 15 hours —in order to earn enough overtime to feed his family. Then he has to work right through the week, including Sundays. The hon. the Minister knows this well. It is now two years since the additional increment was given. Admittedly it amounted to 8 per cent or 10 per cent but that additional increment has been eaten up completely and the worker still finds himself in the very same position. The hon. the Minister knows that non-White workers are employed in certain grades in order to meet the shortage of labour, and a non-White worker who replaces a White worker earning a salary of R213 a month, earns a maximum of R120 a month as a lorry driver, for instance, after starting at R60 a month when he commences his training. These particular non-White workers, if they are not satisfied with their pay in the Railways have a very simple alternative. They just step out of the Railways and they go to private industry. They are snapped up immediately. But the checkers and those others who have for years helped to build up the Railways, these very men of whom the General Manager correctly boasts in his annual report, who have over the past two decades achieved the fourth highest productivity rate, and who have devoted so much of their time to this work, have no other alternative. They unfortunately have become victims of Government policy. The victim here is not the Railways, and the victim is not the Minister, who is short of capital funds. The victims is not the Railways, which is perhaps short of income. The victim is the worker, the man who is keeping the Railways going, the man on whom the whole industry depends. He becomes the victim of Government policy, because through Government policy there are not enough funds to enable him to catch up with the cost of living. For years we have pleaded that in the sort of extraordinary situation which we have now, especially since it is accentuated by the fact that inflation is accelerating far beyond the rate of growth, there should be some form of cost-of-living allowance. I do not know how the Minister will find the money, but there must be some means, in a budget of R1 145 million, to find something to help these particular workers. I am not making a sentimental plea. I am not trying to use sentiment in support of what I am saying. I am asking the hon. the Minister to face real and true facts. He, as a railwayman, knows this better than I do. I know that he has sympathy, but sympathy is not enough. The fact that hire-purchase costs are higher, the fact that groceries cost more, the fact that clothes cost more and the fact that children have to be conveyed to school, all these cannot be satisfied with sympathy. These things have to be satisfied with real hard cash. I therefore honestly and sincerely plead with the Administration to take this into account and to try to find some ways and means of dealing with those in this unfortunate category.

As we know, overtime is decreasing, so the assistance afforded by overtime is not there any more. This means that these peoples’ pay packets will be even smaller. I think that that should be borne in mind. No one can tell me that R213 a month is sufficient to support a man and his family. I have spoken to dozens of people in that position. We must remember standards of living. We cannot compel the Railway workers, who form a large portion of the whole undertaking, to live at a standard far below the breadline for people of their stature. When the hon. member for Yeoville speaks of raising the grade of the poor White worker, he is really referring to these very people. These are the people who are going to be replaced in certain of the lower-paid jobs, and will be given an opportunity of perhaps occupying jobs with a higher rate of pay in a higher grade. I feel that the matter cannot be pushed aside purely on the grounds that there is not enough money. The hon. the Minister has had representations made to him in the last year with regard to the shortage of housing, the question of double pay on Sundays and the question of Family Day being a paid holiday. All these representations have been made, but he cannot accede to them. He has told the railway workers: “If I had the money I would do something for you, but I cannot.” But that is not enough. Sir, I think this should bring home to the Minister the plight in which these people find themselves. I say that we cannot ignore this matter, in spite of the difficulties in which the hon. the Minister finds himself.

Finally, let me reiterate the point I have made, particularly when we hear the emotional appeals to the spirit, “die gees”, which the worker must have in making a sacrifice for his country. There is no reason at all why workers in our country should become the victims of an inept and badly managed Government, because the Railways unfortunately are the sufferers. This is not because there is anything wrong with the Railways Administration—far from it; we have not alleged that, and we do not intend to. We know the Railways Administration. We know the efficiency of the men at the top. We know that the Railways have good management, but we say that they are the unfortunate victims of Government policy and unfortunately the worker himself becomes the victim of Government policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to return briefly to remarks the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made here in the debate last night when he mentioned the fact that I allegedly said nothing about the St. Croix scheme. As a member who comes from the Eastern Cape and who represents an Eastern Cape seat here, I want to tell him that I do not back away from my standpoint. I did everything in my power to have the St. Croix scheme established. My representations were unsuccessful. My standpoint is that I stand by the Cabinet’s decision …

Right or wrong.

“It is no use flogging a dead horse”; I must accept it. The hon. member knows what my standpoint is. I stick to the standpoint adopted by the Cabinet.

I now want to come back to the Railway matter raised here by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City. I am very glad he is now entering the Council Chamber. I should like to present this matter to the hon. the Minister. I cannot altogether agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City when he asked that the disciplinary code of the South African Railways should be completely abolished and replaced by a body possibly equal to a court of law. I want to refer here to section 22 of Act No. 22 of 1960, which reads as follows—

Those are the provisions of the Service Act. Sir, that is the situation a railwayman finds himself in today. He is not entitled to any legal representation when he comes before that disciplinary inquiry. What is the position of an official in the service of the South African Police? Section 9 (2) of the Regulations for the S.A. Police reads as follows—

The members of the South African Police, for example, have the right to appoint a legal representative to put their case. Sir, what does the Public Service Act provide? The Public Service Act, No. 54 of 1957, reads as follows—

This includes a legal representative—

Sir, what bothers me in connection with this matter is this: For many years I was attached to the Department of Justice, and I do not want to raise matters here across the floor of the House this afternoon; I could mention numerous cases here; I could mention two cases concerning Railway officials, but those cases are sub judice at the moment. I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that he amends the Service Act or the regulations in such a way that a Railway official is at least placed in the position of being able to be represented by a legal representative when a charge is brought against him. Sir, one frequently finds a Railway official charged with theft. I do not have the time at my disposal to go into all the elements of theft; they are legion, but that charge must at least be proved. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider my request seriously. I want to give the hon. the Minister the reason why I am asking for this. When a witness comes up before a disciplinary inquiry or appears before a criminal court or for a departmental hearing, or for whatever inquiry he may be appearing, the reliability of that witness is dependent upon the cross-examination he is subjected to. This is the only way to determine whether a witness is telling the truth. I want to quote here from The Law of Evidence of Norman Scoble, where on page 356 he expresses very succinctly—

Sir, one more important quotation—and this is the most succinct of all as far as I am concerned. I want to quote from Wigmore on Evidence on page 1367 where he speaks about cross-examination. What is his definition of cross-examination? He states—

That is why I say that the Railway official must also be given the opportunity to appoint a legal representative to defend him, at his own cost, not at the cost of the Administration, and then you will be placing the Railway official on an equal footing with those in the Public Service and in the South African Police when those officials are guilty of an offence. I want to say at once—and with this I want to conclude —that I have the highest regard for the Railway officials that implement the disciplinary code. I have all the respect in the world for those people. They are doing their work under extremely difficult circumstances, but I have only this one problem, and that is that when a witness appears before them he is not properly cross-examined by the representative of the relevant official on whose behalf he is appearing. Sir, let us take an example. Take the example of the ticket-examiner who is being charged with theft or any other offence. He is entitled to get another ticket-examiner or a member of the relevant trade union to represent him, but that person who is assisting him does not have the necessary legal knowledge and insight to test the witness’s reliability. That is what bothers me in this instance, and I would appreciate it particularly much if the hon. the Minister would consider this matter and comply with my request. I am making this request not only in the interests of the voters in my constituency, who have made representations to me, but I think I speak here on behalf of all the railwaymen of the Republic of South Africa.

In view of what I said on Monday evening in connection with the training of non-Whites, I hope the hon, the Minister has noted that he has already had one casualty in Durban according to this morning’s Press and I still abide by what I said. There is another thing to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention and this is something which I consider needs looking into very soon, and that is the suburban trains from Durban to Kwa Mashu. Those trains have sliding doors. How it is done, I do not know. I do not know whether these doors are wedged, but they all stand wide open and you find these Bantu hanging on to handles and to the steps from the outside. This has been seen by several people who have brought it to my attention. Whether this is fact I do not know, but I do suggest that this matter be investigated and I also suggest that some official be left on the Durban platform to see how these trains leave and to find out whether it is possible for these coach doors to be open whilst the train is in motion. You will realize, Sir, that when there is an accident, two or three or four Bantu might fall off the train and be killed and you know the Bantu temperament; it can cause an awful riot. I appeal to the Minister to have this matter investigated because I think it is something serious and it can lead to something very serious.

Then I wish to come to the disciplinary matters which has also been discussed in this House. I accept what the hon. the Minister has said about the Disciplinary Board and how these matters are conducted. But I want you to understand clearly, Sir, that the staff are not happy, and I do suggest that if you want to keep this Disciplinary Board, you must use a tremendous amount of propaganda to gain the confidence of the staff because they are definitely not satisfied with the disciplinary procedure. I say this in all good faith, because I have many dealings with the staff in this connection. Here again I would like to applaud the hon. member for Uitenhage for the suggestions he has made. I think it is an excellent idea but I cannot see the Administration accepting this because they have rather fixed ox-wagon ideas in their minds and they are not going to depart from them at any price. But I feel that the staff have to be enlightened in this regard because they have no faith in this Disciplinary Board.

What do you suggest?

I suggest another Government. Then there is another thing. Unfortunately I will not have the time to go into this in detail, but there is one thing which the Management must investigate and do it properly, and this is the merit rating method of promoting the staff. I want to tell you, Sir, that when you get a crowd of men who have been invited to go and sit for a merit rating test, directly after the test they are advised that they have all qualified for promotion and that is all they hear about it. Then you find one of those men has been promoted. He might be a youngster compared with the others. I realize, that all things being equal, seniority counts, but in cases like this you get fellows promoted and the other men are not satisfied and so they query it. The standard answer is that his merit rating was higher than theirs. This is absolute nonsense. There is no proof of it and the men want some other method introduced. They want some fairness in this merit rating test. I honestly believe that if the matter is investigated, you might be able, Sir, to satisfy the staff to a certain extent because, let us face it, these men are giving everything they have in the interest of the Administration and they certainly want some repayment for their efforts.

There is another point I want to raise, and this is something I would like the hon. the Minister to answer, and the Management for that matter. Will they please tell me whom they consider are more important, a ticket inspector or a station inspector? With the last salary increases the anomaly was created where you took a ticket inspector and made him senior to a station inspector. This is something I cannot understand and they certainly cannot understand it either, because I do feel that with the amount of knowledge they have to have, they definitely are far more important than a train inspector who climbs in a train and rides backwards and forwards. These men have the responsibility of keeping trains running. If anything goes wrong they could run the signal cabins and can attend to the checking. They can do all sorts of things and to my mind, as an old railwayman. I think that the station inspector is a man definitely superior to a trains inspector.

Then I have this final item. The Minister promotes men and sends them to another province, and when they get there there is no accommodation to be had. The accommodation position is fairly chronic. These men are then forced to return to the depot from which they were promoted, because there is no accommodation to be had. I wonder whether it is not possible for the Administration to make loans available to the people so that they can purchase or build their own homes without having to wait for months and years for a vacant railway house. I appeal to the Minister to take this into consideration when making funds available for housing, because I feel that many of these people would take advantage of this and borrow the money to purchase or build their own homes, because in most cases they are finding the utmost difficulty in obtaining accommodation wherever they are sent to. I know that people have had to refuse promotion for the simple reason that there was not accommodation available for them.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana produced quite a few points from his top pocket and made quite a few statements here that will probably be answered by the Minister. I just want to mention the first matter he broached, i.e. that an accident has now been caused by poor training. Sir, he is now making an allegation here that has not been proved at all. This matter will be investigated, and I think it is very presumptuous of the hon. member to be saying at this stage that the accident happened as a result of the poor training of the staff.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Jeppes. The hon. member made a few fairly contentious and very irresponsible statements here this afternoon. He is now trying to prompt the railwaymen to come along with wage demands. He says they are “victims of Government policy” and “they live below the breadline”. He also repeats again the words “they are poor White people”. I am convinced that our railway people are a group of very happy people. They are satisfied and they are sensible people. They realize that if salary increases are granted now, one would again activate the inflation circle. I am very sure that the railwaymen and their associations will handle this matter in a very responsible manner, but then we must not have people like the Opposition that prompt them and say what a difficult time they are having; I am sure they will do the correct thing.

I want to come back for a moment to the motion the Opposition moved as an amendment to this Budget. They speak of misguided Government policy and they have tried in vain to prove this. In addition they speak of mismanagement. I submit that they have not proved this at all. On the contrary more of their members have praised the Administration for its efficiency than have tried to prove mismanagement. What is the true reason for the deficit? It is attributable to a temporary recession in our economy which can again correct itself any day now. We are optimistic and we hope things will speedily come right, because the Government has taken the necessary steps. I nevertheless want to say that this deficit does, to some extent, incline us to look for a moment at the Railway system and at what the Railways is doing for the country. I want to submit that the Railways plays a tremendous role, has played a tremendous role and in future is still going to play a very important role in the development of our country. The Railways will participate in the new growth and the improvements to come. It will participate in the decentralization of our industries, which is so necessary for the orderly growth of our country; the Railways has played its role in promoting exports; in the cheaper mass transportation of ore and of agricultural products. Were it not for that, we would not be able to compete with countries abroad and we would not have been able to earn the tremendous amount of foreign exchange that is so essential.

Are there perhaps alternative channels for the Railways? We think of pipelines, air transport and road transport. I want to allege today that South Africa still needs the Railways. With our great distances and our widely spaced areas it is necessary for us to continue developing the Railways. Therefore I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having had the courage of his convictions in again placing R400 million in the Estimates for improvements. The Railways is also under legal obligation to transport all classes of traffic. We know that 17 per cent high-rated traffic furnished 52 per cent of the revenue. This position is now being attacked by the Opposition and the trade associations who state that there must be a more realistic policy. The Schumann Commission also recommended that this gap be narrowed. This was repeated by the Marais Commission as well. I was very glad when the hon. the Minister of Railways said this afternoon that if he narrows this gap he will do so very carefully and judiciously. I believe that the Railways furnishes such an important service to the country that we must continue along these lines and be very careful before we narrow this gap too much. As far as I am concerned, it remains a basic fact that service is more important than financial liquidity for a government body such as the Railways Administration. It is certainly important that the Railways should not operate at a loss, but I want to allege that service is even more important. If we narrow this gap too rapidly this would have many detrimental consequences for agriculture and for our export products. If the losses on those products are subsidized, we shall undoubtedly have an increase in the cost of living, because the subsidies will have to be obtained by means of taxes. If we are going to narrow the gap we are also going to have an increase in the cost of living, because the prices of all the primary products will increase, because the railage will increase. For this reason I am glad that the hon. the Minister said he would set to work carefully. This principle of different rates is also successfully applied in other countries. We shall therefore have to continue on these lines.

I should like to congratulate the Railways Administration on a few matters, one of these being the ore trains to which the hon. the Minister also referred this afternoon. Here is an example of how increased efficiency can be obtained through a better utilization of staff. By the introduction into use of the air-brake ore trucks, type CR.1, the carrying capacity of the trains was increased to 4 000 tons in 1970. The Railways Administration was not satisfied with that, however, and with the introduction of crossing loops at strategic spots the length of trains was extended to 100 trucks and the carrying capacity increased to 8 000 tons. We now also hear that an experimental train has been running with 150 trucks and with a load of 12 000 tons. In addition the previous time for the return journey between Postmasburg and Port Elizabeth has been reduced from 7½ days to 4½ days, a tremendous achievement. I also want to refer to the computerized truck control. We as fruit farmers have frequently experienced difficulty in not always being able to obtain the trucks when we wanted them. During the past citrus season the provision of trucks was much better than in previous years. It is a wonderful system and I myself would very much like to be invited by the Minister to see how this is done. It is indeed a big achievement, because it enables the Railways to properly plan where the trucks must be, to properly co-ordinate truck transport, and to make trucks available where they are needed most. I am just mentioning these few examples to point out that the Railways has a wonderful year of service behind them, and as far as I am concerned service is very important.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, will forgive me if I do not react to the things he said, because I wish to deal with a different topic altogether. I would like to deal in particular with the Minister’s statement in regard to Richard’s Bay. In his introductory speech the Minister said that the Richard’s Bay harbour was being reconstructed to accommodate vessels with a tonnage of up to 150 000. I found this particularly interesting because the Deputy Minister, in the confrontation we had last year in regard to Richard’s Bay, and the uncertainty in regard to Richard’s Bay, said in the Other Place that in order to accommodate vessels with a tonnage in excess of 150 000 tons, it would be necessary to blast an entrance tunnel. I would therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to make a clear statement in regard to Richard’s Bay and not just one to the effect that it will cater for ships of 150 000 tons, and later, when it becomes necessary, for vessels up to 250 000 tons. I say this because no doubt the hon. the Minister knows that the ships being built today are very nearly all in excess of this figure of 150 000 tons. When I say “nearly all in excess”, I want to point out that something like more than 600 vessels are being constructed today which will not be able to use Richard’s Bay even when it is completed. I believe that it would be a very sad mistake indeed for us to make if, by the time Richard’s Bay is completed, it is out of date for the type of vessel that is sailing around our coasts. Therefore I say to the hon. the Minister that we cannot afford this risk that after all the money that will be spent there, we will find that Richard’s Bay is in fact too small for the ships that are plying to South African ports. It is estimated by shipping people that by 1975 most of the ships then in operation will not be able to call at any South African port as they are presently constructed. I believe it would be a very serious mistake indeed if we set our target on catering for a size vessel which may well be out of date by the time we are ready with Richard’s Bay. Surely, in constructing the new harbour, the new harbour which we all agree is vitally necessary, it should be constructed with a projection of what will be necessary perhaps 25 or 30 years hence and will not already be out of date by the time Richard’s Bay is completed. I should very much like to have the report of the C.S.I.R. and other technical reports on Richard’s Bay made available. As far as I am aware, they have not been made available to date. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to this House and to this country to make this report available so that at least we can be assured that what is being done at Richard’s Bay will not cater only for vessels which are at present sailing around our coasts, but vessels which will be likely to sail around our coasts for many years to come. It has been truly said, I believe, that we have made no real progress in our harbour construction over the last 30 years in so far as making them capable of handling the larger ships is concerned. It is true, we have built piers and, for instance, Durban Bay has undergone many changes. But not one of these changes has assisted the larger vessels to enter the port. I think this is a serious omission, one that could handicap us for many years to come unless it is recognized now and steps are taken to overcome it. We know that the Durban Chamber of Commerce, for instance, has been very critical of the handling of cargo in Durban Bay. The president of the Durban Chamber has said in various statements that the delays in the handling of exports, for instance, have had a serious effect on exports. This is at a time when the country needs all the exports it can get if it is to take advantage of devaluation. I am particularly perturbed to note, for instance, in the General Manager’s report and in replies to questions across the floor of this House that there is a shortage of no less than 1 026 White workers in the Durban harbour out of the establishment of 3 300. The hon. the Minister will agree that this is a tremendous shortage. While saying that it is a tremendous shortage, I want to pay tribute—and I think that we on this side of the House have certainly not been tardy in this respect—to those people who are working in our harbours. I am dealing with harbours in particular at the moment. The report makes it quite clear that the tonnage handled increased by 82,6 per cent during a period of seven years while the staff only increased by 1,2 per cent. This is a tremendous credit to the people involved. Nobody can take that away from them. It is an even greater credit to them when one realizes the serious staff shortages that we are experiencing in our harbours. I know it is easy to be critical and negative in this respect and one does not wish to be so.

I should like to bring one or two other matters in this particular context to the hon. the Minister’s attention. Firstly, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could explain to me why it is shown in the latest report of the General Manager made available to us, that there is only one Indian in the employ of the harbours service. One would assume that this applies to Durban harbour only though it does not say so in the report. The report of the General Manager shows that there is only one solitary Indian in the employ of the harbour service. He must be a very fortunate person indeed. I say I assume that he is working in Durban, and if this is so I would like to point out that the Indian population of Durban is 317 000. It seems to me very strange that only one Indian out of that figure of over 300 000 could find employment in the Durban harbour service. Admittedly, the General Manager’s Report does say that over 1 100 Indians are employed, but one assumes that they are being employed in the Railway section of the Harbour service. It may be a little difficult to split these up in a table so as to say which is Harbour service and which is Railway service, as a result of the intermingling. In view of this tremendous shortage the Minister has in the staff at Durban, I would like the hon. the Minister to bear in mind that to employ—if these figures are correct, as I assume they are— only one Indian in the whole harbour service, to my mind seems just a little bit strange. Perhaps our recruiting in that particular section could be improved upon.

The other aspect which I think must be brought to the hon. the Minister’s attention is the following: I speak of Durban naturally because it falls mostly within my constituency. The staff position in the Durban harbour is so serious, and yet a tremendous job is being done by the staff on duty, but I am particularly alarmed at the conditions in which that staff has to serve. In various parts of the harbour I have seen, for instance, that the change-rooms are in a terrible condition. Their toilets are in a shocking condition. I know that this is an aspect which concerns all of us, the Administration, myself and the people who work there. It is not easy for the Administration to keep staff in competition with private enterprise; it is difficult enough on the salaries that they pay, but the conditions that they work under in all types of weather are important. I therefore believe that in cases where staff are employed in a type of work where they have to work in the open and under all sorts of conditions, the amenities should at least be more satisfactory than they are. Those I have seen certainly has left a lot to be desired. If the hon. the Minister wants to attract staff to Durban harbour—he knows better than I do how much he must attract staff if he is going to handle the situation, particularly in the years to come—these amenities must be a great deal better than they are at present. I hope that this matter will be given very serious attention.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Natal will forgive me if I do not follow up on what he said in his plea. He devoted his speech mainly to the question of Richards Bay, a subject I honestly know absolutely nothing about. I only hope the hon. member who discussed that matter knows more about it than I do.

I should like to refer to another matter. I want to refer to a train accident which occurred on Monday, 6th March on the railway line between Goodwood and Thornton, when a passenger train crashed into a stationary goods train. According to the report we received in this connection, two of our railway officials were injured in the accident. I do not want to discuss the accident as such, but I do want to refer hon. members to a report dealing with these two injured railway workers. I am referring to this report so that it may serve as an example of the problem I have. In the Cape Times of 6th March it is stated inter alia, referring to these two injured officials—

I am referring specifically to this short report and to this specific paragraph in order to demonstrate to hon. members the problem we are experiencing in respect of the medical treatment of railway officials. Unfortunately this report creates an unhappy and incorrect impression of what the actual position was in regard to the treatment of these two men at the hospital. If time allows, I shall return to this. The present situation in respect of the treatment of Railway Sick Fund patients in provincial hospitals is causing great annoyance today, whether this is justified or not. In this regard I want to confine myself in particular to the Cape Peninsula, with which I am familiar and where we have quite a number of provincial hospitals. There are, among others, two training hospitals under the care of the province, namely the Karl Bremer Hospital in Tygerberg and the Groote Schuur Hospital in Observatory. These two hospitals, as training hospitals, are closed to Railway Sick Fund patients, as I assume they are probably closed to any other sick fund patients, because private doctors are not allowed to treat patients there. Only in an emergency can a railwayman be admitted to those two hospitals. He is treated until he has recovered to such an extent that he can be transferred to another hospital.

This brings me now to the remaining provincial hospitals in our area. Theoretically a Railway patient may be freely admitted to the other provincial hospitals, but in practice this unfortunately does not quite work out in this way because the Sick Fund is under contract to certain private hospitals in the Peninsula which by their nature do not always maintain the same standard as our provincial hospitals. This also means then that even if a railwayman lived in a community like Epping, Thornton or one of those areas adjoining the Conradie Hospital, he must nevertheless be transferred to a private hospital in Rondebosch, Sea Point or wherever it is. Apparently the Sick Fund also provides that that railwayman must be treated by a Railway doctor under contract to the Sick Fund. This brings me back to the report in the Cape Times on those two railwaymen, where the impression was created that the men had to wait for an excessively long time, while they were in effect emergency cases, before receiving treatment. The procedure was also followed in this particular case that a house doctor at the Conradie Hospital decided whether it was an emergency or not. In this case these were not emergencies with the result that these people had to wait until a Railway doctor was available to treat them in the Conradie Hospital. It is precisely in this kind of case, when a man is injured or sick, that he is more irritable. That is what irritates the railwaymen to a large extent here in the Cape Peninsula. Now my question today to the hon. the Minister is whether it is not possible for him—we know the Minister does not have the exclusive say in this connection—to bring home the idea to the Sick Fund that it should reach an arrangement with our provincial hospitals so that our railwaymen can also be freely treated—I am not saying receive free treatment—in these provincial hospitals as well. After all, I do not think that the fees at these provincial hospitals can be more than those in the private hospitals, with the result that this will not entail considerable, if any, additional costs to the Sick Fund. If our people were able to go freely to the hospitals in the Tygerberg area, if they could go freely to the Conradie Hospital, and eventually to the Karl Bremer Hospital, which will also become an open provincial hospital when the new training hospital in Tygerberg is in operation, then I can assure you, Sir, that we would be able to create a far more satisfied Railway community in this area, and I think that this could be done at little financial expense. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence with the Sick Fund so that we can eliminate this source of irritation among our people.

Towards the end of his speech a moment ago the hon. member for Uitenhage said, “It is a dead horse and it is no use flogging it.”

I said, “It is no use flogging a dead horse.”

Just prior to that, the hon. member had referred to the Cabinet and the St. Croix project. It was not clear to me whether he had meant the Cabinet or the St. Croix project, but because I assume that he was referring to the Cabinet I am sure that the hon. the Minister will allow me once again to refer to the St. Croix project. May I say at the outset that there are a few facts that I would like to have placed on record. The first one is that theoretically the capacity of the Port Elizabeth ore installation is 6,3 million tons per annum. Under today’s conditions and circumstances we are handling approximately 4,7 million tons per annum. Sir, the next point I would like to make is that the technological breakthrough, which the Railways achieved with their Jumbo ore trains pulled by diesel traction has, I think, put an altogether new complexion on this whole question of Saldanha/St. Croix and which one should be built before the other. According to information supplied to me by the Railway Administration, the capacity of the Sishen/Port Elizabeth line at present, taking into consideration the greater carrying capacity of the ore trains, is approximately 10 million tons per annum. The figure which has been mentioned as the cost of increasing the capacity from 10 million to 15 million tons is R93 million, and this figure was given by the hon. the Minister just a year ago in column 3056. I am sure that this figure is irrelevant today with this new development of the jumbo trains.

I would like to say that for all practical purposes the ore installation in Port Elizabeth today is working to full capacity. My reason for saying this is that only relatively small carriers are able to enter the berth due to the relative shallowness of the water. They are loaded fairly quickly; the turnabout of the vessels is rapid, and sometimes only 30 minutes elapse between the departure of one carrier and the entrance into the harbour of the next one. Sir, I say this to bring bouquets to the Railway Administration for the working of this ore installation, but berthing and unberthing are time-consuming operations, and time is utilized in these operations which could have been used in loading vessels. If larger vessels could enter the berth, if the depth permitted this, then the through-put of the installation would be higher and it could then perhaps reach the theoretical 6,3 million tons per annum. The present throughput of about 4,7 million tons per annum has nothing to do with contracts. Even if we were to treble the contracts that we have today, we still would not be able to load a greater quantity of ore. The reason, as I have said, is the size of the carriers. Of course, an additional berth could be built and the loading of manganese could be separated from the loading of iron ore. Iron ore is carried in bigger carriers than manganese, and this would step up the through-put of the iron ore installation. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Transport recently visited Port Elizabeth, and the very serious pollution caused by the iron ore in a wide area surrounding the existing installation was pointed out to him. This disturbing menace the Minister has undertaken to combat by instituting various measures, but I think the Minister will agree with me that that is only going to be patchwork. He knows that if an additional berth were to be erected in the Port Elizabeth harbour, this pollution menace would in fact be compounded into a pollution menace cum health hazard, and the only way to eliminate this menace, and I am sure the Minister agrees, would be to remove the ore installation to St. Croix.

*The hon. the Minister knows what an enormous amount of money—he himself mentioned the amount of R650 million— will be necessary for carrying out the Saldanha Bay scheme as a whole. He knows what a tremendous amount of money the country will have to pay in interest on the capital that will have to be borrowed. He knows that if a relatively small tonnage of ore is exported from Saldanha Bay, it will be an uneconomic scheme. He knows what the recommendation of the departmental commission of inquiry into this whole matter was. I wonder if I may ask the Leader of the House to take the House and the country into his confidence and to tell us what the recommendation of that inter-departmental commission was. Rumours are circulating, rightly or wrongly, that the majority of the members who served on that commission recommended that St. Croix should have priority over Saldanha Bay as regards the construction of a new ore harbour. He knows that the Railway Administration is favourably disposed to the St. Croix project. He knows that economically it is sensible not to spend money on the construction of an additional quay in the Port Elizabeth harbour, but instead to spend money on a railway connection to St. Croix. My hon. friend the member for Von Brandis told the Minister that private interests in South Africa had entered into tentative ore agreements with the Japanese. Even if those agreements had not been tentative, but final agreements, they would not have been able to implement them, for we do not have the facilities. If those agreements had to come into operation in 1975, and if the St. Croix project were undertaken in the meantime, we would not be exporting 4,7 million tons of ore per annum, but then it could have increased gradually until it could quite probably have reached eight, nine or 10 million tons per annum by 1980.

†The hon. the Minister of Transport knows that South African, European and Japanese engineers have stated categorically that such a vast scheme as envisaged at Saldanha will require years of study and evaluation before construction can be undertaken, and may take 10 years. [Time expired.]

I shall not reply to the speech made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, for I want to discuss a few other important matters. In the first place, there is no industry in the world which can yield profits every year. Railway officials know that there are years of profits, and they are also aware that there are years of losses as well. But the Railwaymen also know when they can lay claim to the profits that have in fact been made, and when they cannot lay claim to the bonuses or dividends yielded for the year, because the Railway official is a shareholder in the Railway enterprise. There was a time under the U.P. régime when the Railway official and his work were considered to be inferior. The National Government raised those people to a level equivalent to the Public Service, with equal treatment, as is the case in any other administration in our country. At present the United Party is once again trying repeatedly to regard the Railwayman and his wife and children as the pitiable, as the inferior, as the impoverished people, as the wronged people, and to place them in a category different from that of the man in the street, to humiliate him and his wife and his children. That is something this National Government and the Minister will not allow. The Railwayman and woman have proved over and again what role they have played in the progress of the Railways and the development of the Republic of South Africa. I want to thank the Minister and the Deputy Minister very sincerely for the special attention they have given to Railway matters in my constituency. I want to thank the Minister for the extension and development works on the Kimberley-Postmasburg project, and I want to thank him for the new station which is being built at Prieska, one of the most modern stations in the Republic, which is now nearing its completion. I want to thank the Minister for his readiness to meet the need for a railway line to the copper mines, as well as for the extension at the new station. After these representations and what followed on them, the following was also done, and here I have to express my appreciation to the Deputy Minister for having responded timeously to my representations for workers performing temporary work to be provided with better temporary accommodation, especially in the hot North-West. We know under what circumstances those people are working—for years they worked in those galvanized iron sheds, which had absolutely no facilities and gave no satisfaction. They were exposed to the heat and the wind and the sun, and today, through the agency of the Administration and the Minister, these people have been provided with accommodation. These people have been provided with caravans which are on a par with flats on wheels, modern flats on wheels, which are giving a tremendous amount of satisfaction to the people working on those large projects in the North West, such as the railway line from Windhoek to Prieska and De Aar, where 20 of these caravans have been made available within a short distance. Furthermore, I want to thank the Administration for having agreed, after representations, to provide air-conditioning in the offices of the people in the North West, who are exposed to this terrible heat and have to work in those circumstances. Therefore I want to say that I shall find it astonishing if any of these people, to whom the Minister is giving these facilities, will ever vote for the U.P. I refuse to believe that they will do so. They are Railway officials, but I refuse to believe that they are stupid.

Now I want to deal with the questions put by the hon. members in regard to the Prieska station. I asked the hon. members to be present here, but unfortunately they are not here, and I hope the hon. member for Yeoville will inform them, or else they may simply read the Hansard report, for I should like to have this on record. I want to ask the hon. member for Simonstown why he allows his party to use him on so many occasions to do their dirty work. It will be no wonder if this hon. member lands in trouble at some time or other because he does not always make sure that the information he obtains is based on facts. The hon. member for Simonstown concerns himself with matters …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the matters which are under discussion.

I have already come to the station, Sir. I want to deal with questions put by him in regard to the station. I think that this matter is really no concern of his. I think he merely wants to be an important person. Because he asked these questions about the Prieska station, and because he did not have the necessary information, I think that he is always trying to be an important person. He wants to be the bride at the wedding, but at the same time he also wants to be the corpse at the internment. I am not angry about his having done this, but I feel unhappy because the United Party does not make sure of its facts about matters on which it does not have enough information. I may as well speak to the hon. member for Durban Point, too. I think the information which the hon. member for Simonstown obtained for putting these questions, comes from him. I think that when the hon. member was there and held certain meetings, he obtained the wrong information. I am aware of good United Party members living at Prieska, and if he had asked those people, who were well-informed, or if he had asked me, he would have obtained the correct information, but he obtained information from people who are definitely not worthy of their party, and he made use of gossip. I suspect that the hon. member for Durban Point obtained his information from people of this kind. There would have been people able to give the hon. member the correct information. The information I gave my voters, is that the new station was already planned long ago, long before the discovery of copper, and that after that development had taken place, additional works were undertaken to keep pace with the development. For these reasons a change had to take place in the development. But the hon. member apparently obtained his information from the most irresponsible people. But, surely, the hon. member for Durban Point had the opportunity to give the correct information to his party about my constituency. Surely he had the opportunity to tell them that when he held that meeting at Prieska, it was the most miserable meeting he had certainly ever held. Surely he had the opportunity to tell them that there was only one railway worker who attended his meeting. Surely he had the opportunity to tell them that at Postmasburg, where there are more than 600 Railway voters, none of the Railway people attended his meeting. After all, he had this information at his disposal to give to his party, and today he still has the opportunity to give them this information and to tell them that at the next election it will not even be possible for them to put up a candidate there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to dispose of a number of matters that have been raised up to now. The hon. members for Von Brandis and Port Elizabeth Central have once again brought up the case of St. Croix. I do not wish to say any more about that than has already been said in the course of this debate.

†I say again that I am not prepared to accept everything that Wilhelmi tells me. I want written evidence before I am prepared to accept it. We have had dealings with him over a number of years. I don’t say he is dishonourable; he is an honourable man but I am not prepared to accept everything he tells the hon. member. I want written evidence that the Japanese steel mills are prepared to enter into contracts when St. Croix is built. Then the matter can be considered by the Cabinet.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City is not here.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North said I should introduce a luxury train on the line between Pretoria and Port Elizabeth, and that its name could be the President Kruger, or it could be named after me or after Dr. Verwoerd. This is a very fine thought. When new railway coaches are available, I shall give very serious and sympathetic attention to that request—as far as the train is concerned; not the names.

The hon. member for Uitenhage pleaded for railway officials to have legal representation. This is not something new, and it is a matter that has been raised over many years. Up to now I have not agreed with it. It is true that the Police can have legal representation. However, they are a disciplined force. They are subject to disciplinary conditions quite different from those of the ordinary Railway official. Railway officials commit hundreds of infringements of discipline every year. If they were to be allowed to have a legal representative in respect of every case, I do not know whether it will be of any use or serve any purpose. We know lawyers; often they are more concerned about technical points than they are about justice. This is not really a reflection, for the judges are just like that. They were all lawyers in their time. There would be a lot of arguments on legal points; there would simply never be an end as far as the hearings are concerned. The cases that are tried, are not highly technical ones; they are ordinary infringements of discipline committed by railway officials. Hon. members know what the procedure is. First of all an inquiry is held by the investigative officer. He investigates the entire case, and gives his ruling as to whether he considers the charge to have been proven or not. After that the case is referred to the disciplinary officials, and not, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg claimed, to the disciplinary official in Johannesburg. Each section has a disciplinary official. The disciplinary official has all the particulars of the case before him. Then he decides whether or not he accepts the recommendation of the investigative official. If he accepts it, he decides on the punishment. After the sentence has been passed, that particular official has the right to appeal. When he appeals to the Disciplinary Appeal Board, one of his fellow-workers may appear there with him. That is the only time he may have a legal representative to represent him there. Other than that he may appeal to the Railway Board; in specific cases he also has the right to appear before the Railway Board in person. Then, again, he has the privilege of having one of his fellow officials, who is usually a trade union official, appear with him. I am very sure, and the hon. member will agree with me, that the trade union officials know much more about the particulars of these cases and of the workings of the Railways than any lawyer will ever know. If a lawyer were appointed, he would first have to make a proper study of the case, and we know that today an advocate charges R350 for appearing in court for one day. That means that if the trade union were to pay for that, its funds would be exhausted within one year. This suggestion is therefore not a practical one, and up to now the present system has worked very well. I must say that the railway officials and staff associations regularly have talks with me and generally they are satisfied with the disciplinary system as it is applied today. I do not even think that it would be to the advantage of Railway servants if changes were effected in the system and they were allowed to have legal representation when appearing before the Board or the Disciplinary Appeal Board.

†The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the sliding doors of suburban Bantu trains were often left open and that Bantu often cling halfway out and halfway in of the train to these doors and that this is a dangerous practice. I quite agree with the hon. member but the problem is that the doors close against resistance and are kept open by wedging. These Bantu deliberately keep the doors open and then hang halfway out of them. This matter receives periodic Police attention. The Police go round to see what takes place and then take action. In Melbourne, Australia, I saw commuter trains with the same type of doors which are never even closed. Literally thousands of people use these trains especially during the peak hours and they simply crowd these trains to capacity. It has apparently been found that leaving the doors open is not so dangerous.

The hon. member also said that the staff is not happy with the disciplinary procedure, but he should know that the staff organizations meet me periodically and that all these matters can then be discussed. The disciplinary procedure has been in force for the last 50 years and when a possible improvement can be brought about, we do it. We only do this on the representations by the staff organizations. On the whole I would not say that it is perfect and every man who is found guilty of a disciplinary infringement will be dissatisfied with it. This is quite obvious. Every man who is sentenced in a court of law is dissatisfied. Everybody regards himself as being innocent even if he should be found guilty.

The hon. member also complained about the merit rating for promotions, but I want to point out that this system was also formulated in collaboration with the staff organizations. The merit ratings for artisans, for example, were done in collaboration with and with the support and agreement of the staff organizations. I find that that is the most equitable manner of handling promotion procedures. There have always been complaints that some people are the favourites of the Management or of their supervisory officer and that they wanted this type of thing. Now that we are using this merit rating they are quite happy.

The hon. member wanted to know why we considered a ticket inspector to be more important than a station inspector. We do not. The maximum salary of a senior station inspector is R4 500, whereas the maximum salary of a ticket inspector is R3 900. If they are to be judged on a salary basis one can say that a station inspector is more important. The hon. member also said that members promoted away from their homes often have no accommodation and that they should have the privilege of obtaining housing loans. One cannot make any exception, however. The housing loans granted to employees are granted as a result of a procedure adopted by the staff organizations themselves and we cannot depart from that. We have priority housing at certain depots for certain grades, but one cannot grant housing loans to persons who are simply promoted away from their home depots.

The hon. member for Port Natal spoke about Richard’s Bay and said that we do not have sufficient foresight because we are only making provision for ships of 150 000 tons. Where is the hon. member? If he is not here, then I will not reply to him.

*The hon. member for Tygervallei spoke about the hospitalization of Railway servants. As he quite rightly said, this is a matter for the Sick Fund. I am sure that they will make representations to the Provincial Administration for greater access to provincial hospitals. Of course, whether the Provincial Administration will grant that, is a different matter.

Mr. Chairman, just before the hon. the Minister spoke I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Prieska being so worried about which way the Railwaymen in his constituency may vote. Surely he is a bit premature in his apprehension, or is he proposing to resign, or has he some knowledge of an impending general election coming up? I cannot understand why he should be so worried about it unless, of course, he has been perturbed by what happened to his former colleagues in places such as Maitland and Umhlatuzana.

Sir, I want to raise two matters in there is the question of the handling of export citrus, and, secondly, there is the question of rates.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry, Sir, I do not know what that hon. member is muttering about. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is unnecessary for me to stress how important the export of a commodity such as citrus is. It is vitally important from many points of view, including the point of view of earning highly valuable foreign exchange. If we look at the figures of export citrus handled by the Railways Administration, we see that in the year 1969-’70 a total of 504 368 tons was exported through South African harbours. In the year after that it dropped to 445 850 tons. Through Lourenço Marques a total of 111 674 tons were exported in 1969-’70, and just over 139 000 tons in 1970-’71. What has been worrying the citrus export industry for some time, is that especially during the last two seasons there has been a repeated shortage of trucks at the crucial times when they were needed. The position, as the hon. the Minister well knows, is that the citrus industry warns the Railways Administration well in advance of what crops are expected and in what areas they are expected. But, in spite of this, it seems that especially in the Northern Transvaal, for instance, there have been shortages of trucks at highly embarrassing times. I want to make it clear that when these truck shortages have been taken up at a fairly high level in the Railways Administration, the complaints have been attended to right away. There is in fact no complaint against the upper echelon of the Railways Administration about how these problems are dealt with. But by the time it comes to the stage of complaints about railway trucks, it is already very late. Citrus exporting is a very carefully managed and very carefully costed operation. Even though the complaints of shortages are acted upon promptly, they do inevitably result in reduced packing capacity in the pack houses, an upset in the fruit flow and the general sales plans for citrus abroad. They result in the loss of man hours in the pack houses, and along with that, very often in pack houses having to pay overtime. And finally, of course, and this is important, there is general frustration and time-wasting in getting the position rectified. We appreciate that truck shortages do occur especially at peak times, such as at the height of the seasons, but along with such things as congestion in ports, in the case of products such as citrus, it can have very serious effects on the fruit itself. Truck shortages which sometimes result in shipping delays obviously must upset the overseas marketing plans of our citrus industry, causing loss to growers, and it can result in the growers having to pay for dead freight as well. Equally important is the fact that even a matter of a few days’ delay can result in the deterioration of the fruit through warm temperatures causing wilting, decay and various rind maladies. It is pleasing to see that the hon. the Minister has made provision for 1 250 new O-type fruit wagons, although we see that very little is being done in this coming financial year to supply them. Perhaps he could tell us when they are expected.

Turning to the question of railage rates in the little time I have at my disposal, the Railways have held the view all along, it seems, that the rates on export citrus between the grower and the cold stores should be paid at the ordinary local railway rates. This has been a bone of contention with citrus growers for some time. As I understand the position, the Railways Administration relies on the recommendation of the Schumann Commission’s report in dealing with export fruit. In paragraph 443 of the report the commission came to the conclusion that it was unable to support the request that an export rate be granted on raw materials when conveyed to a factory for processing prior to export. I believe that this is an entirely wrong interpretation that is being laced upon the recommendation of the Schumann Commission. In the first place the export citrus is packed and by the time it reaches the cold stores it is already in the packed form in which it is exported. There is no processing of any sort that has to be done. It is simply stored in a cold store, and to suggest that this is a type of processing is, I think, very wrong indeed. Representations have been made to the Railways Administration by the citrus industry and as far as I have been able to ascertain they have met with no success at all. I think the Minister should appreciate that these cold stores are highly essential, not for processing, but for ensuring an even flow of export fruit between the grower and the port of export. The whole point of them is to eliminate peaks and indeed to enable us to achieve the highest return on our citrus exports. It is, I think, highly unfortunate that this situation should be allowed to continue. As I understand it, it is true that the Railways believe the transport of citrus fruit not to be a paying business, but that is another matter entirely. I submit that where you have citrus simply being held over in a cold store on its way to the port of export, the export rate should be charged all along from the grower or from the packer, at least, right through to the port from which it is exported.

Mr. Chairman, my attention has been drawn to the Hansard report of my speech of the 13th instant, in which I said—

It now appears that the words he used were “poor White people”. I accept the hon. member’s word that he used the words “poor White people” and I tender my apologies.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington, who has just resumed his seat, stated his standpoint and made his representations in a very responsible way. Because I have nothing to add in regard to that aspect of transport, I shall leave him at that.

When one looks at the debate conducted on this Vote last year one will note that we listened ad nauseum to complaints from the United Party to the effect that there was a lack of planning within the framework of the South African Railways in South Africa. Now, barely a year later, we are having another discussion and there has not been a single complaint from that side in regard to planning. One can draw one of two conclusions from that. The first is that the United Party—and I think this is in fact true—realizes the absurdity of those arguments; or secondly, that this department has during the past year been planned in such a way that there is no further reason for criticism. But then I want to point out that according to what the hon. members for Yeoville and Jeppes said last year it would not have been possible for this side to have made up that backlog in planning within 10 years. Today they are piping a different note on their flutes. This year this Government is supposedly to blame for the economic situation which arose in South Africa and which is prevailing today throughout the entire world, so that the Railway Estimates also suffered as a result.

Only in South Africa; not throughout the world.

This is not merely a national phenomenon; it is international. But when we view the Railway Estimates in their entirety, I think that aspects such as those used by the United Party in the debate, namely the economic as well as the labour situation in South Africa, could be debated to great advantage under the votes of the various Ministers. But one finds, when there is a group which wants to criticize and no room for criticism can be found, that they try, in a haphazard way, to find an item which is more or less going to be in line with their argument. That is why the United Party has consequently, in this debate up to now, wanted to criticize the South African Railways and this Minister only on other aspects.

There was no criticism of the administration and the operating section of the Railways. There was no negative criticism of the Minister. I think this is really a bright feather in the cap of the South African Railways and the Minister of this department.

When one listens to the praise from that side of the House, in respect of this Minister as well, one wonders whether the United Party was not chopping and changing again, as the Minister said earlier this afternoon. One year the department and the Minister are blamed for a lack of planning; the next year they are praised, also for their attitude in respect of labour and the relations between Whites and non-Whites on the South African Railways. But I wonder whether the United Party is really in earnest about this so-called relaxation of the labour regulations.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Before the House adjourned for Supper I was dealing with the inability of the United Party to come forward with any direct criticism of the Department of Railways in this debate, I also questioned the motives of that side of the House when they plead in this House for the relaxation of labour regulations. I shall come back to this later. We on this side of the House could not but realize what a lack of faith in the economic situation and in the economic future there is among members on that side of the House. Martin Luther once said: Even if I know that the world will come to an end tomorrow, I am still prepared to plant an apple tree today. That degree of faith is also to be found on this side of the House. On that side of the House we find the following kind of faith : Even if I know the world will come to an end in 10 years’ time, I do not know whether it is worth-while planting an apple tree. The weather may turn cold or there may be frost and some work will have to be done on that tree, it will have to be pruned. I do not know if it is worthwhile. That pruning, Mr. Chairman, will mean that some work will have to be done. I want to state tonight that that side of the House is afraid of work, for when appeals are made by this side of the House to the public to work harder and to save more, that side of the House ridicules such appeals. That is why I question the motives of that side of the House in respect of the relaxation of labour regulations. It is not clear in my mind whether they see it in this light that it will be to the benefit of the industrial sector, or whether it is merely an attempt on their part to let us as Whites work less and others more.

In his speech the hon. member for Yeoville referred, inter alia, to an event in 1945 when a decision was made to construct a railway line between Kensington and Bellville. When he mentioned this he said, inter alia, that at that stage the then Minister of Transport was “the wise od Scotsman, Mr. Claude Sturrock”, and that the engineer was “the brilliant Mr. Marshall Clark”. I think we on this side of the House also have every right to boast—and I am saying this with respect—of a wise old farmer, in the better sense of the word, and with equally brilliant engineers. These are engineers who succeeded for the first time in the world in conveying on a 1 065 mm gauge railway line a load of 12 000 tons with a net pay-load of approximately 8 850 tons. That is undoubtedly an achievement. In view of this development by our engineers and in view of the time, labour and costs saved, and also in view of an argument put forward by the hon. member for Randburg and what I myself have also experienced in my own constituency where Railway officials in their own local yards are organizing and re-organizing to get the same amount of work done with less staff, I should like to advocate to the hon. the Minister tonight that he should consider bringing the leave conditions of the officials of the South African Railways into line with those in the private sector.

In the Cape Times this morning there was an article entitled “Too little time for a family life—a problem of professional parents”. This was a talk given by Dr. J. N. Smit, an educationist. I think that one could with justification say that the Railway official also experiences this problem in respect of his family. One should see this in the light of the fact that they do double work in a double year with a maximum leave period, after 25 years, of 27 days. I think they begin with 18 days’ leave. We are consequently requesting the Minister to consider this concession in regard to our officials of the Railway Administration as far as their family life is concerned. We feel that more time should be available to devote to the family.

The hon. member for Jeppes again posed here as the champion of the officials of the South African Railways in regard to their salaries, as if we on this side of the House have no sympathy in this regard. We know the standpoint of the hon. the Minister. When money is available he will give it. In view of the fact that the railwayman also has to work on a Sunday, which is, more than any other day, a family day, we should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would consider making an adjustment here so that Sunday time would be regarded as double time. [Time expired.]

I listened to the hon. member for Bethlehem. The hon. member seemed to waste a lot of his time drawing politics into this debate. He did not find time to appeal on behalf of his own constituency. I happen to know Bethlehem, having motored through that area frequently. I am at a loss to find out why the hon. member did not ask the Minister for an overhead bridge where you enter Bethlehem. It is one of the most dangerous railway crossings I know of in South Africa.

It is on the programme already.

Seeing the hon. member spent so much time discussing politics I will on his behalf ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider an overhead railway bridge at Bethlehem without delay.

The Jack Wainwright Bridge!

I am not asking the hon. the Minister to call it the Jack Wainwright Bridge. We can discuss that matter when we are in power. I have listened to this debate on the Railway Budget and what impressed me was the ill-advised optimism which has come from hon. members on the other side. I have listened to the hon. the Minister too who has spoken often during this debate, yet to me, he has left out the big issue facing us and which concerns the South African Railways, namely that we are running the railways at a deficit. We have run the railways at a R39 million loss, and what is worse, the hon. the Minister has told us that this loss will continue for the ensuing year. What has amazed me is that the hon. the Minister has not at any stage suggested a solution to this problem. The Government is running this business at a loss. I know it is very easy to run a business when one’s pocket is full of money, and this has virtually been the position with the Government for the last 23 years. We have seen boom years and we have seen good times. Any Government can govern a country or an administration such as the Railways when its pocket is full of money. South Africa’s economy has changed and now the system is slowing down. If we are not careful it is going to grind to a standstill. Obviously hon. members on that side must pretend to be optimistic. Yet in all their speeches I fail to see where and on what basis they can base their so-called optimism?

With the short time at my disposal, I want to mention a few items which concern the Cape Eastern system, part of the area which I happen to represent. First and foremost I want to remind the hon. Minister once again that the transport system from the Mdantsane Bantu township to East London is in a very precarious state. I do not believe that this serious situation, this grave problem, can be solved across the floor of this House, and I am not attempting to do so, but I want to remind the hon. the Minister that the position there with regard to Bantu labour for East London is, to put it mildly, very distressing and most frustrating for those people who have to endure this problem. I believe that at this stage we should let sleeping dogs lie, but I want to remind the hon. the Minister that this is a very serious problem which we will have to solve in the very near future. I am aware of all the problems involved, and so does the hon. the Minister. We will have to get together very soon and solve these problems.

The second item which I must bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice is the East London harbour. The shipping traffic in the East London harbour is very, very slow indeed. We are at a loss to see why it should be so. I know that in this regard there are problems. This problem is created by, amongst other things, the railway tariffs. When we look how the East London harbour has functioned in the year 1970-71, we see that East London is one of the few harbours which during the past year has run at a profit, percentagewise. East London has done better than any other harbour in South Africa, percentagewise. During the 1970-71 year East London ran at a profit of R655 000, compared with R243 000 the previous year. The position has improved, and this is not the case in the other ports. Sir, what concerns us in the Eastern Cape is this: While we support all the ideas of developing and expanding other ports and opening new harbours such as Richard’s Bay and Saldanha Bay, we are at a loss to know why East London shipping is not running at full capacity, or even three-quarter capacity. You can visit the East London harbour at any time you like and you will find plenty of space for ships, in spite of the fact that thousands and thousands of ships are coasting our seaboard every year. I think it is time the Administration took note of this. It is all very well developing other areas and other ports or harbours and spending vast sums of money at a time when the Railway system is in fact running at a loss, when East London could cope with this traffic. There are a few problems which require to be ironed out and can be ironed out, but unfortunately to date the Administration has not seen fit to do so. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that East London has always had his sympathies. I accept this, but it is time that the hon. the Minister started putting his words into practice. Although East London showed the biggest profit percentagewise, the profit in East London is very much less than the profit in other ports. During the past year Durban showed a profit of R11 million, Cape Town R2 million, and Port Elizabeth nearly R7 million. These are the profits shown by the ports only. When we come to harbour expenditure, let us compare the East London harbour expenditure with the harbour expenditure in Port Elizabeth. East London’s harbour expenditure was R3 million, against R3,8 million in the case of Port Elizabeth, vet Port Elizabeth showed a total profit of R10,8 million as against East London’s R3,7 million. This goes to prove my argument that East London could cope with very much more shipping traffic, but this does not happen because of railway tariffs, amongst other items, which can be adjusted by the Administration. The graving-dock in East London showed a net loss of R284 742. The slipway showed a net loss of R10 000. We know that Cape Town and Durban also showed losses in their graving-docks, but when one sees that there is congestion in the graving-dock at Cape Town, then surely an adjustment can be made so that the East London graving-dock can take more of that traffic. It is interesting to see that this year East London’s pre-cooling system showed a loss of R6 000. It is not very much. but it is nevertheless a loss. Last year, however, the cooling system showed a net profit of R33 000. As I say, this can be adjusted without any additional expenditure. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for East London North has also associated himself now with the doomsayers who see nothing good in the economy of the country.

Not in the National Party Government.

He was quite impressed by the optimism on this side of the House. He will just have to remain impressed, for this side of the House will continue to make all the necessary adjustments, and that is one of the reasons why we are optimistic. The National Party, like the Railways, is capable of making the necessary adjustments to meet the needs of the country. Sir, I want to refer specifically to the adjustments the Railways was able to make and to the flexibility which does in fact exist in their administration. At present in South Africa we are going through a stage of expanding industrial development. This development is increasing at a rapid rate. The change-over from a basically mining and agricultural country to an industrial country has also placed its burden on the transport system of the country. This has also brought about a change in the nature of the goods which have to be conveyed. Where we were initially conveying crude ore and unprocessed agricultural produce, we are now having to convey more and more manufactured products. We now have to convey increasing quantities of consumer goods, delicate electrical equipment and glassware. This industrial production of ours is going to increase at a more rapid rate than in the past. The projection is that while commodities which did not exist ten years ago are now part of our lives, in five years time, commodities will be part of our lives which to a large extent did not exist five years ago. To this degree the industries will, I almost want to say, inundate us with their new products. It is necessary for the transport system of any civilized and entrepreneurial country such as this to make the necessary adjustments in this regard. I am grateful to be able to say, on the basis of my observations, that the Railways is capable of making the necessary adjustments and that from time to time the necessary adjustments have in fact been made, admittedly not as rapidly as all of us in trade and industry would have liked to have seen, but the Railways did nevertheless succeed in doing so. I can mention for example that instead of conveying fuel in drums, we now use tankers with which to convey fuel. Instead of conveying manufactured goods in boxes in open trucks, we now have packing cases which are filled with these products, so that damaging is reduced and the delivery at the destination is facilitated and expedited. Instead of the old refrigerator wagons, as we had in the past for the conveyance of fish from the harbours to the interior and for the conveyance of other perishable produce, we today have the mechanical refrigerator wagons—the so-called L-1 type. I shall return briefly to this subject in a while.

Sir, in my experience of and in my negotiations with the staff of the Head Office in Johannesburg, I have found that there is initiative and drive among that staff. I have found that they are certainly motivated to make the necessary adjustments in this branch of our public administration as well, and to ensure that the wheels of industry keep turning smoothly.

But as commerce and industry produce more goods—and I have already told you that we should expect that as a result of scientific and technological development, these manufactured goods will be off-loaded onto our consumers in an ever-increasing stream in future—there are also greater demands for rapid conveyance and for the rapid delivery of goods. I can mention, for example, the case of a new product which you want to put on the market, a product which you then have to promote and publicize. It is then necessary to make a market break-through with this product and to get your product to a specific market rapidly and efficiently. In fact, you hear today that your opponent wants to market his product there tomorrow and then you must have your product on that specific market today, and it must get there rapidly and efficiently. These adjustments, this need for rapid transport, will to an increasing extent in the future require the attention of our transport system. In addition to that you find that once you have captured the market or you have established a foothold for yourself in a specific market, you also run the risk of losing your market because you cannot get the supplies to it. For example, we can take cool drinks on these hot days. This causes a tremendous need which has to be satisfied rapidly. You therefore find that from time to time there is a tremendous demand for rapid transport, and there are adjustments which have to be made in this connection. The kind of transport which has to make these rapid adjustments must, in my opinion, be the supplementary road transport service. Here I want to comment that basically the Railways is geared to getting the goods which have to be delivered to their destination, but there are circumstances, such as those I have sketched here, and many other circumstances which I do not have the time to enumerate now, under which one has to make use of a rapid transport system, more rapid than this can normally be furnished by rail traffic. It takes, for example, from three to five days, and I have seen a record of even eight to nine days, to get traffic from Johannesburg to Durban and off-loaded, particularly in the heavy season. It sometimes takes from nine to ten days, although you might have to supplement certain supplies urgently, and would then like to make use of the road transport service. My plea is that the Railway Head Office itself, in its approach to this problem, should be a little more flexible than it is at the moment.

I want to mention the example of the L-1 wagons to which I referred previously, the mechanical refrigerator wagons. At present, according to the annual report, I think we have approximately 120 of these wagons available. I am aware that a further 500 have been ordered, and I think they are being delivered this year, until August 1973; 34 of the 500 have already been delivered. The need for mechanically refrigerated transport is increasing daily because the quality of the consumer’s product which is placed on the market by producers is also improving, and the man who wants to deliver his product wants to deliver it in the best condition, and modern research into the conveyance or storage of refrigerated goods indicates that one can only do this by conveying those goods at a temperature lower than minus nine degrees Celsius. That is why it is absolutely essential that this kind of conveyance will take place by means of mechanical refrigerator units which keep the temperature constant at minus nine degrees Celsius or less. The old refrigerated wagons are not completely effective for this specific purpose. But since we have only 120, and since we are gradually acquiring more of these wagons, it would seem that there are problems in having enough of these wagons available for large firms who deal with the delivery of this type of perishable produce. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bellville told us at the beginning of his speech how optimistic hon. members on the opposite side of the House are, but surely not politically optimistic, for in South African politics today the National Party is the only party which is not making any progress. Then the hon. member spoke about adjustments in the field of labour. This is not a sign of verligtheid, as many people want to pretend. It is a question of circumstances which are forcing this Government away from their traditional policies to prevent the Railways, for example, from coming to a standstill.

But I want to raise a few matters with the hon. the Minister in regard to what I would call a few snags in the S.A. Airways. The S.A. Airways in general is praised far and wide, but there are a few incidents, in which I was personally involved, which deserve the attention of the hon. the Minister.

In the first place I want to mention something about the facilities in regard to the Jumbo service on a Sunday-afternoon from Cape Town to Johannesburg, and most certainly vice versa. On Sunday, 6th February, of this year, I travelled on flight 350 from Cape Town to Johannesburg. From the terminal at Cape Town everything went off very well, but upon arrival at Johannesburg the situation was simply chaotic. On this flight, as is probably the case with the new Jumbo service because it is a popular flight, there were internal passengers as well as overseas passengers, and I must say the flight in question was booked almost to capacity. Upon disembarkation in Johannesburg there were two vehicles waiting outside. [Interjections.] Sir, it will not help hon. members to make such nonsensical remarks. I just want to raise a few matters with the hon. the Minister which I think are in the interests of the S.A. Airways. Upon disembarking in Johannesburg there were two vehicles outside to convey passengers from the aircraft to the airport building. There was one young woman outside—it was absolutely pathetic—who had to indicate to these almost 300 passengers as they disembarked from the aircraft to which of these vehicles they were to proceed. Nobody knew what was going on, because the one vehicle was waiting for overseas passengers and the other for internal passengers. She tried running from one passenger to another, people boarded the buses and had to get off again, and others walked aimlessly around the buses; nobody knew precisely what was going on. The impression this incident made on each and every one of the passengers, and particularly the overseas passengers and tourists, left much to be desired. The aircraft landed at 5 p.m. From there we had to go to the old section of the Jan Smuts airport building, which was previously used as the international airport concourse, to collect our baggage there, and once again all was confusion. There were almost 300 passengers, clustering round a small platform area to get their baggage.

But surely you know what the conditions there are.

There were a few Bantu placing the items of baggage on the platform. It was at approximately 6 that evening, after the aircraft had landed at 5, a whole hour, before the passengers, after falling over one another, were able to get their baggage. I stood and watched. From the moment the passengers alighted from the aircraft, things began to go wrong, and I wanted to observe the entire incident.

Secondly I want to refer specifically to the conveyance of passengers per bus from the Rotunda terminus in Johannesburg to the Jan Smuts airport. On 18th January, at 6.30 p.m., I caught the bus at the Rotunda terminus in order to be in time for flight 305 to Cape Town.

These are all privileges which you have.

I am not disputing that.

Very well then, discuss something else.

Surely the hon. member uses the same privileges. On the bus there were quite a number of overseas visitors who were on the last leg of their visit to South Africa. The arrangement is that this bus must first stop at the new international airport building, where overseas passengers then get off. The bus then drives on to the old airport building for internal passengers. The bus simply stopped at the international airport building and the bus driver made no announcement. Quite a number of passengers got off. Only after some of the passengers were almost inside the building did the bus driver jump out of his cab and call the passengers back to take their baggage off the bus. Only then did some of the passengers who had alighted, discover that they should not have done so there because they were internal passengers. Other passengers, on the other hand, who had remained sitting, discovered that they were supposed to get off at that stage because they were overseas passengers. Surely the Railways can introduce intercom systems on these buses for this purpose in order to ensure a smooth flow of passengers, and in order to eliminate the impression of chaos among thousands of tourists. These minor matters—I emphasize that they are minor matters—give me, personally, the impression of an absolutely poor organization.

Then there is a third matter, namely the convenient arrangement which South African Airways passengers have been deprived of at the airways terminuses. I am referring to the convenience of checking in your baggage at the terminus and obtaining your boarding pass. This arrangement was terminated in August of last year. I want to request the hon. the Minister to re-introduce this arrangement for the convenience in particular of internal tourists, businessmen and particularly for airways passengers who are dependent on public transport services. Passengers who make use of this bus service must report to the terminus even earlier than was previously the case. Your baggage still remains your responsibility, even after arriving at the airport building, until you have checked in your baggage and obtained your boarding pass. Possibly this arrangement is a luxury, but I do want to recommend to the Minister that this arrangement be re-introduced for the convenience of many businessmen, internal tourists and internal passengers in South Africa.

Another very urgent problem, is the control at the airport building of crowds of people who either come to protest with placards or who come to welcome famous personalities, particularly with the arrival of international flights at Jan Smuts airport. One does not want to deprive these people of the privilege, but I think that good, orderly control will help a great deal to afford passengers who are making use of the airport building to obtain their seat tickets in an orderly way, and also perhaps enjoy a cup of tea. I was at the airport when certain students from the Pretoria University recently organized a protest upon the arrival of Dr. Waldheim. The Police had to be called in to control these people in an orderly way. I do not want to cast any reflections on the University of Pretoria, because I am also referring to other students and other organizations which organize protests there on such occasions. I repeat that these are minor matters, but I wanted to bring them to the attention of the hon. the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have just been listening to the spy of the United Party, their James Bond 007. It seems to me the hon. member for Turffontein spends his time walking around looking to see where things are not going smoothly. Then he comes to this House and, with all due respect, wastes the time of this House with such petty local matters. Let us consider this case of the Jumbo jets. The hon. member knows as well as any of us here that throughout the world, with the introduction of the Jumbo jets, trouble has been experienced in dealing with the baggage and passengers when those aircraft land at airports. Throughout the world it has taken time to outgrow these growing pains. The hon. member for Turffontein made a speech here, furnishing all kinds of detail, about the growing pains which are being experienced by the South African Airways in regard to its Jumbo aircraft. The facts he conveyed to the House are facts which are known to the Administration, but which were also known to the Administration before the first aircraft ever landed, for every aerodrome in the world is experiencing these problems. The Administration is most certainly aware of all these things.

I should like to turn to the hon. the Minister with a specific plea in regard to my own constituency. In my constituency there is a railway area with the name of Salvokop. On a previous occasion I also said a few words here in regard to Salvokop. Only Railway workers live in the Salvokop area. This is an area which belongs to the Railways and where the Railways supply all the services, except for certain services given out on contract to the Municipality of Pretoria. The Administration is primarily responsible for the maintenance of streets, and so on, in the Salvokop railway area. I am particularly grateful that in the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works under Item No. 632 in respect of Pretoria there is an amount of R31 100 estimated for the realignment of First Avenue, Salvokop. I want to express the gratitude of the Salvokop railway workers for what is being done here, for this money is being used to realign First Avenue in such a way that it is in line with the exit of the prison area. This may perhaps sound very unimportant, but it makes the control of traffic possible at Potgieter Street and is therefore probably one of the most important things the Railways Administration could do for the inhabitants of Salvokop. It makes the erection of a robot there possible, and will improve the traffic position. I can give you the assurance of the Salvokop railway workers that this R31 100 will have been very well spent.

On behalf of the railway workers I also want to convey my gratitude for the amounts estimated under items No. 700 to 702. Here concessions are being made for new houses and for the improvement and replacement of quarters for White railway servants. The amount estimated for the new year is R7 million. In the Salvokop area, according to information I have received from the Administration, five new houses are being built at a cost of R71 500. Our railway workers are very grateful for these concessions and the developments in their area. On behalf of the railway workers, however, I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister. The Railway area there is an old area. The houses are old and many of them are no longer in a 100 per cent conditions. Not all the services, even some of the most essential, are always available in those houses. I want to make an earnest plea to the Minister today to have the whole of Salvokop area replanned. In the main there are insufficient recreational facilities for children, and for the community as a whole. The railway workers of Salvokop deserve this little bit extra from the Government and the Administration. Living in that area are clerks employed on the Railways, but for the most part footplate and train staff. As the son of a railwayman, a driver, who had to work very long hours, I can inform the House that a great sacrifice is being made by the wives and children of railwaymen. The wives and children do not know when their husbands and fathers are coming home. The most important thing is —you must try to picture this to yourself— that many railwaymen do not arrive home at the same time two days running, or work equally long hours two days running. The hon. the Minister knows this better than anyone else. These people are making an exceptional contribution not only to keeping the wheels of the Railways but also those of the economy of South Africa rolling. As a representative of railway people, as a member of this side of the House, I want to express my particular gratitude and appreciation to the railway workers, not only of my constituency, but also to the railway workers of South Africa for what they are doing to keep the wheels of the economy rolling. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hollow sound of the United Party on that side of the House will avail them nothing at the ballot box. The railway workers of South Africa are behind the National Party and vote for the National Party. The railway workers of Pretoria Central are 100 per cent behind the National Party and the railway workers of Pretoria have in the past worked hard for the country and for the Railways. They are prepared to render those services in future as well. We ask the hon. the Minister to give this plea the most serious consideration possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria Central started his speech by complaining that the hon. member for Turffontein had dealt with minor issues,—“onbelangrike sake”. Then immediately, the hon. member proceeded to devote the whole of his speech to matters of local importance to his own constituency. I want to contrast the difference between a United Party M.P. and a Nationalist Party M.P. The United Party M.P., the hon. member for Turffontein, because he is a patriot, because he is proud of his country, raised issues which tend to give our country and our Airways a bad name in the eyes of the travelling public. His interest was in offering constructive criticism in order to eliminate things which could harm the good name of South Africa. In other words, he stood up and spoke as a patriot. All the hon. member for Pretoria Central was interested in, was a few cheap votes. I can tell him now that this ten minutes he has wasted will not help him that much when it comes to the next election. The railwaymen in his constituency …

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

No, you have had your ten minutes, take your medicine. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has had his ten minutes and now he must take his medicine. I want to tell him that all his efforts will count as little as they counted in Maitland when a certain Carr had an accident and we now have a good M.P. for Maitland. That will happen to that hon. member and to all the members who represent Railway constituencies.

Mr. Chairman, seeing that this is the Committee Stage debate, I want to return to the Budget. Firstly, I want to refer to the hon. the Minister’s invitation to the hon. member for Yeoville to inspect the electronic truck control system. I welcome it; I hope he will invite me sometime because if he refers to Hansard he will find that after a very interesting tour of the Transvaal, a number of years ago, I in this same debate at the same stage, said :“Surely, South Africa has developed enough that we do not need to take little bits of paper and pins and move them manually about a board to show where our trucks are.” I suggested that the time had come to introduce computerized control and I am very glad that my suggestion has been adopted, I also wish to deal with a local matter. The hon. Minister wants to put the steam engines into museums. I ask him please to build a roof over Durban station because that is the oldest and the biggest museum piece there is in the South African Railways. After all these years R700 000 was voted this year for the Durban station. By the time that station is built, it will not be a museum, it will be prehistoric. I do plead with the hon. the Minister to try to regard Durban as part of the 20th century and not as part of the 19th century as regards the facilities which he is building there.

Whilst I am talking of primitive things, I want to refer to another local issue in my constituency and that is the tarpaulin factory. A lot of money is spent on tarpaulins and I suggest to the hon. the Minister that with a very small investment, with some mechanization, with some conveyor systems, he could increase the efficiency and the output of that factory beyond belief. I do not expect the hon. the Minister himself to have been there, but there you are handling heavy things like tarpaulins where you have four or six people manually carting them around. They do it manually all the time whereas a simple conveyor system and a simple bit of modernization could increase the output considerably. What is more, it could make the task of the men working there very much easier. I want to move from that to other aspects of planning. When the hon. Minister’s department plans a new development, please remember the staff who are concerned with it. I do not have time on this occasion to deal with it in detail, but the new Bayhead goods yards lack so many little things which a bit of foresight and a bit of thought for the people who work there could have avoided —things like the siting. It is a simple problem. I refer to the siting of first-aid rooms, the siting of the toilets, of washrooms and the siting of facilities so that they will be convenient to the people who have to use them. I cannot deal with the details, but I do plead, as I pleaded in the Second Reading for recognition that machines are all very well but it is the men who make the railways work. I ask the hon. the Minister to ask his department when they plan something, whether it be mechanical, civil engineering or buildings or facilities, to remember the men who are going to work in them. Try to give them facilities equivalent to the modern equipment which you are giving them. I take a simple thing like the temperature in the old corrugated iron buildings in Durban. Let me give an example. In a drawing room with the temperature and humidity both in the 80’s or 90’s, can you imagine the loss of productivity when everybody sits there with a towel under each elbow because if he touches his drawing paper it smudges and he will have to start again. It is a waste of energy and time which can be saved by a R160 or a R200 air-conditioner instead of subjecting people to work thus. Inevitably, because of the temperature they spoil their work unless they take so much care that it reduces their productivity. These are not important matters. The world is not going to end if they do not have air-conditioning in a drawing office and the world will not end if a man has to walk half a mile to a toilet, but it makes it so much better for the people who are working there. The half-mile walk there and back means an extra five minutes effort given to work for the Railways. These things mount up. What I believe we are missing is attention to the human element in making our Railways efficient. I could go on with a dozen examples. I take re-employed staff, re-employed pensioners who are looked on, I believe with a certain amount of contempt. They do a great job on the Railways, filling posts which cannot otherwise be filled. The intermittent casual clerks, to whom I have referred so often, have because they are casual clerks and temporarily re-employed, none of the benefits and nobody seems to care for them. Nobody seems interested in them, because they are not permanent workers. They are doing a job to help the Administration, but the Administration appears not to give recognition to the value of their effort.

I refer, for instance, to the question of overtime. We have had a lot of talk on productivity, but not one member on that side of the House has referred to the question of excessive overtime amongst the people they represent. The hon. members for Uitenhage and Pretoria Central say “Ons mense is getrou aan die Nasionale Party.” The overtime strain has not eased since last year. It is no better than last year, and I say it is destroying family life. It is affecting health and is one of the matters with which we have to deal if we are going to get maximum effort, best results and loyalty from the staff.

Mr. Chairman, I found it an exceptional pity that the patriot from Turffontein should have deemed it fit this evening to reproach the students of South Africa, the young men and women who speak the same language as he does, with supposedly having been in the way at the Jan Smuts Airport during the visit by Dr. Waldheim.

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

Order!

I want to say to that hon. member that the students of Pretoria and of the Afrikaans universities of the Republic of South Africa will take note of the attitude he adopted here this evening. This side of the House wants to say to those students: “Thank you very much. You were not in the way. You stated South Africa’s case through your presence.”

Why did the Police intervene?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

This afternoon when the hon. the Minister of Transport was speaking I was mastered by a sensation, something which happened to me recently and also for many years every time I realize what a privilege it is and how pleasant it is to be a member of the Government party and to sit on this side of the House, to realize and to know that you are in the same camp, and under the leadership of inter alia a man like the Minister of Transport. This afternoon I watched the Opposition while the Minister was speaking. I want to tell my friends that they should in future be a little more careful. I could read on a few of their faces the admiration they feel for this Minister, for his competence, his skill and his unimpeachable personality. I want to tell them this tonight: I thought this afternoon that, if I had the ability to look deeply into their hearts, I would have seen there the desire to have such a leader on their side of the House. Therefore I do not doubt for one moment that the Opposition this evening and during this debate, together with us on this side of the House and the public of South Africa outside, are grateful and proud that in times such as these we have such a man in charge of the largest and greatest organization in South Africa, i.e. the Railways, a man who ensures literally and figuratively that the wheels run smoothly and almost silently over the railway lines of the Railways of the Republic of South Africa.

Any decent person believes that when he has made a request and it has been acceded to he will at an appropriate time also express his gratitude for it, and that is what I want to do tonight. Precisely a year ago, in an equally short speech in this House, I made representations to the hon. the Minister and his Department on behalf of a specific area and a group of people in my constituency. I referred to the dangerous railway crossing where the terrible school bus disaster occurred two years ago. Last year I then asked the Minister and his department to see to it that that danger point was eliminated by means of a flyover bridge across the railway line. I concluded my plea last year with the following words :

Tonight I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department on behalf of my people for that request having fallen on receptive ears and having met with a response from an understanding person. That work has not been completed yet, for it is almost impossible for it to have been completed by this time, but a start has been made and much progress has been made with it. We are certain that within a few months—with safety I can say next year’s debate—that fly-over bridge will be in use. I want to inform the hon. the Minister and his department that the work and the activities which the people of that area witness every day is a comfort to them and they know that the possibility of such a disaster occurring again is remote. On behalf of my people in my constituency I want to say that I am very grateful to him.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just finished speaking, took it amiss of us for having showed signs of gladness because the hon. the Minister of Transport is applying aspects of our policy. Now I want to tell him that we on this side of the House love South Africa. If we see that someone is accepting our good advice, we will show our gladness.

He also referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Turffontein and took it tremendously amiss of him for having referred to what occurred at the Jan Smuts Airport, and to certain Pretoria students who were involved in that incident. I want to ask him a question : Is he in favour of peaceful demonstrations or is he in favour of demonstrations which cause trouble for the Police? I do not know where the hon. member stands.

I should like to exchange a few ideas with the hon. the Minister on the problem of housing. I realize that it will help us if we argue on the basis of a common premise. I base my arguments on certain standpoints which I think the hon. the Minister will readily accept. I think the Minister accepts that his organization is one of the greatest enterprises in South Africa, that it has the greatest number of employees, and because it is one of the greatest and comprehensive organizations in the country, it can offer its employees benefits which other organizations cannot offer theirs. Now I find I have a problem in respect of housing. Firstly, I also accept that the Railways, as a community, is not a uniform community. It is, in the same way as any other community in society, a community which consists of different layers. We find for example a thin upper layer consisting of the higher income group. My observation has been that this group, as far as housing is concerned, is not experiencing any problems. They are in fact utilizing the benefits offered to them by this great organization. I am not saying that there should not be benefits for them. I think the hon. the Minister must offer them these benefits, otherwise they will move from his sphere to the sphere of private enterprise. We come then to the middle layer, i.e. the middle income group. This of course is the largest group. In this regard housing is in some respect a problem. For this group, however, there is a ray of light. In spite of all the hard knocks they have to endure they can in fact, as far as housing is concerned, enjoy the benefits of what is being offered to them. But when we come to the lowest paid group we find, according to my observations, an entirely different picture. We find that this group comprises an important part of the organization. This is a group which the Minister will never be able to wish away. We find that this group in some respects is the most needy. We also find that this group is the forgotten group of the hon. the Minister’s Administration. It is for them that I want to take up the cudgels tonight.

Where do these people live? Show me any city in South Africa and I shall point them out to you. We find them as close as possible to the centre of the urban complex. That is not strange. It is logical. Throughout the world there is a tendency for the richer individuals to live further away in the suburbs. Nearer to town you find those who fall into the lower and middle income groups. As far as housing is concerned I cannot but bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister that it would seem to me as if his department are in fact washing their hands of the whole matter. These persons are being left to the mercy of the Department of Community Development. What can this department do with them? They are perforce being accommodated in old buildings in respect of which a certain circle of events has to be completed and a certain procedure has to be followed. The Department of Community Development expropriates buildings, and then accommodates these people in those buildings. If they are lucky they can stay there for a few months, for a year or more. Then one of two things happens. The Department of Community Development may sell the buildings, the new owners make improvements, with the result that the rental is increased. This lowest and most needy group then find themselves, in many cases, on the street. Then, of course, these buildings may also be demolished. The result is that these persons come to me as a public representative. All we can do then is suggest to them that they return to the Department of Community Development and place their names on another waiting list. The Administration is unaware of this human drama which is taking place here. Normally, when you ask such a person: Now, but you work for the Railways, don’t you? What is your position on the waiting list. That person will then tell you : Well, around 80 or 90.

Or 580.

He simply remains there. My problem is that the Administration is unaware of these things which are taking place. In addition sociological problems also arise. There are cases where they fall into arrears with their rent, sometimes the result of circumstances beyond their control, and then, on top of everything, they incur the displeasure of the Department of Community Development. Sir, it is at times like these that the public representative has a hard time of it. My plea to the hon. the Minister is this: It is no use thinking in terms of housing; one has a certain group of workers who are rather unstable as a result of sociological circumstances, and one must accept that. I believe the hon. the Minister should begin thinking of the possibility of providing flats for these people, but I do not think the answer is going to lie in the building of new flats. I think the hon. the Minister must seek a solution to this problem in the acquisition of older buildings as close as possible to the centre of town. The hon. the Minister will ask me where he is going to find such buildings. Sir, in my constituency, Durban Central, I can show the Minister several buildings which fall under the control of the Department of Community Development. These are buildings which do not have to be demolished soon. If the hon. the Minister could buy those buildings and place them under his control, then that group of people could also be afforded the opportunity of enjoying the privileges which this vast organization should offer them. Sir, I shall mention something to you which will help them. The problem in respect of persons who fall into arrears with their rent can be virtually eliminated in this way. At present Community Development can do nothing about the matter. If a person works injudiciously with his money and does not pay his rent at the end of the month, or if he has not paid for two months, then the Department of Community Development has to evict him, but if the Minister, who is his employer, accommodates him in those buildings, then surely one will be able to negotiate and do so humanely; you may decide to deduct a certain amount from his salary, and in that way teach the employee to discipline himself. In other words, one could in this way do the Railways a great service by helping to ensure that even the bottom layer of the workers remains more stable.

Sir, I want to mention to you the example of a building constructed in 1966 in Durban by the Department of Community Development. There are approximately 37 to 40 flats in the building. This building was erected in 1966 at a cost of almost R287 000. In 1971, five years later, the Department sold it to a private individual for R300 000; in other words the Department made a profit of R14 000 on a capital investment of R287 000. I think that that kind of good fortune should rather have come the way of the Railways. If the hon. the Minister tries to erect houses for R300 000 at today’s building costs, he would not be able to provide as much accommodation for his workers as was available in that one building which the Department of Community Development constructed as long ago as 1966. [Time expired.]

Sir, before I proceed to make my speech I just want to refer briefly to the allegation made here by the hon. member for Durban Central, to the effect that we are supposedly taking over the policy of the United Party now. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine, considering the mess we inherited from the United Party Government, that we would want to take over their policy after all these years in which we have achieved such great success?

The hon. member discussed housing here. I shall leave the hon. member to the hon. Minister, but I just want to refer him to the memorandum of the Minister of Transport, on page 33, where the housing position is set out. There he will se what has been done and what is being done for our Railway servants. Sir, this side of the House cannot do enough as far as housing for the railway workers is concerned. We are very sorry that we cannot do more. No government would be able to do enough, but we are proud of what we have done with the means at our disposal.

Secondly, I want to return to the hon. member for Turffontein. Sir, it so happens that I was on the same flight to which he referred here, and I shared that experience with him, but there was a good reason for it, as has already been said here this evening. It was merely part of the growing pains we have to go through and which we will have to go through everywhere during the introduction of such service as this. The difference between this side and that side of the House is this: While this side of the House acts in a positive way, all we get from that side is that negative attitude Which the hon. member again adopted here this evening—and then it is said that he is a patriot. Sir, surely the patriots are sitting on this side of the House, not on that side. Surely we know hon. members on that side of the House; they are continually gnawing away, like white ants, to try to destroy the foundations of what has been accomplished.

Sir, I want to proceed with my speech, and I want to dwell briefly on the matter of our South African Airways. I want to begin by saying that the South African Airways is the pride of South Africa. The South African Airways and its achievements is not only the pride of South Africa, but it goes much further than South Africa. As far as the management of an airline is concerned, the world can learn from us. Sir, the Jan Smuts Airport, to which I want to refer for the most part, is actually in my municipal area. We therefore have a great deal to do with it, and that is why I can consequently speak with authority on this matter. Before I proceed, I just want to refer to the attitude of our people. I have here in my possession a clipping from Die Transvaler of 10th March, with the headlines: “The S.A.A. staff are not asking for more money.” The report goes on to read (translation)—

Sir, I am mentioning this just to show what I mean when I talk about people who adopt a positive attitude. Our people in the South African Airways and in the Railways service realize what our problems are; they accept them and they know that this governing party will look after them as it has been looking after them for the past 24 years. In regard to the Jan Smuts Airport, I want to make special reference to its staff. I want to avail myself of this opportunity of congratulating the staff of Jan Smuts Airport and thanking them for the excellent service they have rendered to the public in the past and are at present continuing to render under extremely difficult working conditions. For a very long period, and to a great extent even now, they have had to work in the midst of disrupted office conditions, in the midst of a great deal of noise in dusty places of employment and in unpleasant weather conditions, in heat and in cold. Sir, there were nights when that traffic building was in darkness after the underground cables had been damaged by an excavator. The staff had to do their work there in the dark under very difficult conditions. I know that the staff are looking forward with longing to the day when all the building operations and all the work there has been completed. There is another aspect in regard to these building operations, and this has to do with the roads. Sir, you are aware of the fact that the roads leading to Jan Smuts Airport are extremely busy and that these roads have not yet been completed. These are all things which aggravated the problems of the people working there. The question of parking and transportation is a great bottle-neck for these people However, great progress has already been made with the construction of the roads and the establishment of parking facilities, and one looks forward to the day when all these things will have been completed. Sir, I want to thank the staff of the Railways in all its different sections for their loyalty in rendering this important service under such difficult circumstances, which in actual fact is our show window to the outside world. Their patient labour does not go unappreciated by our people. We on this side of the House convey our gratitude to them, to the hon. Minister, to the Airways staff and to all working there and who are making a contribution towards maintaining the good name of our South African Airways. We are proud of our staff, from top to bottom. However, there is another matter I should like to refer to briefly, and this relates to the introduction of the Boeing 747 Jumbo jets. This was definitely a great event in our country. In the short while since the Jumbo jets have been put into operation, they have proved clearly to us that they will be a great success. Their utilization during peak periods between Johannesburg and Cape Town, and subsequently between Johannesburg and Durban, will be welcomed. One Jumbo jet will be able to cope easily with the morning and evening peak period traffic, and this has the further advantage that the airports and the air space for a large number of 100-seater aircraft will be saved. Another factor which by now is very clear, and this applies particularly to my constituency, relates to the noise caused by aircrafts. We were very concerned when these Jumbo jets were introduced, but we have been very pleasantly surprised as a result of the fact that those aircraft have built-in-systems which reduce the noise level considerably, and the noise is far less than we actually expected. This brings us to the noise zones which are being demarcated. We hope that the hon. the Minister will be of assistance to us, so that as little as possible of our habitable land will have to be sacrificed once this matter has been finalized.

In addition I just want to point out that these Jumbo jets are going to render a service to us which is really excellent. I had the privilege of travelling on one, and I can assure you that the service rendered there, by the staff as well as by the aircraft itself, is of five star quality. Once these services are in full swing I am convinced that they will be of great value to us. According to an article in Rapport of 31st October, 1971, it is mentioned that the 747 could be more profitable with a passenger pay-load factor of 53 per cent, i.e. plus/ minus 200 passengers. To travel on this aircraft is really an experience. The comfort and the convenience and the space, the service, are all equal to the best we have known. [Time expired.]

Listening to the hon. member for Kempton Park talking with authority as he says about Jan Smuts Airport, which is in his constituency, I think that if he does not improve on his performance—he merely said thank you for what these people had done in his constituency—then if I read the political signs correctly it might well be that he will not be representing these people for very much longer. I think he is aware of the fact that there is rapid urbanization taking place in his constituency and I believe that it is now very much a “grenssetel”.

You are just a verkrampte United Party man.

I rise to raise some matters in regard to the Cape Midlands area. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I will not talk about St. Croix, although I must say that having judged the situation and having studied the hon. the Minister’s face very carefully during these various debates when St. Croix was discussed, I am very optimistic about the outcome of the situation. I have a feeling that at long last St. Croix looks like becoming a reality and I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister feels the same because if St. Croix becomes reality the profitability of his Cape Midland line will increase a great deal.

I thought you said you were not going to talk about St. Croix.

I am just mentioning it. That was just in passing. I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister. Last year in this debate I raised the question of a suburban line to the Coloured and Bantu townships in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area. The Minister referred me to the fact that an inter-departmental committee had looked into this project, but at that stage the passengers, the traffic, offered was not sufficient to warrant any project of this kind. I want to say that the problem of moving the Coloured people and the Bantu people in that area is developing into a very serious one indeed. I do not believe that the passengers can effectively be transported by the bus services which are available at this stage. The time is rapidly drawing near when the only effective way of moving these many thousands of people to work will be by means of a suburban line. I do not ask the hon. the Minister to tell me that this matter will be rectified next year or the year after; all I ask is that this matter again be referred to the inter-departmental committee to make a thorough investigation of the situation in these Coloured and Bantu townships in Port Elizabeth. I have looked at page 84 and 85 of the annual report on which mention is made of the increased passenger traffic on suburban routes in all the main centres of the Republic where these suburban routes are operated. There is a tremendous increase taking place, but in the report no mention whatsoever is made of any investigation being undertaken in respect of the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex. I make a very urgent appeal to the hon the Minister this evening and to the Management of the S.A. Railways to have a look at this problem before it becomes too late.

Another problem I wish to raise, quite unconnected with suburban passenger traffic, is this. In the Brown Book item 1107 refers to the purchase of 20 diesel locomotives for the narrow gauge line between Humewood and Avontuur in the Langkloof. The hon. the Minister will know that this is a very important line. It serves a very useful purpose in a highly productive agricultural area. The people in that area will welcome the fact that diesel locomotives are likely to operate there in future and I think this is good forward planning. On this line at present a holiday trip has been arranged, which has become very popular indeed, and in this connection I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. He spoke about steam locomotives of which he was so rightly fond, and that they would disappear from our lines and that some of these steam locomotives would be put into museums. My request to the hon. the Minister is that one of these steam locomotives be set aside to operate this holiday trip. As you know, Sir, the Port Elizabeth area is not very richly endowed with scenic beauty. We have not the interesting drives that we have here in the Western Cape, but this particular railway line follows a very interesting and attractive route, and it is really a very popular trip based entirely on the scenic beauty which is to be seen. The railway line also covers a route which is not accessible by road. For this particular reason it serves the tourist traffic and provides them with a worthwhile outing. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister will think it practical or not, but I want to appeal that, when the change-over is made, on this particular holiday track this train should be pulled by a traditional steam locomotive. Not only will this be a novelty, but it will provide an additional attraction. As an added novelty perhaps the coaches on this little train could be painted in gay colours. If the hon. the Minister is open to suggestion, he could paint this train with the United Party colours of green and gold. In that case, I think he would find a lot of passengers climbing on to the band wagon.

Nobody will then get on to it.

Speaking about this particular line, I have another problem. In the early stages this line passes through the little village of Walmer which happens to be the main portion of my constituency. The hon. the Minister is probably aware that over a distance of some five miles, there are no fewer than five level crossings. Serious accidents have taken place at these level crossings. I am not sure who is responsible for building the road-over-rail bridges, but this is a matter of great urgency. I am glad to be able to report that one such crossing is being dealt with at the present time. There is one that is very near to the airport for Port Elizabeth City. A tremendous amount of traffic passes over that particular level crossing and I think it presents a real hazard. I make a particular appeal to the hon. the Minister to expedite, if it is in his power, the erection of a road-over-rail crossing there.

There is another matter which interests us in the Port Elizabeth area. The hon, the Minister will know that two holiday train services—what one might call “tour trains”—are run in the Cape Province each year by his department. One goes from Cape Town into the Transvaal and the other comes from the north down to the Eastern Cape. These holiday or “tour trains” unfortunately do not stop at the main centre of the Eastern Cape, namely Port Elizabeth. The hon. the Minister will recall that, when the Royal Train passed through Port Elizabeth in, I think, 1947, although I am not quite sure of the date, that train was stationed at a loopline opposite what is now known as the famous King’s Beach. In this Republican era perhaps “King’s Beach” is not such a wise name. It might preferably be called “Kingwill’s Beach” because this beach is right in the heart of my constituency. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Durban Central said earlier this evening, i.e. that that side of the House has a very great love for the Republic. I wonder whether that hon. member is aware of the fact that according to the Argus there are two sections on that side of the House, i.e. the Verligtes and the Verkramptes. I wonder what section of that side of the House really has that love for the Republic, the Verligtes or the Verkramptes. The hon. member for Walmer has just lodged a plea for certain aspects of transport in his constituency. He did so after blaming the hon. member for Kempton Park for the fact that because he pleaded for interests in his constituency he is probably aware that he will no longer be representing that constituency in the future. I just wonder whether the hon. member for Walmer also has a similar feeling that he will perhaps no longer be representing Walmer either.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the thanks extended in this House to the hon. the Minister of Transport and his Department. I thereby do not want to fuse my sentiments with the expressions of praise of the members of the other side of the House, because I figure they want to gain political advantage from that. I want to tell them that if they are trying to gain political advantage from their flattery of the hon. the Minister, they are on the wrong track. I should very much like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Department …

Who is now using flattery?

Those are my people; we know each other’s language. I should like to say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister and the department for the new station buildings erected at Alicedale and Somerset East, the latter to be inaugurated shortly. They are buildings that attest to the elegance this department envisages for each community in which they are introducing extensions. I also want to express my thanks for the housing that is being supplied to members of the staff. Last year, in this debate, I also asked the Minister for better overnight facilities at, inter alia, Wolwefontein station, and I can give you the assurance. Sir, that before I reached home in the recess, those improved overnight facilities had already been provided. I therefore want to say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister and his staff for this. I also want to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister for the decrease in the railway rates on the transport of mohair. The farming community involved in this industry is profoundly grateful for the special concession the hon. the Minister made in this connection. I can attest here to railway people in my constituency who are extremely happy people. It is specifically that aspect of the railway officials that has always entailed, in spite of a virtually constant staff complement, an increase in labour productivity always having been maintained. This attests to a dedication amongst these people which we in the Republic would do well to take note of. I believe this takes place under the guidance of a very competent Minister, with his Deputy Minister and his staff. Because I have got to know the hon. the Minister and the members of his staff as particularly sympathetic people, people attuned to for the needs of the Republic and the rapid development involved, I want to ask that serious consideration be given to an inquiry into the possibility of building a railway line from Somerset East to Pearston and Jansenville with a junction at Klipplaat. As hon. members will know, such a railway line would link up the two very important valleys which, with a view to the extensions of the Orange River project, would get a lot of service out of such a railway line. I am now thinking in particular of the special development that ought to take place in these two valleys, but also of the tourist industry that could possibly also be developed with the development of the Mentz dam filled by water from the Orange River project. I should also very much like to focus the attention of the hon. the Minister and staff members on the fact that in the constituency I represent there are several excellent houses standing empty at the moment. I do want to ask that when officials are considered for transfer, it be borne in mind that we have space for families with many children, because we have the existing school facilities, housing facilities and special neighbourhood facilities to offer such officials. I think that here one could also do the railway official with a large family a particular service by placing him in those respective centres. Although a great deal of financial assistance is given to the railway officials’ children for educational purposes, there are nevertheless quite a few cases, and this applies to my constituency as well, of railway officials who are on salary scales that just exceed the amount necessary to qualify for an accommodation bursary for the high school training of the railway official’s children. We have several such cases, and this makes their position a particularly difficult one. I now wonder whether consideration cannot be given to the devising of a plan on the part of the administration, which is so generous to the children of railway officials, whereby to a certain extent those parents can be met halfway.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member for Somerset East dealt with here. He spoke mostly about his constituency. He thanked the hon. the Minister, inter alia, for overnight facilities that were speedily introduced at Wolwefontein station. He said that before he reached home the facilities were already there. I do not actually want to thank the hon. the Minister for a lot of things. For a man who has had that portfolio for so long, he was simply doing his duty. He does his duty efficiently.

I do not only want to deal with aspects affecting my constituency, I also want to deal with other aspects of transport. Firstly I just want to say—I have said this on previous occasions too—that the transport service for Bantu between Mdantsane and East London, a distance of 14 miles, is in a shocking state. I know that that service is furnished by contract buses. I know the limitations of those buses and the difficulties the contractors have. I know how the buses are overloaded and what a danger they are on the roads. The hon. the Minister is not involved in that. But what he is involved in is the fact that there are insufficient trains to transport the Bantu on that line. The hon. the Minister has already told me that his problem is that he cannot again double the line. Neither can he let the trains run faster, and he cannot load more passengers onto the trains either. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister knows how overloaded those trains are. I now ask directly whether there is any control over the number of people allowed into a passenger coach on the suburban train services for the Bantu. One finds these passenger coaches so overloaded that the doors cannot be closed. I do not want to dwell on this subject for very long. I know the hon. the Minister is aware of the situation. I know what his problems are in that connection. But I nevertheless want to say that he must give the matter his serious attention, because Mdantsane and the other urban Bantu areas are developing by the day, while the services the hon. the Minister can furnish are not doing so. We are constantly saddled with that problem.

I should like to refer to Head 13—Tourist Service. In this connection I should like to refer to the luxury buses that convey tourists over long distances through this country. In this connection I want to suggest something to the hon. the Minister, i.e. that the fitting out of these buses will certainly have to be changed if he wants them to comply with the aims and the standards of international tourist buses.

Have you already seen the new buses?

I know that there are new buses, but I have not seen them yet. I travel a lot in the other buses.

First go and travel in the new ones and then you can talk again.

I doubt whether the new buses have the toilet facilities they should have, whether they have the necessary water and the necessary catering facilities.

They also have air-conditioning.

The hon. the Minister says they have air-conditioning. I can tell the hon. the Minister there are not enough of these buses to be able to undertake all these luxury tours.

A large number have been ordered.

Those buses are not in use on all the routes yet, and if the hon. the Minister can give me the assurance that the new buses have air-conditioning, the necessary toilet facilities and the necessary catering facilities …

No refreshments are offered on the buses. They stop at hotels.

Mr. Chairman, we all know this. But the buses that are used for long tours over the border have such catering facilities. The passengers are served coffee if they want it. Therefore those buses do not have to stop at hotels every three hours. If the hon. the Minister can give me the assurance that our luxury buses have all those facilities—he has already said that the buses do not have one of these facilities …

But go and travel on those buses and then you can talk again next year.

I am pointing out to the hon. the Minister the corresponding services furnished in many other countries. If the hon. the Minister thinks that the luxury buses he is now going to introduce on these routes have all the facilities the other buses have, he is very wrong. I have already mentioned one facility they do not have, i.e. the serving of refreshments on the road so that a person does not need to wait three hours for a cup of coffee if he is thirsty.

They do not have a kitchen on the bus.

I now want to drop that subject. The Minister is now being very clever in connection with the luxury buses and he goes on talking as fast as I am talking or actually a little faster. I want to refer to the terminal airports, and in particular to the international airports. Notwithstanding the fact that the bars and restaurants are operated on the tender principle, I want to allege that requirements must be laid down with which the tenderer must comply. If the hon. the Minister has anything to do with the requirements, I want to tell him that in some of the airport restaurants the service is mediocre, in others poor and in the rest the service is rotten. I want to reiterate that some of them furnish rotten service. There are restaurants that furnish such poor service that the people refuse to frequent them. They rather stand around in the passage or they sit somewhere and wait for the aircraft to depart. The Cape restaurant has recently improved, and thank heavens for that, because it was one of the poor ones. There are some of the restaurants operated on the tender principle, that furnish particularly poor service. I do not believe that this ought to be the case, particularly on international airports. When I speak of international airports, I am referring to Jan Smuts Airport and the Cape Town airport. Before I drop the subject of the restaurants I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that requirements are, in fact, laid down, as far as the treatment of the public is concerned, which the successful tenderer must comply with, and I want to ask him to ensure that those requirements are met. I now want to refer to the international airports as such. I want to speak of Jan Smuts Airport, which received such praise from the hon. member on that side of the House in whose constituency the airport is situated. Jan Smuts Airport is an international airport. As far as the structure of the building is concerned, the die has been cast. The departing passenger must walk half a mile from the desk where he checks in to the customs house and then he must make another long trip and change floors before he departs. This is something that is simply not encountered on international airports. Apart from the size and the structure of the building, I particularly want to refer to the customs section and the immigration section of this international airport. Incoming passengers who have passed through the immigration section must negotiate a seething mass of people in order to recover their baggage, and after they have waited for an hour, their baggage is not there—this happened to me personally and I have seen it happen repeatedly to international passengers—I saw it happen as recently as 14 days ago. Their baggage has been picked up by another passenger …

Where did this happen? At Jan Smuts?

Yes, at Jan Smuts Airport and also here in Cape Town. The baggage has been picked up by another passenger and taken through customs where the passenger had to declare it. I have had to fetch my suitcase at the Johannesburg terminal. That is where I eventually found it. Recently, 14 days ago, a fellow-passenger and I, after we had stood waiting for an hour and a half, and after I had already signed a report to indicate what was missing, found the suitcase being brought back from beyond the customs point by a passenger who had taken it up to his car and then discovered he was walking around with my suitcase. What happened to his suitcase? I want to suggest a simple method of operation to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] What are the hon. members laughing at?

The hon. member may continue.

I am just wondering what the hon. members are laughing about when we are dealing with a matter of this nature. The Whips, in particular, are laughing. I want to suggest a simple method of operation. In the United States and in most European countries one would identify one’s baggage before one goes through customs. If this does not happen, one could at least identify it before one has passed through customs and gone out by the gate. I do not know how a passenger in this country, with the security measures we try to apply, can be allowed to take a suitcase from the conveyor belt, walk straight through customs, declare what is in that suitcase which is not his and then be allowed to drive away with my suitcase all the way to Johannesburg. I now want to suggest a simple method of operation to the hon. the Minister. Persons must be compelled to identify their baggage. Every passenger has a ticket in his pocket which indicates what the number of his suitcase is. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, earlier on, when you interrupted me in accordance with the rules of the House, I was speaking about the adjustments the Railways are making in connection with the needs of modern transport. I was discussing mechanically refrigerated transport and the adjustments the Railways have already made in this connection, i.e. by ordering and acquiring rolling stock and trucks that will comply with those needs. In my previous short speech I said that at this stage there are not nearly enough of these trucks available yet to provide for the transport of perishable products. A little earlier I also referred to the fact that there are other circumstances under which one wants to make urgent use of transport. I reached a conclusion and stated accordingly that road transport is the alternative for these shortcomings. I want to suggest that road transport be instituted by the Railways itself. In so far as this is not possible, closer co-ordination must be sought with private initiative to make these road transport facilities available under the auspices of the Railways. The point I want to make is that in spite of the implementation of the Road Transport Act and in spite of certain restrictions such an idea embodies, an inquiry ought nevertheless be instituted into the possibility of the Railways going out of its way and trying to get this type of transport from private initiative instead of merely shrugging its shoulders if the type of transport I am referring to is not available. There are some of these vehicles on the roads. There are vehicles that can be used. The point is just that there must be a measure of co-operation and co-ordination even before the matter is raised with the Road Transportation Board. It is not necessary to have to go as far as the Road Transportation Board to have the matters settled.

I am aware that the attitude of our Head Office staff is one of envy, the Railways taking first place with them when it comes to pride and loyalty. They must further the interests of the Railways and promote transportation under all circumstances. I am aware of that. And I also commend that motivation; the personnel undertaking this are individuals who are motivated and who have a singleness of purpose. But I feel there should be a measure of pliability in the situation. I feel that a little attention must be given to the needs of trade and industry as far as this rapid transport, to which I referred earlier, is concerned. Equally so in connection with refrigerated transport, I feel that as far, as the situation is concerned there can be a measure of pliability. And that is also my plea. The co-ordination must take place under the authority of the Railways and not beyond the limits of that authority.

While I am speaking I just want to refer to the fact that in the Estimates provision has been made for a considerable amount for the construction of the new station at Bellville. We are very grateful for that fact. This station at Bellville can be a very inconvenient spot, particularly in the winter months when the Boland winter rain sifts down. Except for a few shelters, there is no cover. According to the book Naught for Your Comfort, by the clergyman Huddleston, this station has in the past been called Huddlestonville instead of Bellville.

It has had a Nat M.P. for too long.

I am particularly grateful for that. While I still have a few minutes speaking time left, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I was also glad to notice in the Press recently that there is an increasing degree of productivity on the Railways. The hon. the Minister himself said that in the past decade the productivity of the Railways increased by about 70 per cent. That is the type of thing that gladdens our hearts. That is the type of thing that gives us courage for the future, that gives us the optimism I referred to earlier. In the relevant report that I read I also noticed that the Railways is curtailing its staff by about 5 per cent. This is not being done by discharging employees, but merely by not filling vacant posts. This means that the remaining staff will have to handle the greater turnover and therefore furnish greater productivity. This is an example to other branches of the Public Service, and also an example to the private sector. I shall disclose why I am saying this. I have, moreover, read, heard and found out from private discussions that the Head Office staff is prepared to work half an hour longer per day without additional remuneration. That is the kind of example that is being set. That is the kind of thing that inspires us and gives us courage for the future. These people are motivated and the motivation comes from the Minister and from the General Management. We are exceptionally thankful for that. This form of higher productivity is an example that can be emulated by other branches of the Public Service, and by the private sector as well. I can tell you that recently I held discussions with high-ranking officials of two large insurance and banking institutions in Cape Town. It appears that this same trend of curtailing staff is also discernible in the private sector, in any case in those undertakings that are worth their salt. I was told that this insurance company’s staff had been curtailed by about 20 per cent in the past year. This entailed a saving, in salaries alone, of about R300 000.

Yes, but they no longer have the turnover.

The turnover is higher. I was also told that the other Afrikaans banking institution also curtailed its staff by 20 per cent. This entailed a saving on staff salaries of about R1 million. There the turnover and the profits were also higher. This kind of thing makes me optimistic and gives me the courage to think that our economy is going to straighten itself out and that higher productivity will be the watchword and slogan for the future. Our labour force must be inspired in this manner. We are particularly grateful to the hon. the Minister and his Department for setting an example in that connection.

There is a great deal of talk here about non-White labour. It is not non-White labour that is going to solve our short-term problems. It is the availability of White labour that is going to give rise to higher productivity and not non-White labour. Non-White labour must still undergo a period of training. The White labour, i.e. the skilled labour and the people with the know-how are the ones who must be freed from redundant posts and sent into the productivity sphere. That is the short-term solution for our inflation problem. Non-White labour is a force that can only make a long-term contribution to the solution of the problem of inflation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to those hon. members on this side of the House who paid tribute to the Railway officials. I can assure them that it is greatly appreciated.

†The hon. member for Port Natal apologized for being absent when I replied before the suspension of business. Fortunately I kept my notes, so I can reply to him now. He spoke about Richard’s Bay harbour and said that it was rather short-sighted to make provision only for 150 000 ton ships. I can assure him that we are very far-sighted; we are making provision for 250 000 ton ships. The quay walls will be built to be able to accommodate 250 000 ton ships whenever they become available and require accommodation. The channel leading to the entrance to the harbour, at very small cost, can be deepened sufficiently to take these 250 000 ton ships.

With regard to the dredging that will have to be done to open up the channel to allow ships of 250 000 tons to come in, how long will the dredging last or will it have to be done continually?

No, it is not such a sandy bottom so as to require constant dredging as is the case in the Durban harbour, for example. It is more or less soft rock. There is a natural channel there which merely has to be made deeper through dredging. It will mean a little extra cost but it is not necessary at this stage, or let me rather put it this way: In 1976, when we will start using that harbour, it will not be necessary yet to provide for 250 000 ton ships.

Does it silt up?

No, it does not silt up. It is not a sandy part of the world; in the harbour itself it is all sand, and for that reason the quay walls are going to be built to a sufficient depth so that it will be possible for ships of 250 000 tons to be accommodated there.

†The hon. member wanted to know why only one Indian was employed in the Durban harbour. I am sure I cannot tell him. Apparently the Indians are not anxious to get those jobs. There is no prejudice against Indians. If they are prepared to do manual labour and they apply for employment their applications will be sympathetically considered.

The hon. member spoke about the shocking state of the toilets and change rooms in the Durban Harbour. I will ask the General Manager to look into that matter. I have not been there myself, so I do not know what they look like.

The hon. member for Kensington spoke about the shortage of trucks for the transport of citrus, and also about the export rate on citrus. As far as the export rates are concerned, there is a special export rate applicable to the transport of citrus from a packhouse to the harbour, but from the producer to the packhouse the ordinary domestic rates apply.

From the cold storage to the harbour?

No, from the packhouse to the harbour. The cold storages are at the harbours. In regard to trucks, the Management assures me that they have had no complaints about any shortage of trucks during the past season in spite of the fact that 15 million cases, compared with 13 million the previous year, were transported. There is a delivery programme for an additional 1 250 fruit trucks, for which provision is made in the Brown Book. Tenders have been awarded for delivery as follows: 250 during April, 1972 to April 1973 and 250 during February-November, 1973. Tenders were closed on the 21st April, 1972, for 750 to be delivered— 500 during 1973-’74 and 250 during 1974-’75.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister said that the cold storages are at the harbours themselves. Does he not know that the Citrus Exchange, for example, operates cold stores well away from the harbours?

Yes.

The area in respect of which they are worried about the maintenance of ordinary local railway rates, is between the packhouses and the cold stores.

That is a domestic rate. The export rate is only applicable when the citrus is transported to the harbours for export.

May I ask the hon. the Minister another question? Would the hon. the Minister then reply to my question about what I believe is the misinterpretation of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission?

The Schumann Commission made a number of recommendations; I do not know what this particular recommendation is. The fact is that we are at the moment losing R4 500 000 on the transport of citrus. Any concession therefore is right out of the question, of course.

May I ask the hon. the Minister another question? Will the hon. the Minister not concede that the question of the general level of tariffs is something quite apart from the application of the export rates for citrus?

No, I think that the citrus producers are very fortunate in getting this export rate. I think I have treated them very well. The original recommendation was that they should pay the full domestic rate on all export citrus, but after representations I agreed to introduce a special export rate for the transport of citrus to the harbours. So I have actually made a concession to the citrus producers.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem asked that the leave privileges of officials be brought into line with those of workers in private undertakings. I must say that the leave granted to railway officials compares very favourably with that of people not employed on the Railways. All leave that is granted is not the same, of course. There are many factors which have to be taken into account such as, for example, the grade, the period of service, and so forth. In addition, they not only get leave, but travel facilities as well. I think their leave privileges compare rather well with those-granted to employees in private undertakings.

There is nothing wrong with the leave, but it is not all that easy to get it approved.

Well, we have a labour shortage. For that reason of course we are not always able to approve leave applications when they put in for it.

They get only a small portion of the leave they are entitled to.

Their leave accumulates in any case. They will get the benefit of it in the long run.

†The hon. member for East London North and other hon. members from East London spoke about the transport of Bantu from Mdantsane to East London. The hon. member for East London North said that this transport was really in a precarious state. I fully agree with him. The position is very serious but I cannot put any additional trains on that particular line. It is a question of bus services. Discussions are already taking place with the Port Elizabeth Municipality, because it requires the widening of quite a number of streets and the re-routing of these buses …

In East London?

Yes, I mean East London. It means widening certain streets and re-routing the buses, which is a very expensive item. I fully agree that something will have to be done because the position is very serious indeed. I have already made representations to my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and he is fully aware of what the position in East London is.

Hon. members complained about an insufficient number of ships calling at the East London harbour. I would like to see more ships calling there, but I cannot divert any ships to East London harbour. It depends on the exporters and the importers. Hon. members know that East London is in the fortunate position of having export rates to the competitive areas on the Witwatersrand. But even in spite of that, the ships are not calling at East London. If the hon. member can persuade the exporters and importers to use East London instead of other harbours, I would be only too pleased because East London harbour is working under capacity.

*The hon. member for Turffontein spoke about the facilities on the Jumbo jet service between Cape Town and Johannesburg and said that the treatment on arrival at the Jan Smuts Airport is not what it should be. He spoke about the conveyance of passengers to the airport buildings and said that the handling of luggage was chaotic, and that it took passengers an hour before they got their luggage, and so on. The hon. member for East London City also complained about that. The new terminal building at the Jan Smuts Airport is not quite completed yet. I want to tell the hon. member for East London City that I have visited some of the major airports in the world. That was about two years ago. I visited the Leonardo Da Vinci airport in Rome, Schiphol in Amsterdam, Heathrow in London, Chicago airport, New York airport and many other airports. The new Jan Smuts airport compares favourably with any other airport in the world. As a matter of fact, I think it is one of the most modern and attractive airport buildings one could find in the world today. I know what I am talking about in this respect, because I have seen other airports. Of course, there are many teething troubles because this is a new airport building which was put into use only a short time ago. It goes without saying that difficulties will be experienced in regard to the handling of luggage, customs and immigration—which I have nothing to do with in any case—and in regard to other matters, but the necessary provision was made, also as far as security measures are concerned; however, these services have only just been established and we are of course going to experience many teething troubles. Hon. members should be patient however, and give us, say, six or nine months to straighten matters out. After that time they can go and see what the position is. The services there will then be as good as any of those provided at any other airport in the world. The hon. member for East London City also complained about the food at certain airports. The hon. member should actually raise this matter under the Transport Vote, because it is the Department of Transport which awards these contracts and leases out the restaurants. I will therefore bring the complaints of the hon. member to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Transport! The hon. member for Pretoria Central asked that the Salvokop area be replanned. I do not really know what he he means by replanning, but if he would let me have a letter in which more details are furnished I shall ask the Management to go into the matter.

†The hon. member for Durban Point was very glad and expressed his appreciation that I accepted his suggestion in regard to computer truck control. I do not remember that he ever raised the matter, but I do not want to take any credit away from him. In actual fact, I instructed the Management about 15 years ago to investigate and to introduce truck control; that was before the hon. member was in the House. In regard to Durban station, I can only say that we are busy doing something, but it will take some time …

Twenty-five years.

It might take 25 years, you never know. We are doing some preliminary work. There is some work that must be done and in the Brown Book provision is made this year for staging yards, the first stage, at a cost of R703 200. The second stage will cost R565 900, items 122 and 123. The first stage of the work on the station will cost R50 000. The second stage will cost R780 000, a total of R2 099 100. We are going slow because there is a shortage of capital funds. The public of Durban does not make use of my passenger trains any more. If they supported the passenger trains, I would not have to run them at a loss; I would be much more enthusiastic about building a station for them if they support the trains.

The rickshaws are faster.

It may be possible, and people may prefer the rickshaws to the trains. The hon. member said that with a small investment, the production of the tarpaulin factory could be increased, and I can ask the Management to go into that. He also said that the Bay Head good-sheds lack many things such as the siting of the toilets, washrooms, etc. I have not seen that myself, and the Management can go into that as well. In regard to the temperature in the corrugated iron buildings, I can only say that provision is made in the Brown Book for air-conditioning in some of those buildings. On page 69 of the Brown Book the hon. member will find that provision is made for air-conditioning in some of the buildings.

What is the item number?

It is item 674.

The hon. member for Durban Point spoke about the excessive overtime that is worked by some Railway servants. I can tell the hon. member that the complaints that I am receiving now is because overtime and Sunday time have been cut. Apparently the Railway employees are not concerned about excessive overtime, but having to work reduced overtime now. This is one of the measures which we are taking to economize.

*The hon. member for Durban Central spoke about housing for the lower paid staff and suggested that flats be purchased. This matter has received consideration before now, but it was found that flats are quite unpractical for certain very sound reasons. In the first place, employees who work shifts find it virtually impossible to get proper rest in a flat. There is a constant coming and going, and noise, and so on, and that they do not want. In the second place, employees who have children do not like staying in flats, because there are no recreational facilities for children in flats. I myself would not like to live with children in a flat.

The point is that some of them are actually staying in flats at the moment, flats which are under the control of the Department of Community Development.

Precisely, but as soon as housing becomes available for them, they move out of that flat. Thy do not want to stay there permanently. Considerable provision is being made for housing for members of the staff. If the hon. member looks in the Brown Book he will see that an amount of R4 600 000 is being provided for in the Budget in respect of departmental dwellings. An amount of R6 million is being provided in the Budget in respect of the house-ownership scheme. In other words, the Railways as an employer does its duty as far as providing housing for its officials is concerned.

†The hon. member for Walmer also spoke about a suburban line for non-Whites. I replied to that matter last year. I told him that that was a matter for the inter-departmental committee. They already investigated the matter and they did not recommend the building of such a railway line at this stage. But when the need arises, they will make a new investigation and it will depend on what that recommendation will be and whether the funds will be available to build such a new line. The line the hon. member for Walmer has in mind, will be very expensive to build.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister when the inter-departmental committee will take another look at the situation?

As soon as the number of passengers has increased. I have here the report on a possible line between Sydenham and Bethalsdorp which was brought out in 1969. In this report it is estimated that by 1974 there will only be 21 800 passengers, which will be quite uneconomical for those services. The hon. member also suggested that a holiday train should run on the narrow gauge line from Port Elizabeth to Avontuur and that it should be drawn by a steam locomotive. He also suggested that it should be painted in very bright colours.

Hear, hear!

Bright colours, I said.

Gold and Green!

Yellow is the one colour that I do not like. It makes me nauseous when I look at it. Green is not bad. I like green.

You have our sympathy !

I do not know about this holiday train, but if the need arises and if there are enough passengers, we will give it very serious consideration.

A steam locomotive such as that would be quite an attraction.

Yes, it would be quite an attraction.

In regard to the level crossings, the hon. member probably knows that there is a standing committee which compiles a priority list for the elimination of level crossings. One of the crossings has already been eliminated but what position they occupy on the priority list I do not know. However, the standing committee is responsible for that. The hon. member said that tour trains do not stop at Port Elizabeth. I do not know about that, but I shall ask the Management to go into it.

*The hon. member for Somerset East asked that the construction of a railway line from Somerset East to Pearston be investigated. The construction of railway lines is a very expensive operation and today railway lines are only constructed when they are essential in the light of departmental considerations and when they are guaranteed. I doubt whether this will be an economic railway line, and for that reason I do not think that it will be constructed in the near future. He also spoke about the transfer of officials to Somerset East and he said that they should be sent there because accommodation was available in the schools and because other facilities existed there. We will keep this in mind.

The hon. member for East London City spoke about Mdantsane, but I have already replied to that question. I have also replied to his questions in regard to airports.

The hon. member for Bellville asked that more refrigerator road transport vehicles be put into commission. We are in the process of acquiring these refrigerator road transport vehicles. I have seen one of them in Johannesburg and I can only say that gas is used for refrigeration purposes and that it is not done mechanically. It is efficient and experiments are also being carried out with refrigerator containers for perishable products. This will naturally be of great help to the consigner who wants to use them. We are unable to co-ordinate with private undertakings; either the Railways have to do this or it must be done by private undertakings. These are two entirely different organizations. We are doing what we can to meet that need.

I think I have now dealt with all the matters that have been raised so far.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure I speak on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House when I thank the hon. the Minister for the manner in which he has replied to the questions which they have put to him during this debate. We have had a great deal of talk on Airways. Railways and Harbours and we have heard of the efficient running of these organizations. I must say that I think the general picture we have is that of an efficient staff doing the best they can under present circumstances.

This evening I want to express my sincere regret to the families of those who have been bereaved and to the hon. the Minister and to the staff for the tragic accident which happened last night in my constituency where a passenger train unfortunately was in collision with a truck operated by the Railway Administration. In the truck there was a platelayer’s gang with a number of Bantu employees on the back. I believe that six were killed and eight serious injured who are in hospital. I want to express my sympathy with the hon. the Minister, his department and the bereaved in this instance. This once again was an incident at a level crossing. We have spoken to the hon. the Minister about level crossings before and he said that this was something which was out of his hands. He said it was in the hands of a standing committee which investigated the matters and set up priorities. On a previous occasion the hon. the Minister gave us a list of outstanding level crossings which were due for elimination.

He has given us his undertaking that it is his aim and object to do away with all the level crossings; but I wonder whether it cannot be speeded up. The level crossing at Hammersdale, for instance—which incidently is not the one that was involved in the accident last night—according to an undertaking given to me, should have been eliminated three years ago; but to date nothing has been done. In the first two months of this year we had two accidents there, where two cars were in collision with trains, one of which happened to be the car of the District Commandant of Police from Pietermaritzburg. Fortunately, there was no loss of life; but this is the sort of thing which is happening—two in two months. I wonder if there is no way in which the hon. the Minister can speed up the elimination of the level crossings.

I now want to move from things on the ground to things in the air. I want to react to a reply which the hon. the Minister gave in my absence yesterday to a question that I had put to him concerning flight SA 611 on 7th March, 1972, which was cancelled. The hon. the Deputy Minister tells us that the flight was cancelled for operational and commercial reasons. The commercial reason, I guess, is that there appears only to have been 12 bookings on that particular flight. The operational reason appears to be that there was a special flight, SA 9945, which was required to operate from Durban to Cape Town one hour later, and that sufficient seats were available on that flight to accommodate the passengers on the scheduled flight. The question remains here, why was a special flight inaugurated one hour after a scheduled flight? What special reasons existed for a special flight one hour after a scheduled flight and the cancellation of the scheduled flight?

That sounds like an interesting question.

Surely, if there was sufficient demand to require a special flight to be flown one hour later, it could have been flown one hour earlier, or those passengers could have been accommodated on the scheduled flight one hour earlier. As has been said by my hon. friend from Yeoville, this is, after all, a very interesting question. It is a question also of efficiency. But we accept that it is uneconomical for the hon. the Minister, for operational and commercial reasons, to fly an aircraft from Cape Town to Durban with only 12 passengers on it. But I know that that particular service, one that we pleaded for for many years, has not been well patronized. I wonder what the hon. the Minister is doing about advertising it.

But I want to go further into the reply which was given to me by the hon. the Minister. The question was—

and also where they were accommodated.

The answer was—

I accept that. I happened to be one of those passengers. But the answer goes further—

This was a special flight which left an hour later. I am sorry, Sir, but this answer is incorrect. I cannot blame the hon. the Minister. Obviously, he has been given the incorrect information. I was never advised of this special flight. On that day I arrived at the terminal in Durban at 8 a.m., in time for the scheduled flight at 9 a.m.—and there was a special flight which left, according to this answer, at 10 a.m.—I was accommodated on the flight which left only at 1 p.m. This situation raises certain questions. As I say, the reply given is incorrect. I cannot blame the hon. the Minister. Somebody has given him the incorrect information.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.