Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following amendment to the hon. the Minister’s motion at once, so that my hon. friends opposite may see the direction of the Opposition’s thoughts on this Budget. Accordingly I move—

1. (1) to institute a system of pensionable allowances for the Railway staff, linked to the cost of living index;
2. (2) to replenish the Rates Equalization Fund and other cash resources of the Administration as the staff’s guarantee against economic injustice;
3. (3) to revise his rating policy to eliminate losses incurred on the transport of goods; and
4. (4) to persuade the Government to accept responsibility for the financial consequences when the Railways are compelled in the public interest, to abandon sound business principles.”

You will perceive that although this amendment is expressed in four paragraphs, it really deals with three matters. The first is a request for an adjustable cost-of-living allowance which is to be adjusted regularly to the cost-of-living index. Secondly there is our request that the reserves of the Railways should be restored, and our third request is that the question of the rating policy should be reconsidered. I shall devote most of my speech to the question of the staff and their income in a time of inflation. I make no apology for that, because the standpoint of the Opposition as well as the standpoint of the staff associations has been upheld and fully confirmed by the findings of the Hiemstra Commission, and also by the fact that the hon. the Minister appears to have changed his attitude. I am referring to the attitude which he took up so firmly and so convincingly when he turned down the requests by the Artisan Staff Association on four occasions on the grounds that it would promote inflation and ruin the economy of South Africa. In order to see this matter in perspective it is necessary for us just to refresh our memories in regard to the condition of the Railways at the end of last year when the salary increases were granted and the rate increases were introduced.

†At that time the Railways were running at an escalating loss. From 1st April to 30th September the loss amounted to R29 million, which was within about R10 million of the total estimated deficit for that year. The Minister had estimated a deficit of just under R40 million for last year, and by September, 1972, he had already accumulated a R29 million loss, and the loss was increasing. At that time it was more than R6 million a month, as the Minister will remember. This situation followed on the previous year, when the Minister ended up with a deficit of R434 million, and it had reached the stage already where, with his announced expected deficit for the current year, the Rates Equalization Fund would have become completely exhausted. The stage was also reached where it became inevitable, as we found with the Additional Estimates, for the Railways to realize some of its investments in order to cover up its losses and to meet the strains imposed upon it. The situation was serious, and it certainly demanded action.

At the same time, while the Railways with the then existing salary structure, were running into these very serious difficulties, the staff were running into difficulties too. I am quite sure that the Ministry and the Administration had real sympathy with the staff. I have no doubt about that, but they had difficulties in knowing what to do about meeting the problems of the staff. Fortunately, as had happened before, the Artisans Staff Union of the South African Railways took the lead in strongly pleading the cause of the employees of the Administration. They started by asking for a general increase of R50 a month for all the White employees of the Railways. They indicated that they would also consider a percentage increase, but they thought a R50 a month increase generally would be better, because it would cost the Railways some R66 million instead of the R100 million and more which a 15% or 20% increase would cost. Then followed a long period of negotiation between the Railways, the Minister and the Artisan Staff Association, and on one occasion also the Federal Association. One should remember, Sir, that the Railway employees had an increase, a very substantial increase, in May, 1970, known as the “Langlaagte hike”, or the “Langlaagte lolly”. At that time the artisans on the Railways were given a maximum of R253 a month which, I must say, in the world as it is today, was not a very high salary. However, they had other advantages; they had the security of employment by a State organization, and they accepted it at the time. But it was not the sort of salary that gave to men who were skilled workers, men who had undergone a long period of training, and who had become accustomed to maintaining certain standards of living, much to fall back upon once that salary started being eroded by a continual increase in the cost of living. And so, when, by September, 1972, the cost of living had increased by 15,68%, these people became restive and they wanted relief. They wanted an adjustment in their income to compensate them for the losses they had suffered as the result of Government action or inaction, or as a result of world factors, or whatever you wish. What is important is that the value of their salaries had declined by 15,68% from May, 1970, to September, 1972. On September 14 they put in a claim for this R50 per month; they put in a claim for a small increase in salary to enable them to raise their standard of living, to share in the prosperity of South Africa, and they asked for certain concessions in respect of their holiday bonus. Sir, what did the Minister reply? The Minister replied that he could not do anything about the holiday bonus and he gave the following reason: Because the Government was bound to combat inflation and the financial position of the Railways was continually deteriorating. As far as the other two demands were concerned, he said that they had been noted, and that was all. The staff association obviously could not accept this for long, and on February 17 of last year, after the devaluation of our money in the previous December by more than 12%, they again put in a claim to the Minister; they asked for compensation for the effects of devaluation and they asked for other concessions. The Minister considered these, and I am sure he considered them very carefully. And then his answer came that he could not grant their claim because the Railway finances had continued to decline and a wage rise would set in motion a chain reaction which would seriously harm the economy of the country; that a wage rise would require increased tariffs and this would accelerate inflation to such an extent that all possible benefits of devaluation would be wiped out—a definite and a certain argument, from the Minister’s point of view, against granting any relief to the workers. Then, Sir, on 10th August last year the Federal Consultative Council had a long discussion with the Minister, and there for the first time, according to the records that I could gather, the Minister conceded that the staff had a very good case for relief, but he told them that he could not grant it because the revival in the economy, which had been expected to follow devaluation, had not materialized—a very interesting statement, Sir. He pointed out that a rise in tariffs of between 15% and 20% would disrupt the cost structure of the country and cause an inflationary tidal wave that would be fatal to the economy of the country, from which I would conclude that it would have been utterly irresponsible on the part of the Railways to have met the requests of the staff. Then, Sir, on September 8 last year the Artisan Staff Association again interviewed the Minister and made certain requests to him, and the Minister then thought that granting their requests would require a tariff increase of 25%. What did he say in that regard? He said that this could cause a collapse of the economy; that to grant what the staff wanted would mean that the economy of South Africa would collapse; and he announced that the increase would have to wait for a general upsurge in the economy. On the same day, on September 8 last year, the Artisan Staff Association declared a dispute under section 28 of the Railways and Harbours Service Act, and as a result the Hiemstra Commission was appointed. Sir, one would have expected that there was an intractable problem facing South Africa and that the Hiemstra Commission would have had the greatest difficulty in finding a just solution to this problem in the interests of the Railways, in the interests of the country and in the interests of the railwayman; after all, they were facing a situation where any considerable relief to the workers would have meant that all the benefits of devaluation would be dissipated and that there would be a collapse of the economy of South Africa. I must say that I for one had great sympathy with the problems of the Minister and the problems of this commission because of the confidence that I reposed in the Minister’s judgment. I really thought that his hands were tied, that he found himself in an impossible situation. And then came the report of the Hiemstra Commission and the answer, to say the least of it, was astonishingly simple. The gist of that answer was given in paragraph 14 of the commission’s report, which I should like to read out to the House. In spite of the Minister’s statement that it was impossible to do anything about the request of the staff, the Hiemstra Commission said in paragraph 14, on page 3—

That is fair, because when he met the consultative body on August 10 last year the Minister conceded this—

Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly clear that the story I have related so far in itself establishes a prima facie case for the first leg of my amendment, that in future it should not be necessary for the workers of the South African Railways to wait until their incomes have been eroded to the extent of 15,68% before they can get relief—not, Sir, to let them share in the prosperity of the greater national income of South Africa but merely to compensate them for the erosive effects of inflation. Why should they have to wait for a year or two years when things of this kind are actually happening? Why should they not be entitled, as the Opposition suggests and as the Opposition did when it was in power, to regular adjustments in their cash incomes to compensate them for the decline in the purchasing power of their money, a decline over which they have no control whatsoever? I believe, Sir, that this story I have just told and this simple statement by the Hiemstra Commission that social justice required that they should be compensated, makes out a prima facie case for the first leg of our amendment.

The only question that the commission then had to consider was how large this increase should be. They decided that the increase should be 15%. They decided that because the cost of living had risen by 15,68% from May, 1970, to September, 1972, and they took into account that in 1971, I think, there was a reduction ranging from 3,5% to 4% in the contributions that the employees made towards their pensions. Their pensions remain the same but the Administration relieved them of the obligation to contribute to their pensions to the extent of 3,5% of their salaries. That meant that after the 15% increase, adding this other concession, the Railway employees, on the 1st January, 1973, found themselves slightly, but only very slightly, better off than they were in May, 1970, when they got their previous increase. But, Sir, what has happened since? Are they still better off? I want to suggest that as I speak here today every railwayman in South Africa is worse off than he would have been in May, 1970, if he occupied the same position then as he occupies now. Look what has happened. From September, 1972, to January, 1973, the cost-of-living index mounted from 115,8 to 118,7, an increase of 2,5%, which by itself is almost enough to take in the increase that they received, and the 3,5% concession on their pensions. Sir, I have no figures in respect of the period after January of this year, but what happened last month? Has the cost of living been stationary? Last month, Sir, we saw one of the largest spates of price increases in the economic history of South Africa, including an increase of 2 cents in the price of a loaf of bread, one of the mainstays, the most important staple food, of the community as a whole, of the ordinary people of this country. The prices of most foodstuffs have gone up. We are now beginning to feel the effects of the railway rate increases in January. Meat prices have soared, and everywhere we hear complaints and cries of anguish from the housewife over what is happening to the cost of living. Let me put it to you this way, Sir. The net increase in the cost of living between December and January was from 117,4 to 118,7, an increase in one month of 1,1%, or 13,2% over a full year. I want to know this from the hon. the Minister. When I spoke on Wednesday for a few minutes I asked him about the rapid rise and fall of our economy, about the rapid increase in the speed of the cycle, the wavelength, of our economic life in South Africa. What is he going to do, if this is going to be maintained? All the indications are that the increase in the cost of living will be steeper than ever, and that at the end of this year the workers on the Railways may be more than 13% worse off than they were when the increases were given in January. Must they continue to assimilate and to accommodate this result of government policy, of world economic factors or whatever you want to call it? Must they continue to pay? Other people can put their prices up and can increase their productivity and can get immediate rewards. But railway workers too have increased their productivity. The other day I heard the hon. the Minister or the General Manager say with great satisfaction that over a certain period of a year or so the productivity of the workers on the Railways had increased by more than 5%. But they get no immediate reward for that. They make their contribution to the welfare of South Africa and of the State but they get nothing, not until they have failed four times in their reasonable requests to the hon. the Minister and the Administration, not until they have a judge, a trade unionist and a railway financier supporting their case. Are they going to have to make representations again four times to the Minister before they get relief? Are they going to get a share in the increase in the country’s real wealth? Will they get any reward for their increased productivity? This is what the Minister did not tell us and this is where the Minister is failing his employees. This is where the United Party’s policy, as is so often the case, deserves the attention of the Minister. The Minister is intelligent enough and well enough disposed towards his staff to be converted once more to the point of view of the United Party.

Sir, I have said, and it is true, that it was the policy when the United Party was in power to have the cost of living adjusted every three months to the changes in the cost-of-living index. But there was one weakness in that policy that should not be made again, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to it, in case he becomes converted to our policy. It is that those allowances were not pensionable, and as the cost of living went up, a comparatively larger proportion of the workers’ income consisted of a non-pensionable allowance; and then when it came to the time for his retirement, when he had to go on pension, he had to suffer such a tremendous decrease, such a tremendous fall in his standard of living that he suffered from real deprivation. Normally when a man retires his obligations become less and the need to save for his old age no longer exists. His income tax falls, his pension contributions fall, his children are grown up and he expects to maintain himself on a lower standard of living. But when he lives for a large part of his working life on an income of which a considerable portion is not pensionable, then the change in the level of his income on his retirement is so drastic that one cannot expect of him to accommodate himself to it. Therefore I would suggest that such cost-of-living allowance be regularly adjusted to the cost-of-living index and that it should be a pensionable allowance. I do not know whether the Minister will reject this suggestion of mine out of hand. I hope he will not. I do not expect him to commit himself immediately to what to the Nationalist Government is a revolutionary thought, and that is to do something timeously for the workers of the S.A. Railways. But all I would ask of him is to say in this debate that he will consider this matter and that he will have the pros and cons thoroughly investigated. That is all I ask him.

When are you going to say something about the Railways?

I know who said that. Is it not typical? When we speak of the Railways in this House all they see are trucks and engines and a permanent way, while we of the United Party see the people who work on the Railways. That is why I am so grateful for that interjection. Again and again this hon. Deputy Minister helps me so much that I think he will cross the floor one of these days.

I only hope that the hon. the Minister will not say that we cannot grant such an allowance because it will be inflationary. Frankly, I shall not believe it, and the country and the railwaymen will not believe it. A Minister who has been telling us a whole year that to grant what the Railwaymen were asking would be the end of the benefits of devaluation, would mean the collapse of the economy, should not come with that sort of argument now. I shall not say that there is a credibility gap —he believed that when he said it—but now he knows better because he has had an impartial commission to investigate it, he has conceded it and the economy goes on. I see no signs of an immediate collapse. On the contrary, in view of the evidence before the Hiemstra Commission it would appear that we have now reached the stage where if we want to have the benefits of devaluation—I want to admit that this has required a lot of rethinking in my own heart—we must have higher salaries and greater incomes. For the benefit of the House, and I hope for the benefit of even a larger circle—because this report has not been thoroughly canvassed outside—I should like to remind the House of a few things said in evidence to the Commission which the Commission accepted and which led the Commission to the conclusion to which it came. I notice that in paragraph 21 of its report (See Government Gazette of 1/2/72) the Commission quoted with approval the views of Prof. I. F. van den Bogaerde, Professor in Economics of the University of South Africa. He said—the Commission accepted this—according to a summary by the Commission—

I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the opening remarks of his speech on Wednesday where he complained that the benefits and the consequences of devaluation and the various stimuli which the Ministers of Finance and of Commerce and Industries had applied to the economy, did not have the full expected effect and that the upsurge was slow, especially in the case of the secondary industry. Here we have the authority of a prominent professor accepted by this commission of experts that the increase could have a favourable stimulating influence. He said—

This reflects on the Government’s policy and actions—

In other words, the position in 1971, when we devalued, was more like it had been in 1933 than I realized. In 1933 devaluation was not immediately followed by another wave of inflation because as a result of conditions of depression there was a tremendous slack in our economy to be taken up; a surplus capacity in our industry, and a surplus capacity in the services sector of the economy. Here Prof. Van den Bogaerde seems to find that in South Africa at the present time too. He said—

Then he said—

He qualifies that by saying—

Then Prof. Van den Bogaerde, still with the approval of the Hiemstra Commission, goes on to quote the findings of the Stellenbosch Economic Bureau in October of last year. It is very interesting. That Bureau found that there was a slack in our factory production, that our factory production could be increased by 27% before any additional investment became necessary, that there was an unused capacity in our secondary industry of 22%, that there was even unused labour, surplus labour, which had not been dismissed. This meant that our secondary industry was capable of producing an extra R900 million worth of goods in South Africa without requiring additional investments, before inflationary factors became apparent. So we find that this argument of the hon. the Minister and the Government that relief to the people by giving them bigger incomes would accelerate inflation, is not properly founded. Indeed, I would like to give hon. members the point of view of …

Of Wits?

That hon. member is quite right. It is a remarkable interjection. It is amazing, the flashes of intelligence that one occasionally gets from the other side of the House. Before I refer to Wits, I would like to quote the Railways. The one after will be from Wits University. I give the point of view, which is supported by Prof. Van den Bogaerde, of Mr. A. T. Moolman, the chief rates officer of the Administration, who said—

Then comes the opinion that I am really interested in. I refer to the opinion of Prof. D. J. J. Botha, Professor of Economics at the University of the Witwatersrand, who told the commission something that, interestingly enough, the United Party told the Government during last year’s financial and Railway debate. We said that devaluation was a way for authorities to admit that inflation had become permanent and that one simply had to co-operate with the inevitable and adjust one’s thinking and planning and the execution of one’s policies to the fact that all incomes had to be higher, that prices had come to stay. This is how Prof. Botha put it, and I quote—

I want to say that the Minister must please not come and say that he cannot or will not adjust the incomes of our railway people regularly to the rising cost of living by giving them a pensionable allowance because it would be inflationary.

Apart from compensation for the increase in the cost of living, I feel that the workers are also entitled to—and I have suggested that before—a share in the growing prosperity of South Africa. But here, unfortunately, there is a dismal story to be told. It is that we are not achieving in South Africa what the Government plans to achieve for South Africa. I would again like to refer to the commission’s report because here I have independent authorities who are not prejudiced, as some people may think I am. I would like to quote from paragraph 27 of the report—

In other words, the Commission says here that all it can recommend is a compensatory increase for the workers for them to meet the erosive effect of inflation. It cannot, however, recommend that they share in the greater prosperity of South Africa because there was not really a greater per capita prosperity in South Africa over the past two years. For a Government which knows as well as we do that the very peace and survival of South Africa depends on continuing rising standards of living for all its people, I think this is a sad situation. That is what we hear while we have a Prime Minister who tells us that he will not sleep at night if there were to be unemployment amongst the Black people of South Africa. Here we find that the railwayman can expect no increase in his real income because the Government is failing to mobilize the factors for growth in South Africa sufficiently. For that reason I want to suggest that we should accept as Railway policy, regularly adjusted cost-of-living allowances which will be pensionable and that we then leave the share of the railway worker in the growing prosperity of South Africa as a matter of negotiation from time to time as there are signs of actual development and growth per capita in the income of South Africa. It seems to me that that is sensible and wise. Nobody can then accuse the Government of asking or giving things which are unrealistic in view of the realities in South Africa. I have mentioned before that the Administration itself calculated that from May, 1970 to September, 1972, there has been an increase of 5,3% in the productivity of the staff, but the staff get no compensation for that. The increased productivity must be the result of two factors: Good management and harder work on the part of the staff. I believe that the staff should certainly be entitled to some compensation for their effort to make the Railways more successful and more productive.

When is the by-election in Umhlatuzana?

Is there a by-election in Umhlatuzana?

I understand so.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I have always looked upon the hon. the Minister as my favourite character in the politics of South Africa. For him to ask me about the by-election in Umhlatuzana, which I have forgotten about, astounds me. What is he planning this time? I remember what he did in Langlaagte. He is the man who remembers the by-elections, not me. I remember what he did in Klip River. He could not announce the increases in wages for the staff before the election, but he did so immediately afterwards. Why? Because the increases were accompanied by a 20% rise in railway rates. So, in the case of the Langlaagte the good news comes before and in the case of Klip River, the bad news comes afterwards, and then he has the cheek, the cold effrontery, to accuse the United Party of thinking of by-elections. Mr. Speaker, he is indeed my favourite character in South African politics.

I now want to come to something which is more serious than the flippancy of the hon. the Minister. I refer to the question whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that, by raising rates by 20% on a selective scale or basis at the beginning of the year, he had done enough. I do not like the first two paragraphs of his speech. There is an ominous sound about them that the expectations of growth and of a stimulus to our economy are not being realized. I see very few signs there that the Minister is confident that they will be realized. What is going to happen? The Rates Equalization Fund is probably exhausted now. Big inroads have been made into the Reserve Fund attached to the Sinking Fund. He has already realized assets. He has already, though not deliberately, but by adjusting certain payments made last year out of Revenue—I have not checked it for this year—disguised the true situation on the Railways by R17 million to R18 million for the current year. He did not make the full contributions to the Betterment Fund and other funds. What is he going to do at the end of this year? What are the prospects of restoring the Rates Equalization Fund which according to my friends opposite was in the past the guarantee for the worker of South Africa against injustice and economic hardships? If I had the time I could quote to you from Hansard some of the speeches made by the Railway critics of the Nationalist Party when they were in Opposition. But I cannot do it. They are too dramatic, too emotional. I do not think it is fair when people like Mr. Boltman and Mr. Sauer are no longer with us to quote them. The other person I could quote with real effect now holds such a high office in this House that I do not wish to embarrass him. Mr. Sturrock at one time during a period of financial difficulty had to deplete the Rates Equalization Fund. The Rates Equalization Fund has now been depleted twice by this Government, in 1953 by Mr. Sauer and now by the present Minister. Can the hon. the Minister get up and give us the assurance that as the result of the raising of tariffs by 20% the Rates Equalization Fund will be replenished at least to some extent or has a chance of being replenished to some extent at the end of this year?

Do you want to make it higher still?

If you will look at the fourth leg of my amendment you will see exactly what I have in mind. I am surprised to get such a question from the hon. member for Parow. That is why I took the trouble of reading my amendment right at the start so that hon. members could see which way our mind was working. Have a look at the amendment, then ask your question again.

Let me deal with it at once because my time is running out. For years now the Opposition has pleaded for a new approach to the Railways rating policy in South Africa. We have had the support of the Schumann Commission on the question of rates and of the Marais Commission in regard to the co-ordination of transport. All these independent experts have advised that the Railways cannot go on running 70% of their transport traffic at a loss, and depending to make up that loss on the pipeline which is an unjust discrimination against the people of the Witwatersrand, Pretoria and Vereeniging, or upon fortuitous things such as the closing of the Suez Canal which has pushed up the earnings of our harbours. If we want to be obedient to the constitution of the Republic of South Africa the Railways should be run on business lines. No business that I can think of will tolerate a situation whereby 70% of the work it does is done at a loss whether it is trading or the rendering of professional services and so forth. The S.A. Railways has continued until very recently to transport 70% of its goods at a loss and to depend for its income on a small group of goods, mostly imported, which are subject to all the vagaries of international crises and the uncertainties of international finance.

I am glad to see that the General Manager of the Railways has been speaking about adjustments and that in recent increases adjustments have been made. I welcome those adjustments. But I certainly do not welcome the consequences of those adjustments upon certain sections of our people. I certainly do not welcome the consequences of certain of the adjustments on our farmers when you find that the rates for livestock have gone up by 60% and other agricultural products by 59%. I think that is rather steep. It places a disproportionate burden upon a deserving section of our community. That brings me to what we have always suggested and the experts have suggested too. I hope the hon. member for Parow will now listen. This question of rendering a service in the public interest was envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic as long ago as 1910. It is just possible that the Railways may have to run certain traffic at a loss in the public interest in order to stimulate an area, or to assist a community as Iscor is doing in the case of the Cape Coloureds of the North-Western Cape. (The Railways could have performed that function too under the Constitution of the Republic.) We have always held that when it becomes necessary to do such things in the public interest then the losses suffered by the Railways should not be borne by a deserving minority of the Railway users. It should be the responsibility of the community as a whole, and the Railways should be compensated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the losses it suffers in the interests of the public of South Africa. I think the time has come when the Minister should say to us very clearly whether he and his Administration agree with that principle. He should agree with that principle. He is charged by the Constitution of our country to run the Railways in such a way that these losses on 70 % of the goods transported should be avoided. He should give us a definite, clear statement of his policy and attitude on this principle on behalf of the Administration and himself. If he agrees, does he not think that the time has come that this matter should be investigated by not only the Railways internally, but by all the parties affected? I pleaded for years for a commission on the co-ordination of transport in South Africa. The Minister wisely appointed such a commission. The Minister unwisely detracted from the good work of that commission when the report became available. So I am somewhat diffident about asking for another commission, but it is so important that the finances of the South African Railways should for once and all be put on a sound, businesslike basis and that the community should accept its responsibilities and not shift them off onto the Railway user, that I want to plead with the Minister to consider seriously the appointment of a commission of experts from the Railways, joined by experts from industry, commerce and the labour force in South Africa, once and for all to solve this problem. They should not discuss the principle, but accept it. The terms of reference should be to find a method how it could be done and not whether it should be done. When that report comes out, we may find that many of the headaches and worries of the Administration and of the Minister will disappear, and that the South African Railways can be put on a sound businesslike basis to make it possible for that great institution to function properly. The South African Railways is a monopoly, and carries the prime responsibility for one of the most important functions in the economy of South Africa, namely the transport of goods and men in this country. It is also responsible for the well-being of 200 000 employees. More than 100 000 families depend upon the Railways. It is not fair that the Railways should be in a position where all its calculations, all its plans, can be upset because international factors affect the prices of goods imported into South Africa, from which the Railways derive 70% of its income. It does not make sense; so let us cut this Gordian knot. Let us decide that we shall once and for all accept the principle that the Railways will be run on an economic basis. Let the Government accept the responsibility to cover any necessary losses suffered by the Railways from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and let an expert commission work out how the rates must be adjusted and how the relationship with the Treasury can be established to make this possible.

I have read in the Press that the hon. the Minister intends retiring. I hope he will not, because when he goes, heaven must help South Africa with what is left of the Cabinet. But if the hon. the Minister wants to retire, why not, before doing so, put this matter right? It has been occupying and vexing the minds of South African experts on railway matters ever since I can remember, from the days of Mr. Sturrock and before, even from the days of the old Nationalist Party. It has never been solved yet. It would be a tremendous achievement. It would be the finest monument the Minister can build to his 25 years as head of the Railways of South Africa if he can solve that problem before he leaves us. I do not want him to leave us, but I hope he will not interpret this as meaning that he has lots of time. I want him to hurry. Thereafter he can relax for a year or two as Minister of Railways and enjoy the fruits of the wisdom he has inherited through the generosity of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, permit me to make a few introductory remarks for the sake of courtesy. The first I should like to make, and with great pleasure, is to compliment the Minister concerned on the fact that this year he has been Minister of Railways for 19 years, and has been a member of this Cabinet for 25 years. It is an unequalled record, and if one takes into account and takes stock of the results achieved during this period, and weighs this against what was possible and what was not possible, then I believe that his record is an even better one. On behalf of this group, this side of the House and also the whole House, I take great pleasure in humbly offering these laurels to “Oom Ben” in the hope that he will be spared for many more years to see the results of his dedicated and enthusiastic labours flourish in the best interest of his Fatherland. The second compliment which I would like to pay, goes to the hon. member for Yeoville. I am quite serious, and I do not mean it facetiously. I want to compliment him on the attitude he recently adopted in connection with the Nusas movement in South Africa and the threat to the security of our Fatherland. I think it is an exceptionally strong viewpoint; it gives satisfaction and it is a small ray of light when one realizes that there are also viewpoints held by members of the Opposition which, when the time requires it, qualify as the viewpoints of men. It was unfortunate that towards the end there was in typical Opposition fashion a bit of an about-face, but that was under pressure; we understand it; it has happened before that when the pressure has become a little too much, the lead ox does not keep to the furrow—it tries to turn round. I must say that I also have a piece of advice for the hon. member for Yeoville. I saw him becoming so excited again this afternoon. I want to tell him that I do not think it is necessary for him to get so worked up, because I got the impression that he is in any case doing better than Harry Swarz. Sir, since he has ventured into the field of price increases, the cost of living and improved benefits for railway officials, I just want to tell him that, after considering his arguments, I think he would do better to talk to the egg and tomato throwers, because those things cost money. That could be a substantial contribution in the campaign against the rising cost of living. It would also be practical. However, I must say, Marais, they were weaker than we were in our day.

Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the hon. member’s amendment. Now I must tell you in all honesty and in all earnest that it has been a long time since I last heard such an illogical conglomeration of nonsense. The hon. member’s first point is “to institute a system of pensionable allowances for the railway staff, linked to the cost-of-living index”. Sir, surely it is elementary logic that these salary increases, which resulted in the tariff increases, would inevitably lead to price increases. The hon. member for Yeoville now wants the salaries of railwaymen to be adjusted year after year, or every two years, to compensate them for the increase in the cost of living. Does he want—and is this his party’s policy—the rand to be worth only a cent in South Africa at the end of this century? That is what this proposal of his implies. I have never before heard such an ill-considered, unrealistic viewpoint from a leader in this House. Sir, it is unheard of. The same goes for his last point, because one cannot separate the two, namely—

Sir, this Government, where it has considered it to be necessary, has partly accepted this principle already. I refer to the Reynders Commission; I refer to the conveyance of passengers to and from the Bantu homelands and the urban Bantu areas. There the precedent already exists, but it is being done in the national interest. If the Government had to make good the loss incurred on the conveyance of goods to all struggling industries, for example the conveyance of coal in the interests of the industries of the Western Cape, then we might as well throw in the sponge and give up and become a socialistic state and bear the consequences. Sir, I consider this to be irresponsible in the extreme. But in any case, we will take note of this and it may come in handy in the distant or the not-so-distant future as a new policy which the United Party is advocating and presenting in this regard? We are used to this old story of the United Party: “You have depleted the Rates Equalization Fund; you are irresponsible; you are unfair in connection with the price for the conveyance of petrol by pipeline; you are irresponsible in connection with salary increases; it is only the top-level staff who reap the benefit; the rest of the staff have to pay the penalty and suffer hardships; they are suffering the most under inflation.” We know these sweeping statements; they are unrelated and unmotivated; we are used to that. But it is this Government and this Minister that have pushed the Rates Equalization Fund up to the highest point in its history, to more than R80 million.

And now the lowest.

This Government displays sufficient self-control to know when the economic climate in a country is such that salary increases, which could boost inflation further and which could also retard the growth rate, can be granted or not. I think the best counterargument to the proposal made by the hon. member for Yeoville is to be found in the attitude of the railway officials themselves, the so-called dissatisfied people, who are allegedly being treated so unfairly and unjustly, those people whose self-respect the United Party wants to undermine by suggesting that the Railway’s losses should be covered out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. If this proposal were adopted, it would mean that the railway workers need not be concerned about their productivity, because the State, Father Christmas, would compensate the Railways once a year, whenever the Budget was presented here, for all losses they had incurred. Sir, I think that the officials of the Administration would be the first to protest against a change of policy of this kind. For what do we hear from these people? This (translation)—

I am reading from Die Vaderland of 8th December, 1972, under the headline “This is how S.A.R. staff earn their R100 million”—

Then the report goes on to state that they have improved working methods; they have established committees throughout the country to promote greater productivity and effectiveness; the personnel are constantly being encouraged to adopt proposals according to which working methods could possibly be improved, and that these steps have met with complete and spontaneous approval from the railway workers. The end result is clearly indicated by the success which has been achieved in this way. As an example of the spontaneity of the railway workers the following two examples speak volumes. Seven years ago a five-day working week was introduced for administrative and other grades of staff, and they agreed, completely voluntarily and spontaneously, to work an additional hour every week without receiving any compensation. In this way more than 9 million hours have already been worked without remuneration. It is only the hon. member for Yeoville who is demanding compensation for this. But the railwayman says with pride that that was his contribution to help his country under these specific circumstances. Strange, is it not? A large number of juniors followed their example and in this way more than half a million hours have already been saved this year. Seen in this light, the Management of the Railways believe that the R100 million which railway workers will receive next year, was not underserved; it is nothing less than compensation for the spontaneous way in which they helped their employers to increase production and to save. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the railwayman himself who says this. The public have also taken note of this. Unfortunately we cannot say the same for the United Party. In any case, the public are taking very little notice of them these days. I read here in Dag-breek of 11th March, 1973 by Hyko Wein-holdts (translation)—

Sir, I think that this is what we ought to do on this occasion, to give credit where credit is due, and in the knowledge that this inflation can only be successfully combated through production. This relentless spiral of salary increases, rising prices and in creases in the cost of living, where will it all end? In terms of your policy, the rand will only be worth a cent by the end of this century. Someone must make a drastic break-through somewhere, and as far as I, personally, am concerned, I am greatly impressed by the manner in which and the success with which the Railways Administration realized its responsibility under extremely difficult circumstances and did not flinch or go to the hon. member for Yeoville with complaints, but took the bull by the horns and solved the problem. This problem of the Railways is not a minor one. We have heard that it must be managed according to business principles. However, the Railways is bound statutorily by the following provisions. It must convey or handle all traffic offered in South Africa, in the cheapest possible way. This provision must be related to the question of business principles. It is further provided that the Railways may from time to time adjust its rating policy in such a way that the type of traffic is able to carry the envisaged change in rates. After all, the Railways is not a fish and chips shop! The Railways is sensitive to any economic condition, to any monetary crisis, to any price rise. Its capital investment increases year after year and it is already more than R3 000 million. It is already paying more than R100 000 million annually—I believe it is R110 000 million—in interest. This burden of interest grows annually. If there is one positive or constructive idea which could be put forward in this debate in this connection, I want to suggest that I see a distant possibility, at some time in the future, of having to give consideration to writing-off part, if not all of the capital loans granted to the Railways by the Treasury, so that the Railways’s burden of interest could be reduced and its viability increased. I believe that if this should happen, the Railways should find itself in far fewer crises. It is not the final answer; I say that it is an idea which is growing on me to an increasing extent and I think that it is something which could be considered to very good effect.

Then it is still being assisted by the State.

But in a different way to the way in which you want to do it.

But you have not even said in what way.

There are more examples of what is being done by the Railways Administration to face its problems under the circumstances and I should like to refer to a few of them. I want to do this in order to be positive and to get away from the negative. The first example I should like to mention, is the question of the utilization of assets. I mention the savings measures which the Railways have applied to the benefit of agriculture in particular and the economy in general. I also mention the effective utilization of assets and I refer particularly to the new developments in pipeline conveyance which are being considered and on which work is already in progress. Pipeline conveyance is gaining ground constantly and that does not only apply to oil and its products, but also to solid substances. At Alrode, the Administration is at present in the process of making extensions to Waltloo, Isando, Benoni and Pretoria West. These extensions are expected to save 2 221 tank wagons per year. That would result in a capital saving of R27 305 million. An extension from Sasolburg to Potchefstroom is also being considered and in this connection a saving of 987 tank wagons is expected, which would mean a capital saving of R12,01 million. This is far better, far more level-headed and far more practical than the fairy story which has been proffered to us as a solution this afternoon from the Opposition side. Here the Railways is getting down to brass tacks, making practical attempts and implementing level-headed ideas in order to face this problem. There will be a total saving of more than R48 million over the next ten years. When we come to the export of ore, we shall see that that is just as interesting. In this direction, too, hard work is being done and the transportation of export ore in trainloads of 7 257 tons constitutes substantial operational benefits. The following data give us a clear picture of this. I want to mention only one example, i.e. the section from the ore fields to Port Elizabeth. If only two trains of 7 257 tons instead of seven trains of 1 905 tons are scheduled daily between the ore fields and Port Elizabeth, the following train personnel will be saved: Under the old dispensation there were 79 drivers, 79 assistant drivers, stokers, etc., on the seven trains and 79 conductors; in other words, 237 people were required. Under the new dispensation, only 35 in each category are required. This is therefore a saving of 55,7% in train staff and at the same time there is an increase of 2,9 millions tons net per year. In this way as many as ten trains per day can be eliminated on the Noupoort-Cra-dock section by means of the new planning, the dedication and the hard work of the Administration. It is almost unbelievable. As a result of this some additional capital investment is of course also required; we concede that. Equally interesting is the ore loading apparatus at Port Elizabeth. When the ore loading apparatus was planned at Port Elizabeth, the exporters were requested to give an indication of the ore tonnage which was expected to be exported in the foreseeable future. The indication was that the loading apparatus should be developed in such a way that it could handle approximately 1¼ million tons of ore per year. In spite of this the apparatus was developed by the Railway Administration and on a 24-hour basis it can handle more than 6 million tons of ore without investing any further capital except a very minor amount on increasing the storage capacity of the apparatus. With the annual increase in the tonnage of ore which is exported, it was possible to make a substantial concession to exporters by reducing shipping costs by 20 cents a ton in 1968. That brought about a saving of R85 200 for the exporter on the approximately 4 260 000 tons of ore which were exported in 1972. Overtime costs were simultaneously reduced from 12 cents a ton to 6 cents a ton. This is practical, realistic proof of the interest taken by the Administration in its own work. This is proof of the efforts they have made in order to cope with their own problems, this is proof of their independence, their honour and their right to make a major voluntary contribution to this national enterprise in order to protect it. Practical proof of that has been presented here, and may not go unmentioned

We also have here another very interesting phenomenon. In this connection it is a pleasure for me to refer to the firm Union Carriage of Nigel, the builders of our Blue Train. I have been told that years ago they began to build a factory there even before the township was proclaimed. Today this industry is not only a national industry, but an international industry, which exports to various countries of the world, and is well known everywhere. The Railways have also made a contribution in this connection. The days of “let us rather buy from the ‘Home’ country” and “let us pay with gold”, the days of “if they do not have enough we lend them some more”, are past under the rule of this Government. This Government has created, financed, developed, improved and strengthened. Here is a practical example of that. In 1954, when this Minister took over, the Railways bought internally to the value of R119 340 058; last year, in 1972, we bought almost three times as much from our own industries, namely R307 612 580. That is what the Railways were prepared to do in order to establish their own industries in South Africa in the interests of both. It is not competitive, but supplementary. It is an accepted policy which is being applied in practice today with great success under the guidance of the Administration. The best example which I have had recently of the Administration supporting the South African economy is that for two years—the matter which the hon. member for Yeoville became so ecstatic about—it managed to hold its personnel back for 2½ years and not give in to the pressure of demands for salary increases or tariff increases. The Administration did this as a result of the uncertain economic and monetary position in the world, the slack in our financial growth and development in South Africa, the price increases which are to its own detriment and are the result of the devaluation of the rand. For those important reasons the Administration has succeeded in this. I think that that in itself is an achievement of which we may all be proud. It is something which no one in the Administration gave great publicity, it is something which they were prepared to do quietly because they realized what the situation was and what the implications of such a step would be to our national economy if it were made too soon when the time for it was not yet ripe.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by welcoming the hon. member for Randburg back to this House after his illness. After listening to his speech, one is inclined to think that these can only be personal good wishes; otherwise one wonders why he came back. If one were to judge by his contribution to the debate on the problems which the Railways are facing, what did we hear this afternoon? First of all, we have had a claim from the hon. member that the amendment moved by this side of the House by the hon. member for Yeoville was illogical. What is the lack of logic? The lack of logic is that if we had in South Africa, as we propose, a pensionable allowance which would maintain Railway wages and salaries at the level of the cost of living, then the rand would disappear to one cent. Has he not read the Hiemstra Commission report? This commission which granted the last set of increases found in paragraph 19 that an increase in tariffs of 20%—

In other words, the content of Railway tariff in the cost of living would result in an increase in tariff of 20% meaning an increase of 2% in the cost of living to the consumer.

But that has not changed the proposal.

But this was the finding of the commission. The hon. member read it but claims before this House that if we adjusted wages to cost of living, it would so erode the rand that there would be nothing left of it. That was his first magnificent contribution to the debate.

His second contribution was to attack the suggestion that uneconomic tariffs should be subsidized by the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The hon. member waxed lyrically over the undermining of the self-respect of the railwaymen. How do you undermine the self-respect of railwaymen if you pay them a living wage by subsidizing uneconomic tariffs? It is not their duty and responsibility to carry goods and to sweat their hearts out at an uneconomic tariff. But immediately afterwards the hon. member bluntly says that the Government should not charge interest on capital. He intimated that the Government should waive interest on capital of some R100 000 000. He wants the Government to subsidize the Railways out of Consolidated Revenue by not charging interest on capital, but when we suggested a straight clear subsidy on uneconomic tariffs, then it becomes “ondermyning van die selfrespek van die spoorwegman”.

I did not talk about the writing-off of capital, but about the writing-off of interest.

What is the difference? He quoted the figure of R100 million. He got it a bit mixed up with thousands and hundreds, but he eventually found his way to R100 million. He wanted the capital written off to save R100 million which the Railways have to pay in interest. That is all right; that sort of subsidy he accepts. This is the sort of logic we had. From then on the hon. member showed that he was able to read the General Manager’s report. He was able to quote to us some of the admirable improvements and technical advances which have been made. I thank him for his little lecture; we read them last year and this year and were ourselves impressed. But is that the contribution we are expected to make to a debate on the problems of the Railways at a time when the Railways are in serious trouble? Do you wonder, Sir, when I say we welcome him back personally but we wonder why he bothered?

I however agree with one thing which the hon. member said. He made some very complimentary remarks towards the hon. the Minister and in fact my colleague for Yeoville also said that he hoped that the hon. the Minister would stay on a little longer. Then the hon. member for Rand-burg wished the hon. the Minister a long and happy retirement. May I reciprocate to the hon. member for Randburg and wish him a long, restful and healthy retirement when we take over his seat from him at the next general election. And whilst I am throwing bouquets around, I have a bouquet to throw to the hon. the Minister as well. It is perhaps a little faded by this time, because it has been a gloomy Budget and there are gloomy prospects ahead of us. So I can understand why it was that the S.A. Railways thought they would cheer the hon. the Minister up by greeting him with flowers and welcoming the new leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal with flowers as well. I want to return that bouquet to the hon. the Minister today, the bouquet which his department provided for the Nationalist Party Congress in Durban during November last year. I am not surprised that in the gloomy atmosphere in which the hon. the Minister works, his department felt it necessary to use railway time, railway staff and railway flowers to cheer up the Nationalist Party Congress. But I hope he will tell us what that cost, because there are not many roses for the taxpayer and the railway user. I think we are entitled to know what it cost and how much the Nationalist Party paid for the services of that bouquet which I return to the hon. the Minister this afternoon.

We have heard this afternoon of the fine work done in cutting costs. We know from the Budget of the increased traffic which has been carried and of the increased tariffs. So we have increased traffic, increased tariffs and increased productivity. We have some substantial savings. I may mention that we have increased productivity of 2,4% according to the General Manager’s report for the last year, 1971-’72, and not 3,4%, as the hon. member for Randburg alleged. However, the increased productivity is substantial and praiseworthy. And yet, with all these increases in revenue, in tariffs and in productivity, we have increased losses. So the hon. the Minister will not be surprised when I say that, whilst there may be flowers for Nationalist Party congresses, there are not many roses for the taxpayer or the railway user; and this despite the continued flogging of an unwilling horse, the almost punitive tariffs on the selected victims of the Railways. I mean of course firstly the inland motorists, the long-standing victim of pipeline tariffs. I speak of course secondly of the harbours, the one paying section of the Railways which has again been hammered with yet higher tariffs to milk yet more out of that sector. I speak of the small section of some 17% of high-rated goods. We cannot just go on flogging these unwilling horses, trying to get more and more out of this little group. I want to pay a sincere tribute to the Minister and the General Manager for the business-like approach of which we have seen signs in recent times; and a tribute, too, to most of the staff, who—and here I join with the hon. member for Randburg—are working voluntarily unpaid overtime to make up for their increases in salaries. But we have to face the facts. Despite all these efforts, despite the attempt to approach the situation from a business point of view, we have these increasing losses which have now crippled the safeguard, the guarantee and the security of the railway worker, namely the Rates Equalization Fund—losses which have this year exhausted it. Therefore the suggestions made by the hon. member for Yeoville have become not only necessary, but also urgent. I refer specifically to the suggestion that we look at the structure, because I believe that the General Manager, the Administration, and the Minister himself, are victims of a system. They are victims of a system just as many of the railway staff are victims of that system.

Let me digress for one moment, Mr. Speaker. I referred to the voluntary over-time time worked by many of the staff and the tremendous contribution and dedication of those staff members; but there is unfortunately a section of the staff which, however much it would like to be dedicated and would like to make a contribution, simply cannot afford to do so. And so it is that you find, in certain grades, the position where, because of their level of remuneration, members of the staff cannot survive without overtime. And so, if there is no overtime, it has to be created. This is part of the Jeckyll and Hyde problem one has to face when one is the victim of a system. When it comes to midday, these people look at the work that still has to be done. They know that if they finish that work by 5 o’clock, there will be no overtime and nothing with which to pay the rent at the end of the month. So sufficient of that work has to be left over to fill in two, three or four hours after 5 p.m. to give them that overtime pay without which they cannot exist. This too is part of the problem which faces the Railways Administration, which escalates costs and which creates delays and problems to the users. So we have the Railways, a victim of their own structure, and groups within the Railways, themselves a victim of the salary structure within that service. Something has got to be done, otherwise we will find that the goose that has been laying the golden egg will no longer be able to lay that golden egg. The Railways cannot continue to act as a sort of social welfare department to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the economy of South Africa as a whole. It is not the hon. the Minister of Transport who is the social welfare officer to the economy; it is the Minister of Economic Affairs who is responsible for a balanced economy and not the Railways. The Railways are responsible for moving goods in South Africa, not for subsidizing the economy, not for subsidizing certain industries and not for subsidizing certain sections of the economy. There sits the Minister who should be doing that. He should be the man, and his should be the department which sees that those industries and those segments of our economy which cannot pay economic tariffs are so assisted that they are able to pay them. But instead of that we are using the technique of employing the mechanism of the Railways to subsidize and, as I have said, to act as a social welfare organization for our economic development. It is time this stopped. It is time we as a Parliament and we as a country took a new look at the position, as suggested by the hon. member for Yeoville.

We have emphasized in the discussions so far, the low-rated traffic which comprises the bulk of the volume, but such a small part of income. But there are other services which we need to look at. I would like to spend a little time looking at the passenger services this afternoon. Here again we have escalating losses. We find that the loss has increased for the last year, 1971-’72, to R99,5 million in respect of the passenger services, and this despite increased tariffs, despite the withdrawal of services which has created hardship and inconvenience to many people. Perhaps it will be possible at a later stage to deal in greater detail with this withdrawal of services, but it has left people in the lurch. This has been forced upon the Government because of the economics of their passenger structure. It was forced on the Railways because they are obliged to deal with what I call the captive passengers, the passengers in the townships, the passengers whose location has been determined by the Government and who have no choice and no option; they are the captive passengers of the Railway services, and because they are that, and because the Government recognizes that, their fares have in the past been subsidized. Sir, I want to come back to something that I tried to raise in an earlier debate under Transport, but the hon. the Minister told me that I must raise it under Railways. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether his System Manager in Natal was not speaking the truth when he said that the subsidy on township services had been withdrawn or reduced by the Government.

Reduced, not withdrawn.

Sir, we now have it from the Minister that there was a reduction in the subsidy by the Consolidated Revenue Fund on services to the townships. As a result of this, the tariffs to the Bantu townships and the Indian townships had to be increased by anything up to 18%. This increase—16% in one case and 18% in another, but let us take it at about 16%, which is certainly the case in Durban—almost led to one of those tragic events which I fear more than any other sort of boycott, and that is a boycott of the railways in Durban. It was prevented by excellent action by the Railway Police, by protection of the stations, by clearing the way to enable those who wanted to catch trains to do so, with the result that that strike failed. But, Sir, it was touch and go. Before I came down to Parliament I heard talk amongst the Bantu about a strike that they were planning for a particular Monday and, later on, for the 1st February. If that strike had taken place, it would have made a much uglier picture than that which we eventually had with the industrial strikes in Durban, because when people are tired and hungry and they have walked to work from three or four o’clock in the morning, then they are clay in the hands of an inciter. It is fortunate for South Africa that that strike did not materialize. Sir, here we have a service which is conveying people who are in these townships not of their own volition but because they are put there by the Government, and the Government now withdraws the subsidy which was intended to reduce their transport costs. Sir, last year we increased the levy which employers have to pay to meet the transport costs of their employees, and in the face of that radical increase in the levy to be paid by employers, we now have an increase in the fares themselves.

May I correct you. That levy is not for rail services; it is only for bus services.

I know, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to that. This is a levy for bus services, and yet the Railways have the right—and have exercised it in regard to the Chatsworth bus services—to object to the granting of permits. They have the right to have permits to run buses withdrawn, so the Railways can, where they want to do so, prevent competition by bus services. All employers pay a transport levy for every employee employed by them; it is called a transport levy. In practice it is not a transport levy. In practice it is not assisting the employees who make use of the mass transport which the Railways provide; it is only assisting those who make use of bus services. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give this House and South Africa a detailed picture of what in fact his plans are other than those detailed in The General Manager’s report for improving the line to Soweto, etc. The report contains a very praiseworthy group of suggestions covering, I think, about a page of the General Manager’s report, but they are mere palliatives in solving the problem. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what long-term plans he has and the country has for mass and cheap transport from our suburbs and townships to the cities. How far have we got with studying the possibility of underground services or of monorails or of some substitute for the present system which clearly cannot continue as it is. But it is not only in the urban areas, with the suburban traffic, that we have problems. It is on the main lines also, where we find that there is a 13% and 14% reduction in first and second class journeys and an increase in third class traffic, which again comprises your captive passengers. With the new labour regulations every single Bantu employed now has to be sent back to his homeland after one year because he has a one-year contract and must then re-register. So you have an artificial captive group of passengers who once a year have to go home to their homelands, whether they want to or not. But your voluntary passengers, the first and second class passengers, are starting to use the Railways less and less. Apart from the fact that today it costs more in some cases to travel first class by train than to fly, there is the question of time and the additional costs. I was interested to see what the British Railways have done in regard to this problem. This problem is not unique to South Africa; it is world-wide. The British Railways have found that in six years of regular travel with 100 m.p.h. trains and with improved frequency of service, there has been an increase in passengers on a particular line of 90%. British Railways estimate that 25% of this increase has been won from the airlines, 15% from the roads and a lusty 60% of entirely new traffic generated by electrification. The point I wish to make is that by giving a better, a quicker and a cheaper service there has been an increase of 90% on one particular line. Now they are claiming that the APT-E trains, gas turbine-powered, travelling initially at 125 m.p.h. will increase to 200 m.p.h. I know they have wider rails and we cannot aim at that sort of speed but relatively we can move in that direction. These are practical steps being taken to try to provide a better, cheaper and quicker service and to bring people back to the trains and so to make them more profitable. Again I ask whether we are approaching this seriously enough or are we simply saying: This is the problem; we have to push up the tariffs because we are not showing a profit, and where a service is not profitable, we simply discontinue it.

Sir, I do not want to continue further on the aspect of the economic problems because I do not have the time to deal with it. I want in the few moments left to me to come back to that group about which I spoke earlier, what the Minister and everybody else calls the bread-and- butter grades on the Railways. I quoted some of the salaries being paid which force people to seek overtime, otherwise they could not exist. Even with the 15% increase the vast bulk of railwaymen today earn between R184 and R230. They used to start at R160; they now start at 15% more, or R184. For some of them there is no prospect and no future. Take a group like the fire services, a very difficult problem, but they are a contained group, with no prospects and no real opportunities of advancement except within their own small group, a group which started on this scale of R160, (now R184) with a maximum potential of R200. The result was that on an establishment of 72, according to the General Manager in November last year, there were only 18 fire-fighters left in that group. I am taking some of the unusual ones. We all know about the shunters, and the other known grades. The ones that I am about to mention are some of the forgotten groups of the Railways. I take a group like baggage attendants whose maximum was R10 lower even than that of the fire-fighters. A baggage attendant’s only possible chance of promotion is to become a baggage master. We have here a group which is completely isolated and the members of this group do their own job and they cannot naturally move on to better positions. We have numbers of these groups of people. Is it any wonder that we have a 20% shortage in the bread-and-butter grades to which the hon. the Minister himself referred in his Budget speech? Is it any wonder that we have, as opposed to their looking for overtime, forced overtime in many cases? I say we have forced overtime because the people have to do it whether they want to or not. Despite all the assurances, the hon. the Minister knows that people are still being fined if they refuse to do overtime. [Interjections.] This statement is correct and I think the hon. the Minister will agree. They are fined quite ruthlessly. I have had another couple of cases recently: “Sorry chum, you were not there. Whatever your excuses are, whatever your reason is, you are fined and that is the end of it.” I am not going to repeat it all, but the hon. the Minister knows what I think of the appeal system. Despite all the assurances the hon. the Minister and the management have given there is still tremendous dissatisfaction, because in practice although these appeals go through all the channels, they are merely turned down automatically and at the end you find an absolutely negligible proportion that is ever upheld on appeal. You find that those, who either because they are tired cannot carry on, or because they have private reasons, miss a day are fined as criminals under the disciplinary regulations. They are not only fined, but they are regarded as having committed a serious offence, as having committed a “disciplinary infringement of a serious nature” and that is recorded on their records and held against them. I have had a case of a man, who, because he insisted on carrying out a particular procedure, in the interests of safety for his train, was fined and his promotion was held back a year. He demanded his right to protect his train against regulations which he believed were dangerous.

So one could go on, but my time is up. I want to say simply that we should not forget that in this whole set-up our backbone remains people. We have our financial structure, we have our financial problems, our economic problems, the problems of tariffs, but people are still the backbone of the Railways. We must be careful that in solving the economic problems which we face we do not drive those people, the Railway personnel, too far, because if we do, then the whole service will break down. It is as much the conditions of service as the pay they get which determine their attitude to their work. While I agree with the hon. member for Randburg that there is tremendous loyalty, I believe that we are straining that loyalty in many cases to a dangerous degree. I therefore support the amendment which the hon. member for Yeoville has moved and which I believe offers a direction in which we should move.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville tried to make a great issue of indicating how the railway personnel had on four occasions approached the hon. the Minister for wage increases and how on three occasions they were sent away with so-called excuses. The hon. member surely read what the Minister’s public comment was at the time, i.e. that he told the railway personnel flatly that he acknowledged that they had a legitimate claim. He also did it as early as last year with the Budget when he stated that sooner or later the railway people had to get an increase. What he did was to tell the people they should wait a while so that the economic growth, which was projected, could get into its stride before the increase was granted. He never disputed the fact that these people had a legitimate case for an increase. I think it was a good thing that the Minister adopted that attitude. It was as wise a decision on his part as the decision he took last year when he budgeted for a deficit of R39 million, while the obvious step he could have taken was to have increased rates immediately. Hon. members can now imagine for themselves how the hon. member for Yeoville would have carried on if the Minister were to have increased the rates last year in his Budget. The hon. the Minister said last year, in any case: “No wait, I am budgeting for a deficit of R39 million with the possibility that the situation could improve during the year, because there is every indication and very good reason to think that there will be a revival and boom in the economy.” For the same reasons he decided, at that stage, not to increase the rates, but to postpone this. But it had to come. That is why he also told the staff: “You have a case, but if I now give you an increase, I must increase the rates, because the one goes hand in hand with the other, and this would immediately cause a chain reaction.” In addition he also told them that this would immediately cause salary increases throughout the Public Service and the private sector. This has apparently also been the case with the latest increase. He also said that this would immediately result in an increase in the prices of goods and that we are expected to stimulate the economy so that an upsurge may come, and that in the interests of South Africa we must have sufficient loyalty to wait a while until the economic climate is a little more favourable. I think that if the hon. member for Yeoville were to give these matters a little thought in retrospect, he would say the hon. the Minister was very right to do what he did. In the same breath the hon. member for Yeoville says he is satisfied with the way in which the hon. the Minister made the rates adjustment to bridge, to a certain ex tent, the gap that exists between the high and low rates, and to eliminate uneconomic rates. At the same time he protests—he does not like it—at the rates for certain products, such as livestock, having to be increased by up to 60%. He says it is surely the kind of traffic that has a legitimate claim to preference.

The Railways is not responsible for that.

The hon. member comes along here with the request that the Government should subsidize the uneconomic transport. He does not say what products and what traffic must be subsidized. He just mentions it generally, and I now want to tell the hon. member that he is including 70% of the load capacity of the Railways. He must be a little more specific and tell us what portion of this 70% of the Railways’ load he would like to have subsidized.

I said a commission of experts should be appointed for that.

Yes, but losses are suffered on all these goods. What traffic must the State subsidize?

We must work it out together.

I want to tell the hon. member that this hon. Minister has done more than any other Minister of Transport to iron out the problem—I accept the fact that it is a problem—of the big gap between the high and low rates. I shall presently prove this to the hon. member.

I want to react to what the hon. member for Durban Point said. He said the Railways was in serious difficulties. He tried to sketch a very somber picture of the Railways’ financial position. I do not think it is going half as badly with the Railways as it is with the United Party. However, I do not want to make a comparison between them and the Railways my point of departure. I should like to paint the other side of the picture for the hon. member.

It has by this time virtually become a platitude in the House to say that the Railways’ working results are merely a barometer of the country’s economy. I emphasize this today because I want to underline the fact that over the past few years it has been very difficult for the Minister and for the Management of the Railways to steer a course through all the economic boulders, currents and tides. If one studies this Budget together with the previous two Budgets we have had, one cannot but be given a deep impression of the excellent way the Minister and the Management of the Railways have succeeded in overcoming and solving the numerous problems they have been faced with and have kept the whole basis and operation of the service so sound and effective in essence under the circumstances. If there has ever been a trial period for this Minister, with respect to the Service, it has been during the past three years, as I see the matter. He was not only dealing with a tremendous fluctuation in the economy in South Africa, but he also had to combat a manpower shortage that was being experienced throughout the country and which has a very great impact in a service such as the South African Railways. During this period the service also had to be drastically adapted and modernized to combat a new trend in the transport pattern of South Africa. In connection with this new trend in the traffic pattern, which has been detectable in the past decade, I want to refer to a speech which the General Manager made last year on 25th April before the Safto seminar in Johannesburg. There he expressed himself as follows about this matter—

Just to bear out this point, I want to mention that since 1963 the quantity of iron, chrome and manganese ore transported by the Railways increased from 2 300 000 tons per year to 6 300 000 tons, i.e. 165%. For a country like South Africa, as far as economic progress is concerned, it is of the utmost importance for the country to devote itself increasingly to exports. In a country like South Africa, with its great distances, transport is of vital importance. The Railways and Harbours Administration has throughout the years indeed played a key role in our economy in that connection, but I must point out that the task of the transport system in recent years has not been an easy one, having had to carry out this task under these circumstances. In connection with this I want to mention that the General Manager of the Railways recently told the staff associations (translation)—

I want to point out that since 1963, when an upswing in the economy began, there was a gradual increasing trend in the real domestic product. In 1969 it evidenced an increase of 6,8%. But between 1970 and 1972 the increase dropped by an average of about 4,2% each year. The Railways was then faced with the choice, as a result of this flattening off in the economy, of whether it should restrict additional capital outlay or whether it should continue creating additional capacity. But last year, during the Budget, there were indications and every reason to believe that during the year there would be considerable improvement in the economic position, and the Railways continued its policy, at that moment, of not placing any impediments in the way of the possible growth that was expected. But what happened in the meantime? These are things the hon. member for Durban Point conveniently did not take note of. I want to refer him to a leading article about the Railways Budget which appeared in Die Burger. It gives an idea of how Die Burger sums up the situation, and it appeared on 8th March of this year. I quote (translation)—

I do not now want to be all that sceptical and cynical about the matter. That summing up is basically an accurate one after all. There was the expectation. The Railways took note of that and consequently drew up its Budget, and the expectations were not realized. There was a general increase in traffic tonnage of 5,8% over the period April to December of last year in comparison with the previous year. But this increase in traffic tonnage was chiefly in respect of low-rated traffic. Thus the export of maize increased by almost 100%. The exact figure is 96,2%. Cement transport increased by 13,8%. Coal transport increased by 17,8 million tons; and asbestos transport by 268 000 tons. Thus I can mention to you how the low-rated traffic did, in fact, increase considerably during the year. It increased to such an extent that there was an increase in low-rated traffic of 8,3%. But on the other hand high-rated traffic decreased by almost 2,7%. This took place chiefly as a result of two factors. The one factor is the import control that had to be introduced to correct the balance of payments. Import traffic is high-rated traffic and is responsible for 16% to 20% of all high-rated traffic of the Railways. On the other hand there was a decrease in high-rated traffic because there was only a 3% increase in the real growth of the manufacturing sector in 1972. Manufactured goods are high-rated traffic.

In addition the Railways was also faced with the situation of having a revenue shortfall because there was such a large unutilized transport facility for the reasons I have already mentioned to you. Large sums of money were invested in capital works for the creation of additional transport capacity, which was eventually not utilized. There was no revenue with which to make a contribution to the capital costs. Modernizing of the Railways, as we have had in the past decade, entails relatively intensive capital expenditure. Therefore the capital works program of the Railways also increased between 1963 and 1973 from R141 million to R497 million per year. The interest on the capital, that has to be paid—this was mentioned here by hon. members—is in fact now in the region of R150 million per year. With an increase in productivity, and the optimum utilization of its manpower, the Railways can bridge certain problems, but then there are certain factors which the Railways can do nothing about. One of them is the continually increasing burden of interest which is placed upon it every year. The amount of R150 million in one year represents an increase of about R30 million in the burden of interest within one year.

There is another matter which the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned here, i.e. the question of passenger transport and the loss of R90 million being carried in that connection. The Railways can do very little about this except if it asks the State to pay for it. There are other factors such as depreciation, about which it can do nothing. Depreciation brought about a loss of R146 million this year. These are facts one must take stock of when one is discussing the Railways’ financial position. The criticism that came from the hon. member, and is also contained in one leg of the amendment of hon. members opposite, has to do with the financing and the rates structure of the Railways. With the years—I acknowledge this—a large gap has developed between the high rated traffic and the uneconomic traffic of the Railways. But this matter has an historic background which everyone in this hon. House is aware of. Since 1910 certain social obligations have been placed on the Railways, inter alia, to stimulate agricultural and industrial development. For that purpose the so-called “low rates” were introduced, which eventually became uneconomic rates. Over the years many of these uneconomic rates increasingly weakened with respect to covering costs. In other words, the uneconomic rates became increasingly more uneconomic over the years. To balance its books the Railways had, on the other hand, to make its high rates increasingly greater, with the result that this tremendous gap eventually developed. However, it has also been pointed out that before the last rate increase, the rates in respect of 70% of the goods, which the Railways transports, no longer covered the transport costs.

I now want to say, for the information of hon. members who spoke before me, that within the rates policy of the Railways a great deal of progress has already been made in narrowing this gap and to eliminating uneconomic rates as far as possible. Specifically now, with the latest increases in rates, concentration has centered, in the first instance, on eliminating uneconomic rates as far as possible, and in the second place on narrowing the gaps between the high and low rates. This is in accordance with recommendations of the Schumann Commission. But with the wide impact of rates, it has been impossible to eliminate all uneconomic rates, and the hon. member for Yeoville conceded as much here by implication. For example, he wants livestock to be transported by the Railways on an uneconomic basis. This he wants to bring about by means of a subsidy on the part of the Treasury. As a result of the wide impact of rates, I say it is impossible to eliminate all uneconomic rates, and the rate increases in respect of certain commodities and products had to be kept in the region of 60%. With future rate increases it will, of course, still be possible to go further towards the narrowing of the gap. In my opinion this will, in fact, happen. But I must admit it is a long-term solution to this problem. It is, however, a solution in respect of which a great deal of progress has already been made.

But now we come to another aspect, and this has to do with the various traffic groups, for example passenger traffic, which by of its nature cannot be placed on an economic level by means of rate increases. The hon. member for Durban Point is not here at the moment, but I want to tell him that this is a trend throughout the world. In almost all overseas countries it is being found that railway passenger transport cannot be carried out on an economic basis. Every year we are suffering losses in the region of R100 million as far as that is concerned. But, Sir, I want to quote what I read only today in an issue of the African Transport Review, No. 2 of 1972, in respect of Australia—

They consequently have the same problem there that we have here. Victoria, which has a relatively small railway system, has suffered tremendous losses on its passenger transport, and then there is also the problem of the “social services”, which we also have here in South Africa. We cannot run away from these problems as easily as the hon. member for Yeoville wants us to do. If such steps must be taken, the solution simply lies in the State having to take such steps. I say that within the principle of the railway rates policy, as applied by this Minister, a great deal can gradually be done about this matter, and a great deal has already been done within the ambit of this policy. But simply to ask off-hand that the State foot the bill for all losses that are suffered in respect of railway transport would surely be too easy a matter.

But who pays for that? The poor labourers?

I am coming to that in a moment. I shall tell you in a moment who pays for that. As I have said, it would surely be too easy a matter. What encouragement, what stimulus, would there be for the railwayman himself to furnish higher productivity if he knows he can simply drag along in this way, and the State would compensate for that at the end of the year? I say that we simply cannot accept the principle that the losses suffered by the Railways should be borne by the Consolidated Revenue Fund. But the principle that in cases where it is necessary for the authorities to maintain low rates, the State should compensate the Railways for the difference between the actual costs of furnishing the services and the rates applicable, has already been accepted. In other words, what the hon. member for Yeoville is asking, is already being done in part by the Minister. A great deal of progress has been made along these lines. This principle has been accepted by the Government as a result of the present Minister of Transport’s action. According to that principle, where the authorities expect the Railways to furnish services on which there are losses, the State will pay the difference. I want to mention examples of what is already being done in this connection. There is the subsidizing of fares to resettlement areas, in respect of which R20 million is already being paid per year. There is the subsidizing of railway rebates in respect of services to the border industries. There is State subsidizing of railage rebates on maize for local use, agricultural lime, drought-stricken livestock and artificial fertilizer. And now, after the Reynders Commission’s Report has appeared, there is also the possibility that in future the Railways will no longer suffer any losses in respect of export transport. In other words, it will also be possible in future to keep export rates on an economic basis; approved exporters will still obtain special export rates from the Railways, but if it is necessary, for the purposes of competition on overseas markets, for them to obtain further help, the State will give that additional compensation to the exporters. It is therefore possible, within the rates policy of the Railways, gradually to place more uneconomic goods rates on an economic basis, and this is being done. As soon as the State regards it desirable in future for rates on a certain product not to be increased an further, the Railways will be able to go to the State and say: “Look, now you must subsidize this rate.” In this connection a great deal more progress has also been made by this Minister than by any of his predecessors in bridging this problem.

In the few minutes still left to me, I want to say that this Budget again furnishes absolute proof that the control and the management of the national transport system has always been done correctly in all important respects, but particularly in recent years. At the same time it is a damning judgment against the plans and the proposals which hon. members of the Opposition have from time to time presented as so-called solutions to the problems the Railways is faced with. In the time at my disposal I just want to look back on a few of these so-called solutions they have come along with here. One of these was that the services should be separated; the Harbours, Pipelines and the Airways should be divorced from the Railways and each should have a separate account. I now want to ask: With the experience we have gained over the past five years, what would the position have been in the Railways today if this plan of the United Party were to have been implemented? Over the past five years the Railways has had a deficit year after year. The total deficit for the five-year period was R271 million. In respect of deficits and surpluses the Airways have virtually broken even, but the Harbours have consistently had a surplus over the five years, and the total surplus for that period was R109 million, while the Pipelines furnished a surplus of R208 million over the five-year period. The Pipelines and the Harbours, therefore, evidenced a combined profit of R317 million over these five years, from which this deficit of R271 million, which the Railways suffered operationally, could be cleared, while a further R46 million remained to strengthen the funds of the Railways. But if we did not have this money from the other profitable divisions of the service, and if we were to have taken them away from the Railways as hon. members opposite have proposed year after year, what would the position of the Railways have been today? Where would they have obtained the R271 million? Where would they have obtained the R40 million from the Pipelines if we were to take this away this year and not pay it into the Railways Account? Where do they want to obtain the additional R40 million other than by requesting it from the Government, which would then entail a general increase in taxes, directly or indirectly, or else by still further increasing the rates? This is clear proof that when it comes to these important aspects, the Railways Administration has still been right on every occasion. So, too, in respect of high-rated traffic being fed to the road transport system, we said that the Railways should be envious of that and take note that it could not afford to relinquish more and more of this high-rated traffic, of which they only handle a small portion today. In contrast to that hon. members opposite said: “No, the Railways have too great a monopoly. We must take away more of this transport and give it to the road transporters.” Sir, where would the Railways have stood today if we had applied their policy and their remedies to solve these problems? I regret not having a chance to elaborate further on this aspect, but I hope I shall, in fact, have that chance on another occasion.

Sir, I hope to deal in the course of my speech with the various points made by the hon. member for Parow.

That is a tough job.

I do not think it will be so tough.

You had better answer Cathy.

Never mind the hon. member for Wynberg; she can look after herself. Let me get on with my speech. The hon. member for Parow is quite right in saying that the financial position of the Railways is the barometer of this country’s economy; we have noticed that over the years, and when one reads the hon. the Minister’s Budget speeches and his introductory remarks one cannot help noticing how he has had to follow the same very depressing pattern. I quote from his introductory remarks in his 1969-’70 Budget speech—

Then in his 1972-’73 Budget speech the hon. the Minister said—

Sir, all the way through the hon. the Minister has this depressing picture to paint to us. This Budget of his, of course, reflects the true position of the South African economy. The spiral of inflation is still with us. In this connection, Sir, I would like to quote to you the remarks of Prof. Botha, who appeared before the Hiemstra Commission and who is an economist and a professor at the University of the Witwatersrand; this is what he said—

Sir, we are certainly not out of the wood. What is the real background to this position? The hon. the Minister tell us that we are suffering from the effects of the devaluation of 12,28% in 1971 and the effects of the subsequent devaluation of 5%. Sir, it is true that we are suffering from the effects of devaluation, but the tragedy is that this country was not in a position to take advantage of the opportunities offered to us by devaluation. When one reads the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech, one assumes that the Government expected a sudden flood of orders on the South African market. Our economy should have been geared to take advantage of order resulting from devaluation. Strictly speaking, of course, if we had used our economic resources to the maximum capacity, if we had encouraged the maximum growth, we should have been in a position to revalue instead of devaluing. We are suffering today, as the Minister of Finance said on one occasion, from the politico-economic policies of the Government. There is no doubt about it. There will be no change until there is a change of Government. Talking about devaluation Prof. Botha said this—

That is so because the rule, Sir, is: Stay away from the countries that are likely to devalue and move your money to those who may revalue. That is the position of our economy and as I stand here today we are in that position again where our currency and also the world currencies are again in the melting pot. The hon. the Minister is in for a very difficult time. The hon. member for Yeoville has dealt with the economic aspects of the wage increases and he quoted from the Hiemstra report at great length. I do not intend repeating what he has said, but I would like to say that the economy of this country cannot stand these sudden, sharp increases in tariffs, these very steep increases. The hon. the Minister will know, and his staff will tell him, that just as they have a planning council, so most of the large business houses have the same. They have to plan ahead. They have to plan factory production and factory extension, etc., and they cannot always anticipate increases in tariffs. When you are told that there is to be an increase in tariffs of 20%, that is not really so, because when you spread it over and when the tariffs have been readjusted, you find that in some cases the tariffs have in fact been increased by up to 26%, and the effects go deeper than people realize. The effect on industry is very much more serious than people are made to believe.

In the Hiemstra report Mr. Purvis, one of the commissioners, a man who held a senior position in the Railways, and who was able to appreciate the situation, draws attention to the very serious position obtaining in regard to Railway finances. He also draws attention to the depletion of long-term investments, which is a very serious matter, and the losses that have been sustained by the Railways. We just recently learnt from the Additional Estimates of the very serious losses we suffered, when we had to realize investments before they fell due. The Railways were forced to do that to meet their commitments. We on this side of the House feel that the whole question of the finances of the Railways in relation to the Treasury needs examination, because I think it is all wrong that the Railways should be called upon to carry these very heavy burdens that they have to carry at the present moment. The hon. member for Parow asked what would happen if our policy was adopted and the Railways and the pipelines, etc., were split up. But that is just the point. Over the years the Railways have consistently suffered very heavy losses. I am talking about the Railways individually; do not let us get muddled up between Railways, Airways and the pipelines. If you look at the results of the working one sees that the last time the Railways made a profit was in 1967-’68 when they made a R7,4 million profit. After that in 1968-’69 there was a loss of R29 million, in 1969-’70 it was R25 million, in 1971-’72 it was R66 million, in 1971-’72 it was R82,8 million and this year the total loss on the operation of the Railways will be R45 million. That is not in respect of the Railways themselves, but the total operation. But who carries this baby and saves the situation? One sees that Harbours in 1968 made a profit of R19,4 million, in 1968-’69 R14,8 million, in 1969-’70 R19,7 million, in 1970-’71 R22,l million and in 1971 -’72 R26,5 million.

Let us look at the Airways. Up until 1970-’71 the Airways made a constant profit—R7,6 million in 1967-’68; R3,6 million in 1968-’69; R7,6 million in 1969-’70; and R5,9 million in 1970-’71. In 1971-’72 they made a loss. We know why they made that loss. It was because of the introduction of the large planes and the general depression as far as air services were concerned.

Next we come to the pipeline. The Rail ways have made a consistent profit on the pipeline. In 1967-’68 the profit was R20 million; in 1968-’69 it was R20 million; in 1969-’70 it was R47 million; in 1970-’71 it was R50 million; and in 1971-’72 it was R43,5 million. This is where the Railways have a nest-egg to save themselves. One must realize what the true position is.

I think it is all wrong that the trade and industry and the general economy should be loaded in order that this very heavy loss should be met that the Railways are having. This causes the economy as a whole to be in imbalance and the economy is not carrying this loss as a whole. I think the Treasury must play its part in assisting the Railways. The Railways are forced to develop the country and they have to meet an interest account this year of something like R153 million, that is, interest alone before they can meet any of their other very serious expenses. We therefore have this imbalance and the Railways, in trying to help the country, must pay these very heavy interest charges. Something must be done to assist—we have the situation that they have great difficulty in meeting their commitments.

In other words, the State must play Christmas-father!

No, I do not mean that. We are not fooling around. This is a serious problem. We are a responsible Opposition. I think the time has come that the State must take up the matter. I recommend to the hon. member to read the Hiemstra Report. It is a very good report and it points out the situation to great length. If the hon. member would go back to read the report of the Commission on Railway Rating Policy, 1964, he would find something very good to read there as well.

I have read that.

The hon. member should take note of these things. We should not fool around; the situation is serious. We are now in the position that we are not exporting the goods and that we do not have the markets. We are becoming a country which one can compare with a “bring-and-buy sale”. The hon. the Minister is quite justified in being disappointed that exports have not come up to expectations, that the economy of the country has not grown according to expectations. Devaluation is not the answer. I think we are finding it out at the present moment. Although we may be faced with the prospect that there may be a further devaluation, I hope it will not materialize.

I want to come to the question of labour. If we read the General Manager’s report, we find that we still have about 11 500 vacancies in the service today. We have had this consistently year after year and this position is not going to cure itself all of a sudden. I do not think there is an immediate solution, but there again I think we must examine the position and we have to make sure that we make the best use of the population available. The hon. the Minister has been bold enough in consultation with the staff associations to use more Bantu in his services. But you cannot take them from the reserves and just put them in to a job. You have to train them. I was very interested and pleased to read in the General Manager’s report that the Railways have taken to in service training of its staff. As the country grows we will have to find more labour and in finding the labour we will have to train it as well. Another thing we have to do is to have a good look at the complete establishment of the Railways, because from the productivity angle we must not get like the house that Jack built, saying: We are putting up another department and we want X staff for it. We have to look at productivity and we have to make sure that we get the productivity we require from each individual. The hon. the Minister has told us in the past that he was forced to take certain uneconomic labour in the interest of the country and the economy, but we may even have to look at that. This may be one of the items where we may ask the Central Government to subsidize the Railways. If the Railways as such is going to be run on business-like lines it cannot be expected to carry the complete burden. Help must come from somewhere; you cannot offload the burden on a handful of users. That is wrong.

That is grossly exaggerated.

Of course you are loading it only on 17% of your users.

If that is what the position is, it is wrong. As far as labour is concerned, I would like to make another appeal to the hon. the Minister. I know he says that there is nothing wrong, that he has an open door and all that, but I can tell hon. members that there is a number of resignations and that the dissension is growing because of the application of the disciplinary code. I think this is one item that the hon. the Minister has to look at. One realizes that an organization with the size of the Railways has got to have a measure of discipline, but you can talk to any railwayman who has been affected and upon your question why he does not go to his staff association he will shrug his shoulders and say: “What is the use; it is absolutely a waste of time.” It is time that we have a thorough investigation into the whole application of the disciplinary code because it is one of the items which is causing dissension in the service.

Passing from the labour question I would like to deal with passenger traffic. I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the introduction of the new Blue Train. In this I included all those people who were responsible for its production. I think it is one of South Africa’s great assets. If it is said that it will not pay, I disagree, because I think it is an advertisement and if there are losses on this particular train he could put it down to advertising. It will pay however because there is not a person who has used this train and who has not said that it was a wonderful experience. I am only offering advice as a layman, but with the disappearance of the old Blue Train which has been put into use on other routes, I would like to suggest that the Administration should give consideration, to the installation of air-conditioning in ordinary coaches making these a little bit more comfortable. At the present moment when you are travelling through the Karoo and you do not have air-conditioning, it is unbearable. Therefore I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to do something about that. There is something else I want to plead for. The vast majority of railway users of local and long-distance trains are the Bantu and Coloureds who travel in second and third-class coaches. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot offer a little better catering services for them. I have seen trains leaving Cape Town, jam-packed—I do not know how many people were in the train, but they were packed to the doors—and yet there is no catering at all on these trains. The Bantu going back to the Transkei, or wherever they go, have to rely upon running to the nearest shop to buy a loaf of bread when the train stops and if it is not provided on the station, they have to go without it. I know that a lot of them cook meat which they pack in cans and eat it on the train. However, that is not very satisfactory. I feel that since they are of the best users of the railways, we could give them just a little bit better service than they are getting at present. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider my suggestion. He may say that it is going to cost a bit more money but, if one looks at the report, one sees that as far as passenger services are concerned, most of the revenue comes from them. They are our best users as far as passenger services are concerned.

Those are the best paying trains.

Yes, they are the best-paying trains.

Now I want to get down to rail accidents. We agree with the hon. the Minister in that the country was upset at the very, very high incidence of accidents occurring on the railways lately. It is disturbing. What is more, these rail accidents have been accompanied by a heavy loss of life. It seems as if precautions were not taken, and I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister and his staff give very serious consideration to the method of marshalling trains. All the pictures I have seen, tell one and the same story: The steel coaches are intact, but the wooden coaches have been reduced to matchwood. That is where most of the fatalities and serious injuries have taken place. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister and his staff to give consideration to and do a certain amount of research on methods of marshalling these trains. There is no doubt about it that today we have many more trains, they are heavier and travel slightly faster and therefore the risk of accidents is fairly high. So I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give some attention to the marshalling of these trains so that, if there is an accident, the number of injured can be kept to a minimum. This could be done by putting on steel coaches where possible and, if that is not possible, by marshalling the wooden coaches so as to avoid their being telescoped with the steel coaches, because that is what is happening time after time. I think that that would be a way of cutting down the number of severe injuries and fatalities which occur at present.

Coming from a seaport, I would like to deal with harbours. As far as our harbours are concerned, they continue to grow. From the reports which I have here one can see the amount of money that has been spent but, as I have read out just now, our harbours are also very, very profitable. Naturally we must provide the best possible services, otherwise they will not remain profitable. We must take into consideration the fact that the conventional type of harbour we know from the past is disappearing rapidly. New types of harbours are coming into existence. I would say that they would be less costly to build because they are of a different type. We have the advent of the containers and of the bulk carriers. We construct our harbours and allow for ships of 85 000 tons to 100 000 tons with a draught of 45 feet or 50 feet, but these ships are now being dwarfed by ships of 250 000 tons, 500 000 tons and I see that someone is even talking of building ships of one million tons. In our planning we must take these factors into consideration. If we look at empty ships that do not draw much water, we could bring a tanker of 250 000 into Cape Town, but we cannot bring it in if it is loaded for it will be drawing too much water, between 80 and 100 feet. We have to have harbours that will take these big ships. But we also have to look at the position regarding containerization. I know that there are different views about containerization. I am however, afraid that it has come to stay. There is congestion in storing space in Cape Town harbour when containers are off-loaded. There is insufficient space. There must be considerable wastage of time and manpower in moving these containers around. Although these containers are large they sometimes get mislaid and are damaged. When these containers are lying about, there is an accumulation of costs in respect of demurrage charges as well. The harbours we are building today must have facilities for container traffic. I understand that container wharfs will be provided in the new harbour in Cape Town.

Then there is the question of the provision of dry docks, a matter which is raised annually. I know that it is Railway policy that in the event of dry docks being required private enterprise would have to supply them. The Railways say; “We will give you the site and we will help you in every way but we won’t build them; they do not pay”. I agree with that, but I think we also have to take into account the fact that we are situated on a major sea route. I therefore think it is necessary that we should provide a major dry dock either in Durban or Cape Town. I think that is very necessary. But private enterprise is not going to get down to it.

Also on the question of harbours, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister if he would not consider dropping the levy on transport to the Cape Town docks. I do not know whether this is also applicable to the docks in the rest of the Republic. A R10 levy is laid on commercial vehicles entering the docks. I do not think that the revenue is even worth collecting. I think it has created an enormous amount of aggravation. In reply to a question by me the hon. the Minister said that it was intended to cut down the traffic in the docks. But it does nothing of the kind. These are the legitimate users of the docks. These people have to go in there. There were times when the Railways had to appeal to them to assist them in carrying away the goods when they could not cope with it themselves. Now these people are being penalized by having to pay a levy of R10. I wonder what would happen if the Cape Town Municipality decided to levy R10 on every railway vehicle used by the Railways. I think they would get quite a lot of income. We could say the same because the congestion of railway vehicles together with their trailers in the city is to be seen to be believed. The position is just as bad in Johannesburg. I think this is an unpopular levy and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider dropping it.

Now, in Cape Town harbour we also have the very unsatisfactory position that has been with us a long time namely that of trying to conduct a commercial fishing industry within its limits. One wonders why they ever dropped the Rietvlei Harbour scheme. Today you have these outsize trawlers in the Cape Town docks and the congestion is just too terrible for words. I think this calls for some relief.

In conclusion I would like to congratulate the Management on improvements as far as mechanization is concerned. I think they have made a great deal of progress but there are still odd things about which the General Manager knows could still be improved upon. With the terrific shortage of White labour in the country I fail to see why we continue using White crews in respect of berthing staff. I think this is the only port that does it. I am sure that the staff used on these tugs for berthing ships could be used in other capacities. It is not a very uplifting job as far as the Whites are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville made a very interesting speech, but the hon. member for Parow replied to it so effectively that I myself am unable to add much to it. I do want to deal with just one point though, namely his complaint that the gap between the high-rated and low-rated traffic is so wide. No I really think that he should express his thanks to the Minister for the fact that the Minister has narrowed that very gap by means of these increases in rates. It is interesting that before he finished, he again started pleading that certain concessions be made. Of course, he immediately gave thought to how the transport of coal to the Western Cape would be affected if the low rates were to be abolished. One could see how undecided he was, how he was trying to blow hot and cold. I think that if we adopt a viewpoint, we should carry through that viewpoint consistently.

The complaint of the hon. member for Salt River is that the Minister used in his Budget Speech certain words which he had also used in a previous Budget Speech. Sir, if I think of speeches by hon. members opposite, the repetitions which occur year after year, the same harping on one string, and then there is not even a change in intonation—it remains at the same pitch—then I really think that they do not have the right to complain if the Minister uses a single phrase which he used in his Budget Speech in 1969.

Then I come to his problem about the devaluation of 12,28% and his statement that we did not reap any benefit from that devaluation. I really feel that that is not the case. Our whole economy improved immediately. The hon. member said here that we should have revalued. We have already revalued. With the floating of our parity together with the British pound, we revalued again by 4%. I believe that that stimulant was very necessary for our economy. We are still reaping the fruits of it today. Our whole economy revived. This is not really a point which belongs here, but I nevertheless felt that I would just like to reply to it.

Then the hon. member claimed that the country’s economy could not bear these drastic increases in rates of 20% and, after adjustment, even more, and that they had a very detrimental effect on our industries. It is for that reason that this Government built up in recent years the Rates Equalisation Fund to a higher level than it had ever been before, i.e. more than R90 million. This is in fact a precautionary measure which we have taken in order to counteract these drastic increases.

The last plea made by the hon. member was that the question of the Railways bearing too heavy a burden should be investigated. He said that the Railways were continually suffering heavy losses. Then he mentioned that only a small percentage of the users had to bear the burden of the 17% of highrated goods, and then he made the following three statements, that the profits of the Harbours, the profits of the Airways and the regular high profits of the pipelines should be utilized for the benefit of the Railways …

That is an old story of theirs.

Sir, in a moment I shall enlarge a little on this statement of theirs. We know that hon. members opposite also pleaded during the Little Railways Budget debate for drastic wage increases for the non-Whites and for the gap between the wages of Whites and non-Whites to be narrowed. They pleaded for the implementation of the recommendations of the Marais Commission. Sir, I shall indicate in a moment what that would have implied. They pleaded further that the oil pipelines be divorced from the Railways. Two hon. members opposite once again mentioned that matter here today. One must take it that if they should come into power they would immediately put into effect those things for which they are pleading today. I think that it is necessary for us to dwell for a few moments on these basic points of difference and see what the financial implications would be if one were to respond to these pleas of theirs. I shall deal with their last plea first, the one they repeat here every year, namely that the oil pipeline be divorced from the Railways because the profits from the pipeline must come from the pockets of fuel consumers on the Witwatersrand only. Sir, what does this proposal embrace? It embraces an amount of R43,4 million this year, and we know that this amount has been as high as R50 million. Then I come to their next plea, and here I want us to do a simple arithmetic sum. Hon. members opposite have been pleading for the implementation of the recommendations of the Marais Commission. They claim that the Minister is insulting the Marais Commission by not accepting their recommendations. The Commission recommended that an ever greater amount of the goods transported by Railways be taken away from the Railways and handed over to the private hauliers. Sir, we know that the private hauliers are not at all interested in the conveyance of the low-rated traffic such as ores, minerals and coal; no, they are only interested in the high-rated traffic, and we must keep in mind that only 17% of the total traffic is made up of highrated traffic and that this 17% is responsible for 45% of the Railways’ revenue from goods traffic. If the recommendation of the commission that private hauliers be granted more exemptions were to be accepted, and if the Railways were to hand over to the private hauliers a quarter of the high-tariff traffic, then it would mean a loss to the Railways of R65 million. If the pipeline had been divorced from the Railways, then it would have meant a loss of R43,4 million to the Railways this year; and the Railways would have had to give up R65 million on high-rated traffic. The third proposal by hon. members opposite was that the wages of the non-White employees of the Railways should be drastically increased. I feel that the hon. the Minister has gone out of his way to help the non-White employees. Whereas he gave the White worker an increase of 15%, he gave the non-White worker an average increase of 22%. Hon. members of the Opposition have been criticizing this increase of 22%. They want the gap to be eliminated. The hon. member for Port Natal pleaded movingly here in the previous debate for an increase in the wages of non-Whites, etc., and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told us here about his daughter who was teaching at a Coloured school and was earning R105 per month more than were female Coloured teachers in the same school with the same qualifications, and he said she did not even have to work as hard as they had to. He asked for this gap to be eliminated. Quite a number of cases were mentioned, but the whole thing is a question of what it will cost the Railways. There are 117 000 non-White workers in the service of the Railways, and if we should give them a salary increase of only R10 a month, that increase of R10 a month would mean R32,5 million per annum. Now we have this sum; R43 million for the oil pipelines, R65 million for the highrated traffic which we are giving up to the private hauliers and R32,5 million to narrow the gap at only R10 a month for every non-White employee. That gives us an amount of R144 million. Hon. members opposite are now pleading for these things. If they are going to do that, they must tell us where they are going to get the money from.

From the State.

Yes, that is the first thought that was expressed here, but if the State were to pay it, by way of taxes, it would create a heavier burden than the one now created by these increases in rates. If they want to introduce increases in rates, the additional increases in rates would have to be 30%, another 30%, or alternatively they could perhaps do what they say in that little pamphlet of theirs, “You want it; we have it”. There they gave the White worker the assurance that they would pay him the same salary for ten years, and in the meantime they wanted to help the non-White by eliminating this gap. I accept that that is the other alternative. They want to give the non-Whites a salary increase and keep back the Whites, otherwise the Railways would not be able to afford it at all. I really think that this would definitely not be to the benefit of the Railways as a whole. In a fast-growing country vision and advance planning are of the greatest importance, particularly in view of the fact that the development of our country requires major contracts to be concluded, such as for iron ore, minerals and other products. In such a case the Railways must be in a position to comply with these extraordinary requirements. For this purpose early planning for all the facilities would be necessary, and this the hon. the Minister has been doing in recent years. Our harbour facilities have been developed to the utmost. Our main lines have been reinforced and the same goes for our feeder lines, and huge orders for rolling stock have been placed. We must place these orders years in advance in order to have these things in time for such development and expansion. This did happen, but then it happens that one’s harbour facilities cannot take any further expansion. That means that a new harbour has to be built, as is now being done at Richards Bay. That is long-term planning. It requires tremendous capital, the creation of an infrastructure, the construction of railway lines over very difficult terrain and everything that involves. But notwithstanding all these things, our Minister has done it. Otherwise it would not have been possible to meet certain coal agreements. This proves to us once again that this Government did not sit and wait for the problem to crop up and only then make provision for those facilities. No, through careful and correct planning, through vision and foresight, the Railways have kept abreast in recent years, notwithstanding the exceptional development which has taken place in our country and the heavy demands made on the Railways. We know that when such a growth point is created, the creation of an infrastructure, with all its accessories, is of the greatest importance to the Railways. It is virtually the decisive factor, the main artery, the pivot on which everything hinges when such a new growth point is created. For that reason it is important that we keep in mind the development which could possibly occur. It is essential that at the same time we take careful note of what may happen abroad. In this connection I mention as an example the possibility that the Suez Canal may be reopened. We must take note of international developments in order to prevent unnecessary expenses. The congestion of traffic, as predicted, and the possibility that it will not be possible to transport our products, as was also predicted, have definitely not come to pass. I read in Hansard that the hon. member for Yeoville spoke on 15th March, 1971, about the sluggishness and carelessness of the Minister and said that he was hampering development in our country. I quote from Hansard, 1971, col. 2725—

This brings out the hon. member’s eloquence very clearly, but we should ask ourselves whether it is true. Is this evidence of the Opposition true? I say that the hon. the Minister has planned so well that to date no damage has been suffered in any respect. We must ask whether it may not be expected of honourable men opposite that they should stand up and say that they regret the accusations they have been making recently, that they regret saying that the Minister has no vision, that the Minister is always too late and is therefore one who always follows after. I think it is the hon. members’ duty to do so. They must now tell us where the products and goods which had to be transported are lying and accumulating, where the passengers on our trains and aircraft are who could not be transported, where the ships in our harbours are which could not be unloaded. I did not quote the whole speech by the hon. member for Yeoville, but these are the implications in it: He levelled the reproach that it would not be possible to do these things, because we were not keeping abreast of the times. Where are the exporters of iron ore and minerals whose supplies accumulated and could not be transported and exported? After all, this is the accusation: Insufficient traffic is keeping back the development of our country; it is inadequate! I think the United Party owes an apology to the hon. the Minister and the National party as such.

The Nationalist Party?

I mean the National Government of course; I am sorry. I am nevertheless pleased that the hon. member is alert enough to spot such a small mistake immediately. It is the National Government which has provided the stimulus to our economy. It is this Government which established the Orange River scheme for us in the past, notwithstanding the fact that the United Party had been telling us over the years that we could never become an industrial country and that we did not have enough water to become an industrial country. It is this Government which established Iscor for the manufacture of cheap steel; it is this Government which started Escom in order that major power stations and hydro-electric power stations might be established; it is this Government which created harbour facilities, which constructed new railways lines, and which doubled, reinforced, mechanized, automated and electrified railway lines together with all the improvements involved in doing so. The Government did all these things in the face of a money shortage and a manpower shortage, and in this way an industrial paradise has been created in South Africa, a paradise in which there is available an adequate, guaranteed supply of cheap water, cheap power, unlimited and cheap steel—the cheapest in the world. Furthermore South Africa possesses a surplus of non-White labour which is waiting for entrepreneurs in order that the unlimited quantities of mineral riches and raw materials may be mined and processed. This wonderful potential for an industrial paradise could be utilized because the railways had established the necessary transport facilities for our country.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister announced the date of this debate I really became a bit of a Bolshevik, so much so that I had to wear a red tie today. It is just as well that we do not have the hon. the Minister of Justice sitting around otherwise I would probably have a banning order issued on me.

With these recent increases in wages about which we have heard so much today, people might think that everything in the garden is pretty rosy; that everyone is happy and content, that nobody has any problems and that everybody is absolutely satisfied with everything. I do believe this may be the case in some instances, but I do not think this applies to the bread-and- butter group. The salaried staff received quite a magnificent increase and I do not begrudge them this. Their increases ranged from R30 per month to R100 and over and I believe that they were rather fine increases. Probably the senior officials gained a lot more because we shall never know what increases they received. But I do know that these senior officials have really made their position absolutely foolproof. It is a wonderful position to be in as far as they are concerned. They themselves have built a kind of structure covering their own positions. They have created new senior posts and have elevated others, presumably with the idea of reaching the maximum wage scale and possibly the maximum increases during the last pay rise. My problem is to excuse them for overlooking the man in the lower grades. When I say lower grades, I mean the so-called bread-and-butter group. These people have been hardly done by but apparently this does not mean a thing to the Administration. As I said earlier the salaried group have been looked after. This always happens without fail. I also said that I did not begrudge them this. However, I am concerned about the lower income groups. These people received the least of all and yet they in all probability had to pay much more than anybody else. Their house rents went up. I believe that, at the rate at which they were increased, they actually reached the maximum, and the maximum is a lot more than anyone else on the Railways pays. I suppose that the salary increase has been absorbed by now. When these people get a small increase like this, you find that their P.A.Y.E. goes up and their pension contributions go up. Their house rent went up more than that of any other section did. I do feel that whatever was left over after that increase, has probably been absorbed by the soaring cost of living. Their story is entirely different to that of the senior officials. In view of what I said a few moments ago, I do feel that the senior officials have created a kingdom for themselves. They have absolutely put a barrier around themselves which it is not possible to penetrate. They are looking after their own interests. I do believe that these people should consider the fact that the people in the lower income groups are the people who should be considered when these people themselves are strengthening their own position. After all is said and done, these people are, I consider, the backbone of the Railways and this is where the shortage of staff occurs—in this the daily-paid group. These people are definitely not going to be encouraged to come into these grades when they are treated the way they are. It is my belief that they should have been given more consideration than they were given. Their standard of living should definitely be raised and not pushed back the way it has been done. What I object to—and I suppose a lot of other people do too—is the fact that the senior officials are allowed to participate in cheap Railway housing schemes. I cannot accept the fact that these senior officials are allowed to participate when so many of the lower-income group, who have large families, wait for months and possibly years to be able to get one of these houses. This is why I say that I think that people in the higher-income group should not be allowed to participate, thereby possibly making a few more homes available for the lower-income groups. You will find, too, that some of these people who received the lowest increases in their salaries, are purchasing their own homes. Some of them are renting privately, which is costing them a fortune. This makes their standard of living a lot worse.

Help him a little.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am not one of those great orators. I am just an ordinary working man and have been all my life. When you get stupid remarks like those you do from hon. members against my colleagues on this side, the stupidity of their remarks shows their mentality. They forget the fact that their constituents will probably listen to all their rude remarks and the nonsense they talk about here. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear! Pay no attention to them; they do not count for a bag of beans.

There is no doubt about it that the morale amongst the Railway staff is very, very low at the moment. I dispute that anyone can tell me otherwise. I am told this pretty well every day. The men are disgusted. They are fed up. They just do not know where to go. The hon. the Minister is making notes and he is probably going to contradict me. I, however, say this without any fear of contradiction. I want to state now that this lower income group is the group that is being persecuted. I say this advisedly.

No.

Do not say “No”. You don’t know anything about it. I have recently read an instruction from the General Manager to all System Managers which indicated that a harder line should be adopted in dealing with people in this income group when any disciplinary action has to be taken. It dealt with questions such as instant dismissal, heavier fine, reduction in grade, etc. This is something I just cannot grasp. I do not know what the Administration is trying to do. This is the group where a shortage of staff exists but nevertheless this type of instruction is issued. For heaven’s sake, what is the object thereof? Is it intended to encourage people to come on to the Railways, especially in that grade? It is something beyond my comprehension.

I think it was last year or the year before when I appealed to the hon. the Minister to re-assess and reorganize, if necessary, the position as it existed in this income group. I do not think the action which is contemplated towards these people ought to be taken, in any event not to the extent suggested. If it is felt that these people are not making their contribution towards the economy of the country, I think you are going the wrong way about it. If you want to reduce staff, for heaven’s sake start at the top, right from the management down. Do not start at the grass-roots of this outfit. As far as I am concerned, these people are deserving much more than what they get and I think the hon. the Minister should know that. At one time or other in his life he was also right down at the bottom and I do not think he was very proud of being there because he had to chuck it, get out and re-educate himself to become what he is today. Let him show some consideration for these people. I do believe that they are deserving this. They are entitled to something better than what they are getting. Raise their standard of living. I would go so far as to say: Give them a special allowance now. Don’t wait until they appeal for another increase. What you have given them has been absorbed. I do appeal to the hon. the Minister to give it to them now. Give them a special allowance. Allow them to get away from bread and margarine alone and let them have a bit of jam occasionally with their bread.

You know, Sir, sometimes a person is inclined to ask something which probably would not suit the Government side, but I am going to stick out my neck and will probably have to take a rap for it. But that is neither here nor there. I am quite prepared to take it. The position is that this lower-income group is constantly being harassed. I have seen a lot of the disciplinary action that is taken against them. I have had these “canaries” brought to me. They are commonly known as “canaries”. I do not think these gentlemen know what they are.

Tell them.

No, I do not think they would understand. At any rate, these papers are brought to me, and these people seek assistance. But you cannot assist people like these. The people who are being punished do not wish to appeal to the General Manager, because, for some unknown reason, the General Manager is very reluctant to uphold their appeal, although I often question the ability of disciplinary officers to deal with some of these cases.

Can you quote examples?

You are an example of an idiot. [Interjections.] When these people are being charged in accordance with the disciplinary code, some of them are really ignorant of the facts; although—I must make this admission—they are entitled to call on another member to help them in an inquiry, but a lot of people are not even prepared to do that to help their colleagues. A lot of people are being punished because they are not able to defend themselves properly.

But just give one example.

Oh, shut up!

Order!

This is where I say the disciplinary code is so terribly wrong, because there you are taking advantage of the uneducated man, who is battling and has not had experience of this sort of thing—naturally, we hope he has not. This is where he is unable to defend himself. Although, as I have said, he is entitled to have a more qualified colleague to assist him with these inquiries, this is never taken advantage of, and people do not appeal when they should.

Are they not assisted by their unions?

If you wish to make a speech, get up and do so.

Order!

The position is simply that when these people are in trouble, they do not appeal to the General Manager, because they feel that the General Manager is reluctant to override the decision made by the disciplinary officer in the first instance. They are entitled to go to the Railway Board, but this is something they very rarely do, because there the same thing applies. A case must be absolutely 100% in favour of the appellant before the board will ever give a ruling in his favour. This is why I say that the disciplinary code of the Railways needs overhauling. It needs investigating, and some other arrangement has to be made whereby the men will get a fairer deal; because there are disciplinary officers who I do not think are able or capable—I do not know what experience they have—of sitting in judgment of people who have probably overstepped the mark in some small way or other. The actions taken against these people are far too severe for the particular cases. I find that that is one of the problems. The other is in connection with the safety officers, or so-called safety officers. These people do a great deal of travelling, visiting the various large centres. The moment they get on to the train, they start drawing expenses. They go away on a glorified holiday, as the men on the job put it. They visit the large centres; they go wandering around to where the men are working, and they might even suggest to a particular worker, “Look, you are doing that the wrong way; you must do it this way in the interests of safety.” If the worker then turns round and says to the safety officer, “With all due respect, Sir, will you give me a written instruction to the effect that I must do it this way?”, you will find that the safety officer back-pedals and vanishes from the scene. You never hear from him again or see him there again. I may be wrong, but the information I have is that apparently these safety officers are treated by the men as a big joke, and the men are probably right too.

Now you are going to stick your neck out.

Sir, there is another thing that has come to my notice. As you know, the hon. the Minister comes along every year and moans and groans about the economy. [Laughter.] Sir, hon. members laugh, but can they deny that every year the Minister comes here and moans and groans to us? I do not blame him. He is entitled to come and moan. I would probably do the same in his circumstances, but I do not think he is justified in moaning until he has investigated the position fully. I can prove to him, and I am sure that many other people can, although the management cannot do so, that there is a tremendous wastage of labour, material and money in many spheres. I could give the hon. the Minister many examples of this. The Minister must not tell me that his method and organization teams and his safety officers can enlighten him, because they cannot; they do not know anything about it. I want to refer to one case in particular. We talk about the staff shortage. This is where I want the Management to listen. Let us assume that there is a big staff shortage in Durban. What happens? You decide that you are going to send a man from Cape Town to go and relieve there. This man is then sent to a depot in Durban to relieve a man who is stationed there. What happens then? The man at that depot is then sent away to do relief duty elsewhere. Surely this is a duplication of expenses. I wonder why on earth this happens. Why send a man from Cape Town to go and relieve in Durban? Surely it is wrong to send a man all the way from Cape Town to Durban on relief duty. His accommodation there has to be paid for. He is flown home once a month over the weekend to come and see his family. Sir, that I accept, but I cannot accept that it is correct to use the services of this man in Cape Town to relieve a man permanently stationed in Durban, and then to send that man in Durban away to relieve at some other place so that, I suppose, he can acquire a few rands in expenses. That is something that I just do not understand. I do not know why the Administration does this sort of thing. And, Sir, this is not the only case. There are many other similar examples that I could quote. No wonder the hon. the Minister had to come and moan here that he has no money and that he cannot give his staff increases, but he has done so now and he will have to do so soon again, and very soon too. With costs soaring as they are today, Sir, do you think that the men are going to remain quiet? They are going to come shouting for more money and the Minister will moan and groan again, but it is not going to help him; he will simply have to pay. I do not think I have much time, but I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he gives an immediate allowance to the lower income groups. The money you have already given them has been totally absorbed by what you have done to them. You give with the one hand and take with the other. The economic position of the country is such that the vultures have taken the remainder. So I do appeal to you, Sir, that you consider giving these men immediate relief. They deserve it. They have been very loyal to you and to the Railways over the years and I think they deserve better than they are getting.

Then there is one final thing I want to ask. I was rather astonished at meeting in this building a young fellow from Natal, physically fit and mentally alert and very healthy. When I ask him what he was doing here he said he had retired. At 55 years, Sir! Surely the days are long past when you retire a man at 55 years.

Only Ministers are retired at that age.

I know that that man was entitled to sign on for another three years but the Minister knows and the Administration knows why these people do not sign on for an additional three years. It is that small problem in regard to the pension, should anything happen to him in those three years. Until such time as that anomaly is removed he will not get the people to stay on. I suggest that when people fall due for pensions particularly these younger people, the System Manager should approach these people personally and speak to them and try to entice them to remain on the Railways. I would like to see enticement and not compulsion, and they should not send one of the clerks along to say to a man: “Hey, what about staying on for another three years?” This is absolute nonsense. I think the System Managers should get out of those chairs they keep warm every day of their lives and condescend to speak to the ordinary working man.

I am not known to be a very sympathetic person, particularly in this House when I am addressing the Opposition, but today I am compelled to sympathy by the actions of the United Party. They have the extremely unpleasant task of discrediting the present Minister of Transport, together with his Department and its Management, that have achieved the things they did achieve in past years. I think this is one of those impossible tasks. I have heard them say that a good method of attack is to attack you on your weakest spot. But we have now heard the Opposition attacking the Minister on one of his strong points. There are few Ministers who could have done what this Minister did last year, when he said to the country and to this House: “I know my railway workers deserve an increase, but at this juncture I am asking them not to insist on this, because it would do the economy of South Africa tremendous harm.” Sir, this is in fact the wonder of it all, and the one matter on which we will always have to congratulate the hon. the Minister, i.e. that his people have so much confidence in him that they know that if he asks something like this of them, it is necessary, and that without complaining or protesting or without any disruptions or strikes, they accepted what he had told them and waited until the Minister deemed the time to be ripe to give them that increase. This is the matter about which the Opposition complained. Sir, I do not want to spend much time on this Opposition except to say to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that he did a very dangerous and a very unfortunate thing today. From beginning to end he played the low-paid staff off against the more highly paid staff, and tried to incite them. Those people have to work together in future, as in the past, and I think it was an extremely irresponsible and unforgivable thing that he did here. He levelled ugly accusations at the Management of the Railways here. I know the Minister will reply to him, but those people are unable to reply, for they cannot speak in this House. I am deeply disappointed at the manner in which he spoke. Amongst others he made a very reckless allegation. He said the higher-income group had enriched itself at the expense of the lower-income group. Does he wish to allege that the higher-income group received a higher percentage increase than the lower-income group? Surely that is absolute nonsense! Surely these matters are worked out on a percentage basis. Why should he make such absolutely irresponsible statements in this House? I am very disappointed that any one should occupy his time with something like that in this House.

The hon. member informed us of a letter that had come into his possession. The General Manager had allegedly written that letter to the Section Managers. Surely such letters are not left lying around all over the place! He comes to this House with the wildest stories! I think someone whispered something in his ear, and now he is making a song and dance of it. How could he have had the letter in his hand? I do not think the Railways is so careless with its correspondence that the Section Managers would leave letters written to them by the General Manager lying around. I think the hon. member is making nonsensical allegations. He may perhaps have a letter, but to allege that he has the original letter is the worst nonsense I have ever heard in my life. He made a terrible fuss about the disciplinary actions of the Railways, but he did not present a single case and say: “Mr. Minister, here we have a certain person; I am prepared to have you summons him to give evidence that certain things happened to him.” No, he rails in general at the disciplinary actions. Surely there has to be discipline, and there has to be disciplinary action. If a person is having a hard time of it as a result and he has a case, he may, after all, appeal. He said he does not know why it should be necessary to appeal, and then he expects us to tell him why these people are not appealing. No, I think his speech was one of the most irresponsible speeches I have heard in this House for many years. I want to request the hon. member, when he speaks again in future, to refrain from using such language and making such allegations. Something like that cannot do the House any good, nor can it do the Railways nor the worker, the man for whom he supposedly wanted to put in a good word, any good. Those people do not like this kind of thing; I can tell him that. [Interjections.] I think I have said enough about those hon. members now. I have another little matter which I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister today, and I make haste to broach it.

The hon. the Minister will perhaps recall that it was precisely eleven years ago that I last participated in a Railway debate. On that occasion, too, I discussed a certain subject, namely the railway lines in the North-West. At the time the hon. the Minister told me that as soon as I had the facts, as soon as I produced proof that the necessary amount of freight did exist there, I should come to him again. I know the hon. the Minister is not known to be a person who bores people with his compliments. However, I know that he will give me credit for at least having listened to his advice and for having refrained from coming to this House with another story. I am coming to him today with a case, and I am certain he will be able to give it his attention. I do not again want to elaborate on the position of the North-West, for ex ample that it is an extensive area which has no transportation. On the contrary; we shall, when it is time to do so, approach him in the correct way. I shall, together with the industrial and development associations and other public bodies in that area come to him via the Minister of Planning with particulars indicating how much freight we have there, and what the possibilities are that his Railways could be a paying proposition there. We shall then wait—we are certain we may then wait-on very reasonable and fair standpoints from the hon. the Minister.

In the time at my disposal I wanted to dwell on what the idea is. When I speak of the North-West, hon. members who are acquainted with the North-West will immediately think of an area where the Railways are terminated on three sides as soon as they reach that area. The railway line to Calvinia reaches Calvinia and terminates there. The railway line to Kakamas reaches Kakamas and terminates there. The railway line to Bitterfontein also terminates at Bitterfontein. I know that the objective is that that railway line should not terminate there, but that it should eventually be extended somewhere. In recent years we have experienced unparalleled development in the North-West. The North-West has certain minerals which are of importance to us. In the old days a story went around that the minerals of the North-West consisted merely of samples. That story has been laid to rest once and for all now, for what there is we are finding in tremendous quantities. Time and the prospecting carried out has proved this. Now we have this tremendously great potential waiting there for an infrastructure to be created so that this area may play its part in the South African economy. For that reason I want to dwell briefly on the potential of that area, and at a later stage I want to make a submission to the hon. the Minister in the form of statistics and in the form of confidential information which I shall obtain from the industry. They have promised to let me have this. We shall make these submissions via the Minister of Planning to the Minister of Transport when the time for that is ripe.

The first matter to which I want to refer is the first great mineral potential and mineral wealth of the North-West, its pegmatite. The North-West, particularly Namaqualand, is known for having one of the biggest pegmatite reefs. At places the reef is 12 miles wide, and it is more than 200 miles long. There are tremendous quantities of pegmatite in this reef. Up to now that pegmatite has been exploited according to a method which we call the “picking-the-eyes” method. That was unfortunate. In that pegmatite one finds tantalite, a very rare and very expensive mineral. This is a mineral which one finds in very small quantities around the pegmatite. One also finds beryllium which is also a relatively expensive mineral, but not as expensive as tantalite. One also finds there the lithium-bearing spodumene, as well as mica. These minerals are all being processed and sold, but this is creating problems today. Mica in particular is creating problems because it is a rather bulky mineral and is in addition a cheap mineral. Precisely for that reason conveyance costs are responsible for a major portion of the production costs. One finds that pegmatite in a felspar base. Sixty to 80% of the base of that mineral is felspar. It has now been proved that a very high quality felspar is found in the North-West, but because felspar is a relatively cheap mineral it is simply impossible to exploit it there. It is being stored. It is simply lying there and the richer deposits are being exploited while the poorer portions remain. For that reason it has become essential, if we ever want to exploit the pegmatite in those portions, to do this on a more general basis. It is a known fact that Namaqualand has very rich and usable quartzite—it virtually has mountains of this mineral. Today we are still importing quartzite to Cape Town from abroad; from Belgium and other countries. Their quartzite is no better than ours. The only reason for our still importing it is that it is in fact impossible with our conveyance costs to deliver that quartzite here at a competitive price. The same can be said of marble. We have large quantities of good marble, but we simply cannot deliver it in Cape Town and Johannesburg at a price which competes with that of marble and quartzite from abroad, although they also have to bring it here. That just goes to show what a deficiency still exists.

I always realized, and the hon. the Minister told me this the very first day—and I accepted his argument—that we cannot prove that a railway line there would be profitable. Even diamonds are affected by the absence of the necessary infrastructure, and, specifically, of transportation. The diamonds themselves are being conveyed in aircraft, but there are heavier goods such as machinery and consumer goods which have to be conveyed thence. The demand for transportation has become very heavy. Consequently one cannot exploit the cheaper diamonds. There is only a certain percentage of diamonds which can be exploited, because of those high operational costs.

However, copper is the most important ore in Namaqualand. Up to now we have always known, or at least have always thought that there is a considerable quantity of copper in Namaqualand. Since only one enterprise has exploited copper there, it has however been accepted that the resource is not all that prolific. In the meantime it has been proved beyond any doubt that there is a copper reef which runs from the ocean through Nababeep, O’Kiep, Karoolsberg, Pofadder, through Kenhardt up to Prieska. For the first time the existence of that reef has been proved and, in addition, it has now been partially exposed. That reef is in the very near future going to play a very important part in South Africa and in the North-West. For that reason it is time we returned to the House of Assembly with the idea of a railway line in the North-West.

I have briefly indicated the potential and, as I have already said, I shall at an appropriate time and in the correct manner make a submission to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister and his Management will give favourable consideration to our case, because our case is a meritorious one. Now you will ask me: What are you suggesting? The entire North-West is a vast area, and railway lines are expensive. Will we be able to supply the entire North-West with railway lines overnight? My reply is of course: No, this is a task which has to be done in stages. This is a task which has to be done in various phases. The first phase is urgent because there are a number of mines and particularly copper mines which are already in operation and which are at this moment facing serious transportation problems. At the moment not all those mines are able to have their own smelters. They will be dependent on conveying their ore from one mine to the other and having it smelted there. If that is not done one will find what one finds now, i.e. that a certain percentage of unprocessed ore has to be exported abroad. This is something which we should at all costs avoid.

The first phase of that railway network which I want to deal with now is, I believe, a railway link between Kakamas, or from a point further in the direction of Prieska, and Nababeep. These are the two largest copper producing areas at present. There are quite a number of new mines of which the public are not yet really aware but which the industrialists are prepared to disclose to the Minister of Planning. This is the first phase of that railway line and an urgent phase, namely a railway line to Nababeep which links up somewhere with the Kakamas railway line, possibly at Kakamas itself, or higher up, to coincide with the copper reef or the copperbelt which it has to serve. This phase does not entail a great deal of work. It is a relatively small operation if one sess it in terms of the Railways in its entirety. This is a railway line approximately 180 miles long which will have to be laid through one of the most suitable areas in South Africa. It is an easy area without one single river or mountain. I think I may state with justification that it will be one of the cheapest and one of the easiest railway lines to build in the whole of South Africa. Once that railway line has been completed, we will come to the second phase. By that time I, and perhaps the hon. the Minister as well, will no longer be in this House. However, I do not know how soon it may perhaps be built. But the foundation of the vast network will at least have been laid and it will be possible to work on a specific plan for the future. The second phase will then be a railway link between Nababeep and the copperbelt, with a further link to Bitterfonten. This will immediately give us a link with the North. This would mean that if the Railways were faced with problems in regard to the present route, it would be possible to use this route as an alternative or additional route between North and South. It would also serve as a short-cut between South-West Africa and Cape Town. The third phase of this network is a railway line from Nababeep down to Boegoeberg. As hon. members know, Boegoeberg has for a long time been considered by the Department of Economic Affairs as a site for a future small harbour. This would be the third phase and would give us a direct link between the sea and the north in order to cope with possible congestion at Durban or Cape Town in times of war or other difficult circumstances.

Then there is a fourth phase which I want to mention very briefly, namely a link with Calvinia. This would be a short route. With that we would help to solve the problems of the Railways in regard to that vast, inhospitable part of our country. This is a region which has under very difficult circumstances made a major contribution to our economy, but a region which could increase that contribution four or fivefold. It would be a wonderful network and would serve as a monument, the foundations of which may be laid at this early stage. It would definitely be a living monument worthy of the hon. the Minister of Transport. When that scheme is in operation, I want to tell you, there would be one great advantage attached to it, and that is that we will be able to collect all the copper in South Africa together in the form of ore. In that way certain smelters could also be eliminated. Each smelter costs us millions in capital which go to overseas countries. Through eliminating the construction of more smelting works in South Africa, millions of rands could be ploughed back into the Railways and we would not be poorer as a result of a capital outflow to overseas countries.

I come now to another matter. Could we not collect the copper wealth of South-West Africa, the Transvaal and the North-West together in one place and cause a further refinement of the minerals to take place in that area, so that we would then be able to export electrolytic copper instead of the vesicular copper which is being exported at the moment, and which is reimported after a few years at tremendous cost in the form of copper wire and other forms of copper?

Mr. Speaker, we have just had the opportunity of listening to two very sincere speakers, neither of whom endeavoured to make any political capital out of the debate. My hon. friend from Umhlatuzana spoke as a man who had worked on the Railways, just like the hon. the Minister, and I am sure that he spoke from his heart when he spoke about people in the lower grades, who he feels should receive a little more attention. The hon. member who has just sat down has been reading a very good lesson for the hon. the Minister as to how he should perhaps employ himself in promoting the development of his railway system. I hope that the hon. the Minister paid some attention to that, because it seemed to indicate that there was quite a lot of mileage in that financially.

However, I must say that, with regard to the other hon. members on the Government side who have spoken today, there seems to have been a completely plaintive note of defence of the hon. the Minister and his department. I do not think there was ever at any stage of this debate, so far as this side of the House is concerned, any attempt to discountenance the department or to criticize them in any particular way for the manner in which they have carried out their duties. We have had a presentation of a balance sheet by the hon. the Minister, because that is exactly how his Budget speech is read. It was a factual statement, giving us a tremendous amount of detail, facts and figures. He also pointed out to us where he had losses and where they were derived from, which problems faced him and how his balance sheet revealed the position as he finds it today. It is with regard to that factual statement, that balance sheet, that we, on behalf of the shareholders of South Africa, are entitled to be as critical as we can. We are not here to praise the balance sheet; we are here to criticize it constructively, to pick out its eyes and see where we feel the board of directors, consisting of the hon. the Minister as chairman and his colleagues in the Cabinet, should try to improve the situation with regard to some of the problems and difficulties which are obviously facing us all today. I would like to add further that a factor which can perhaps play a most constructive part in this particular debate is this remarkable report by the commission which inquired into the dispute between the Artisan Staff Association and the Railway Administration. In this particular report a great deal is disclosed which indicates to us that for some peculiar reason, which I think is bound up, as the hon. member for Parow said, in the historical background of the entire Railways development, the Railway Administration, through the policy which it is obliged to follow, has in a sense been caught unawares.

Over a number of years they have been completely unaware of what is actually taking place in the economic life of the country. Sir, the Budget of this enormous undertaking today amounts to almost half of the national budget. Last year the Railway budget was, I think, R1 142 million approximately, and this year it will be R1 300 million-odd, as against a national budget last year of R2 600 million to R2 700 million. The Railways therefore play a very important and integral part in the economy of the country, and by virtue of its monopolistic tendencies it dominates the entire transport system of South Africa. All private transport undertakings are always under the dominance of this huge organization, the South African Railways and Harbours. The point I want to make is that while the Administration is a sound one, it is inhibited by the policy which has been set by the Board of Directors, and that is why we find this peculiar situation that over a period of four years all reserves have been completely depleted. This situation should have been foreseen. In the 1969-’70 Budget the hon. the Minister budgeted for a possible loss of over R30 million, and in the end he found that he had lost only about R7 million, because of revenue derived from unexpected sources; but at that time already he was aware of this tendency towards enormous deficits, which became the pattern for the next two or three years. It is all very well to advance the excuse that in one year, for example, there was a tremendous influenza epidemic which depleted the staff considerably and led to tremendous problems; that in another year there was a setback caused by the monetary situation, and that was followed by a tremendous drought which caused a failure of the maize crop. Sir, these are all factors which a developing country such as South Africa should be able to take in its stride, because South Africa is a country with tremendous possibilities of growth and development, which is inhibited by Government policy in all its ramifications, ranging from apartheid to Bantustans. All these restrictive policies tend to restrict the growth of this country, and obviously the Railways, which have a budget half as much as the national budget, must be caught up in the coils of these restrictions. No matter how able the Railway Administration is, it is impossible for the Administration in these circumstances to plan ahead satisfactorily, with due regard to difficulties that may arise as time goes on. Any organization which is run on business lines could have foreseen the difficulties which have in fact arisen and about which we have warned the Government from time to time and about which commissions have warned the Government from time to time. These difficulties are reflected in an unbalanced economy. They are reflected in the fact that we are faced with extraordinary anomalies, which we try to deal with year by year by makeshift methods.

Sir, this report has drawn attention to many of these difficulties. I believe that if the hon. the Minister really wants to leave his mark on the railway organization of this country, then he should institute some form of reorganization or set up some body to inquire into the reorganization of the railway system in the light of South Africa’s modern development, in the light of modern economic standards and in the light of modern technology and in the light of the facts of 1973, as opposed to the 1910 concept of the role of the railway system and its historical background, which, like chains, have held it back and made its progress very difficult and often limited. Here you have the report of a man like Mr. Purvis, who was the head of the financial administration of the Railways, wherein he makes it pretty clear that the commissioners had seen matters which they felt should be dealt with, but it did not fall within the ambit of their terms of reference and therefore they could not deal with it. But he says that a variety of these matters could form the subject of further serious and comprehensive investigations. Years ago—I think it was in the time of Mr. Sturrock, when they studied the future Johannesburg railway station—they sent for the man who was at the head of the British Railways to come and give an assessment of what he thought the future development of the South African Railways would be. Surely it is time now that we should have a complete review and a fresh assessment of the entire policy of the Railways. This whole question of tariffs has been accentuated, as was rightly described by the hon. member for Yeoville, as a complete somersault by the Minister. Just a few months ago he talked about the fact that the request of Railwaymen for a slight increase in their salaries would be a national disaster. But today it is met with complete ease and the Minister still budgets for a surplus, after losses of R7 million, R49 million, R47 million. Now he suddenly finds himself in the happy position of being able to budget for a surplus after having giving a rise in salary, not only to those who applied for it but to the entire staff of 200 000 people. This indicates immediately that there is some blockage somewhere. What is the blockage? I cannot see that it lies in the Administration. I cannot see that it is even in the General Manager’s province to create a blockage. I do not believe the hon. the Minister would create a blockage, because he knows the Railways too well. But he is also part of the network. He too is caught up in this policy which inhibits him, in what he would really like to do, i.e. get the Railways to move into modern times. So I believe that despite all the protestations and the numerous detailed figures that are given by hon. members opposite, like the clerks in the accounts offices who have their detailed figures set up for them and were reaching them so that we could keep abreast with the position—despite all that, the cardinal essence of this whole problem lies in the fact that the Railways are grinding along far too slowly. In this modern technological age the hon. the Minister should take a giant step forward and bring the Railways right up to date in a country which has all the possibilities for tremendous development. There are factors which the hon. the Minister has accepted in his Budget, which indicate that he is taking certain steps against the opposition which he has encountered for nearly a year from members of his Cabinet, matters which were raised pertinently by this side of the House. Now the Minister has accepted it because he realizes that in certain respects he cannot go along with his Cabinet colleagues’ point of view and has fortunately prevailed over them. These are the general remarks I would like to make in regard to the Budget.

Then I would like to deal with a few other aspects, if I may. I should like to deal with the question of interest charges. Many Railwaymen of standing have pointed out the fact that this also become like a ball and chain on the railwayman’s life. The interest is rising from R152 million in the now closing financial year to about R180 million, an increase of R30 million. So it goes on increasing year by year. Some of it refers to capital sums invested in the Railways almost half a century ago. But, surely, now that the Minister has been released from having to borrow money only from the State and can go abroad for finance, there is an opportunity to try to do something, even if it is on a gradual basis, either through some form of redemption or else by the gradual writing off of the capital provided by the central Government, so that it can eventually be absorbed and so that the finances of the Railways can be released from this burden a burden which I think impedes a great deal of its development. I think this is an important issue. It has also been raised by the staff associations, because it is constantly in the minds of those who are seeking means to bring about some improvement in Railway affairs.

I should like to carry on, not necessarily on the same note, but with the same issue on which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana based some of the remarks which he made. I think I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister a couple of years ago when the previous salary improvement was granted and a globular amount of R60 million was appropriated. I am pleading for those who are part of the very low income group. According to Hansard, and I was quite appalled when I saw the figure, there are approximately 120 000 White employees on the Railways and 58 000 of them earn less than R200 a month. 58 000 is almost half the entire staff. I hope Hansard is incorrect, but I must accept it as correct. I am referring to a reply which the Deputy Minister of Transport gave on 26th May, 1972, to a question by the hon. member for Simonstown. The question was:

The reply was:

1. (a) 9 245;
2. (b) 48 962.

While I am prepared to discount quite a large number who are working for the Railways as being young people who have just commenced their careers—I must say that I find it rather difficult to discount a large number under present conditions—there is nevertheless a considerable number of men who are earning these salaries and who have families to support. I know a number of them—they live in my constituency—who complain about the fact that with whatever increase is given, they never seem to come out on the right side. This is a very simple issue. First of all, an increase percentage-wise, which I suppose the hon. the Minister could not help and I do not disagree with it, is not actually the fairest form of increase unless everybody earns a decent wage enabling him to have a decent standard of living. When everybody earns a wage which ensures a decent standard of living, a percentage increase works satisfactorily. If a man is earning an income of R800 per month and he has a wife and two children, he can live reasonably on that wage, although not very easily, but as he can make use of a Railway cottage which is provided at a rental of R25 or R30 per month, he should be able to enjoy a decent standard of living. If such a man gets a 15% increase, he will have something worthwhile as against whatever else a man in a higher grade may earn. The man who earns R400 has at least a living wage. That is the important factor. If a man earns R200 or R235—I think the salary of the category referred to in part (b) of the question has now been increased to R235—and he receives an increase of 15%, he finds that his 15% has to pay for the very same groceries and other foodstuffs, clothes, children’s expenses, etc., as the 15% of the man who is earning R12 000 per year. The man who earns a bigger salary finds that if he gets a 15% increase, that increase meets his situation very well, but the man who earns R235 per month finds, as do the other 58 000 people who are earning less than R235 per month, that when he gets an increase of 15% and he has to use that to buy the very same things which the man in the higher income group buys, he cannot do so. It is impossible because the money is too little. I think this has been a long-standing complaint and how can the hon. the Minister meet it? The hon. the Minister will have to meet it and I think he will have to change the whole salary structure. You should not have people earning from R100 per month to R150 per month if the man who earns R150 per month has a wife and children to support.

I do not want to make comparisons, but there are differences between the standard of living of the Whites on the one hand and the non-Whites on the other hand. The non-White employees earn a reasonable wage on the Railways, thanks to the hon. the Minister. I think they are earning anything from R120 to R160 per month. I certainly know of cases where R120 per month is earned. The White person has over the years been accustomed to a different standard of living and he has to meet different conditions, more expensive conditions, and he cannot live on the same salary. It is a pity to make such a comparison, but it is perhaps the most graphic way to illustrate that the hon. the Minister has to do something about these employees. I do not want to make comparisons with anybody else except to say that they cannot live at that standard. Therefore the 15% increase meant nothing to them. If they were brought to a proper standard the increase would be reasonable for all sides. I am not quibbling or equivocating about the increase in terms of the report, but my main concern is in regard to that lower structure. With these graphic figures which show that nearly half the White employees of the Administration live on a salary of under R200 per month, I think the hon. the Minister has really got to take some note of what is going on.

Then I also want to raise some other points. Certain facts are raised in the Hiemstra report which deal with the question of tariffs. The matter of tariffs has been dealt with and it is a rather technical matter, but I do think that the hon. the Minister has to take into account that even the Federated Chamber of Industries has prepared a memorandum on this subject. I think this memorandum is in the hands of the hon. the Minister. They themselves draw attention to the fact that this question of tariffs is a very tricky and delicate one and they indicate where they feel there have to be some changes. Although there is now, I think, a difference of 30%—that is if you take it as 15% up and 15% down from the basic tariff—in the variation of the tariffs, nevertheless I think that the Chamber of Industries do feel that there still should be a narrowing of the gap. When we go a little bit further we shall see that they make some other commentary which is to my mind important and which is relevant to the point I made a little bit earlier in so far as the reconstruction of the entire outlook of the Railways is concerned. They say this definitely and I assume that they play some important part in the question of transport:

Then they deal with other matters. This is contained in a letter which I think they sent to the Administration; unfortunately the date of the letter has been omitted in the information that has been given to me. It is in regard to something to which they have drawn the attention of the Administration. I believe that there should perhaps be greater consultation between the Railway organization and all the associated bodies in industry and commerce which play such an important part in making the Railways a feasible concern in this country, because their interest is the growth of the country and transport is essential for the growth of the country. With their contribution transport goes ahead and all the matters which the hon. the Minister and his Government are trying to develop, such as pipelines, the railways, etc., can be made worthwhile in South Africa. The entire growth of South Africa also depends upon them and I think that there should be very much greater collaboration and experts should be invited—if we do not have sufficient experts here, they should be invited from abroad—to play their part to help us to develop something worthwhile. The hon. member for Parow tried to compare the position in Australia with the position in South Africa. I would like him to know that the whole of the Republic fits into a portion of New South Wales. Australia is a very vast country. Its railway problems very far exceed ours, because their distances are enormous. I think there are nearly 2 500 miles between Perth and Sydney. They have an enormous “Outback” and an enormous coastline which is even longer than 2 500 miles. They have many difficult problems to face and I do not think we should even waste our time comparing ourselves with other countries whose problems are entirely different. The problems are different particularly because they do not have the sociological problems which face South Africa and which immediately put comparison with other countries completely out of bounds. I do not even think our tariffs, fares or mileage costs matter in so far as other countries are concerned. I think we should follow the adage which we have always maintained, and I see that the Government very often goes along with us—that we in South Africa can solve our own problems if only we face up to them realistically and are not inhibited by ideologies. Although perhaps, to some extent, each party is entitled to have its ideologies, if a party practises them to an extent which holds up and hinders the progress of a country, where progress can mean so much in resolving many of the problems of which we are afraid, then I believe something must be done to clear away those ideologies to give South Africa the opportunity of going ahead, which will bring prosperity not only to the Railways organization but to the entire country with the Railways as part and parcel of that picture.

Mr. Speaker, there is something I feel I must do at the outset and that is to convey my congratulations and thanks, and that of this side of the House, to the Management and all who contributed to this wonderful annual report which they presented. In the first place there is the fine photograph of the prestige Blue Train on the outside cover, and in the second place there is the important, interesting and instructive information which this annual report offers. I think that various parties have already conveyed their congratulations to the Management on this publication, and I think there will be more to come.

Mr. Speaker, I should like, by means of a few remarks, to refer to what has just been said here by the hon. member for Jeppes. The hon. member spoke here of the wonderful way in which the Management has handled the affairs of the South Africa Railways, but unfortunately, he said, the Management is entangled in, it is handicapped in the performance of its duties by the general policy of the Government. This is the old method of the United Party, that of saying “Yes, but…”. In addition the hon. member referred towards the end of his speech to the method employed in increasing the salaries of the staff. He also said that the structure of the salary scales ought to be changed. As far as I know, the staff groups of the Railways each have their own staff associations, of which they are members. These staff associations in turn have their management committees which look after their interests. I do not think that it is fitting that I or any hon. member should level criticism here at the staff associations, which take care of matters of this kind on behalf of their members, for these points of criticism are something which they would have recognized themselves and would themselves have reacted to in regard to the salary increases which were granted.

I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Yeoville said here in regard to the one leg of their amendment.

It is a strong leg.

It is a very weak leg. The hon. member spoke here of the Rates Equalization Fund which should be built up again. I think the word he used for this was “replenish”. Actually such a request is to my mind quite unnecessary. After all, the hon. the Minister and the Management is in earnest about building up the Rates Equalization Fund again to its usual strength. We on this side of the House agree with that. Let us glance at what the hon. member has said on various occasions. The hon. member for Yeoville, main Opposition speaker on Railway matters, said the following on 15th March, 1971, in Hansard (cols. 2717 and 2718)—

This is a reference to the hon. the Minister—

It was intended as a dig at the Minister but it was correct in this sense that the hon. the Minister knows precisely where and when he should use the Rates Equalization Fund. In the following year the same hon. member again referred to the Rates Equalization Fund, and according to Hansard of 13th March, 1972 (col. 3115), he said this—

Let me ask this question immediately: If the hon. the Minister had at that juncture acceded to those requests and to the plea of the hon. member, would it not have meant that that money would have had to be recovered again in one way or another? The Rates Equalization Fund was not utilized at that juncture. The hon. the Minister met the deficit for the year in question by means of a selective increase in transportation rates. If the Rates Equalization Fund had in fact been used it would have meant that the deficit would have been even greater, which in its turn would have resulted in there now having to be an even greater increase in rates. It is as one of the hon. members said: The Opposition wants to blow hot and cold at the same time. They are now asking for the Rates Equalization Fund to be replenished, while in previous years they said that the money in the fund should have been used.

[Inaudible.]

It is true, and it is of no avail the hon. member for Durban Point wishing to comment on that now.

I am sorry the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is not in the House at the moment. The hon. member referred to disciplinary measures and cast a reflection on disciplinary officers who are Railway servants. In other words he cast a reflection on staff members in the employ of the Railways who are not carrying out their task correctly. He made allegations in regard to the application of the disciplinary code. As far as I know the disciplinary code of the Railways is exceptionally streamlined. Staff associations normally act as watchdogs and avail themselves of every opportunity to point out any deficiencies as far as disciplinary methods are concerned. I want to make the assertion today, one which has already been made on previous occasions, that I would still like to meet the employer who affords his employees such ample opportunity to object to a supposed injustice as the Railways in fact does. There is an entire process to be followed in regard to appeals. However, I wanted to leave this matter at that.

Reference has already been made to the fact that this is the hon. the Minister’s 19th Budget speech. It was perhaps one of his most difficult under the circumstances. But it is in fact true that the hon. the Minister has shown himself to be a remarkable and dynamic Minister of Transport in the bad years, an even better one than he is in the good years. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that he states the problems besetting our transportation services honestly, unequivocally and without beating about the bush, and does not rely on vague future expectations and wishful thinking. When the main Opposition spokesman and his lieutenants discuss crises on the South African Railways, we here and the public outside know that Minister Ben Schoeman and his Management have the reins of our major transportation enterprise firmly and securely in hand. This promotes complete confidence on the part of the workers and consumers, the merchants and industrialists.

What about the farmers? They are still suffering hardships. [Interjections.]

Sir, the Railways, in the handling of its task, are frequently seen through other spectacles than through the dark glasses of the Opposition. If all their dire predictions of the past, particularly of the past few years, in regard to the crises on and the possible collapse of the S.A. Railways, had come true, there would already have been such chaos prevailing that the S.A. Railways would not even have been able to perform its most elementary task. But the truth of the matter is that the voting public and the public in general very soon realized that the predictions of the Opposition were worthless. There are persons and bodies, who are politically certainly not Government supporters, who look at the functioning of the Railways soberly and objectively and who speak with appreciation of what is being done by the Railways and the Management as such. In this regard I should like to quote from a leading article which appeared in Viewpoint. This is the official monthly journal, as hon. members know, of the South African Federated Chamber of Industries. In the September, 1972, edition of the FCI Viewpoint the following paragraph appeared, inter alia—

The next paragraph reads—

As far as the business aspects are concerned, this article states—