Sir, when the debate was interrupted yesterday evening I was quoting a few paragraphs from FCI Viewpoint, the September 1972 issue. I should like to continue and quote a paragraph on the productivity of the Railways; it reads as follows—

And then the following appears in a paragraph on the increase in traffic tonnage—

And then, lastly, the following paragraph on labour—

Sir, what I have quoted here is imply a realistic and objective view of the official mouthpiece of a major organization. At the same time, to my mind, it gives the lie to the United Party’s arguments in regard to the so-called inability of the South African Railways to carry out its task independently without a State subsidy. In this article repeated reference is made to the increase in productivity in the South African Railways. With reference to this, I want to state that the Railways is leading the field in the country as far as increasing productivity is concerned. No other private organization, and what is more, no other Government department can hold a candle to the Railways in this respect. Last year alone the Railways saved approximately R19 million through the utilization of methods to push up productivity.

Yesterday, Sir, and also on previous occasions, hon. members opposite kicked up a great fuss about the large number of resignations from the South African Railways which occur annually. In a major enterprise such as the South African Railways, with a staff of 115 526 Whites and 116 588 non-Whites, as reflected on the staff registers at the end of 1972, it is of course logical and normal that there will be a large number of resignations from the service annually. Yesterday, as well as on previous occasions, the Opposition attributed these resignations to dissatisfaction on the part of the Railway servants, to unsatisfactory working conditions, to excessive overtime work, to poor remuneration, to high demands being made on the Railway servants and to unfair and injudicious application of disciplinary measures, as we also heard yesterday from various members. In 1970, in fact, the hon. member for Yeoville referred to these persons as people who had left the employ of the South African Railways because they could no longer tolerate it there. Sir, each of us here who represents major Railway constituencies, as I do, is aware that these reasons which are being advanced for the resignations are extremely exaggerated, and in many cases misplaced. There may be a few Railway servants who resign for some of the reasons I have just mentioned here, but the number whose reasons for resignation are really substantial, is definitely minimal. It is not necessarily as a result of dissatisfaction at various aspects of the service that these Railway servants are resigning. A very large percentage of them resign because they are unstable persons, because they are rolling stones, to use an English phrase, or because they are work-shy. If the Railways—and I am putting this question to the United Party—is such an unsatisfactory and unfair employer, the question has to be asked why so many applications for re-employment are addressed to the Management. Each of us knows from experience that there are numerous Railway servants who apply for a second, a third and even a fourth time. The reason is obvious. When they left the service they hoped that a new Utopia would unfold before them and that they would receive better remuneration and would perhaps enjoy better working conditions, but they discovered very soon that they were worse off, and they then returned to the S.A. Railways, which offers greater stability, greater possibilities of promotion, a decent wage and regular increases, even opportunities for overtime work in many respects, and many fringe benefits. Now, just to illustrate the kind of rubbish the Opposition sometimes comes out with in this House, I should like to quote a few statistics in regard in resignations and applications for re-employment on the part of Railway servants. My information covers the last three years, from 1970 to 1972. In the first place I shall furnish the number of resignations from the Railways. In 1970 there were 21 317, in 1971 there were 23 425 and in 1972 there were 19 887. There is a noticeable decrease in the number of resignations in 1972 as against the number in 1971, namely 3 538, which is attributable to the fact that the Railway servants know that stricter selection is being applied. Then there is also the fact that Railway servants are today being granted interviews in an attempt to meet them on their problems. This is another indication that the individual in the Railway set-up is the centre of interest of the Management, that their problems are being investigated. But in the second place let us take note of the number of applications for work which are made annually to the S.A. Railways. In 1970 this number was 66 564, in 1971 it was 73 839 and in 1972 it was 66 533, a constant number of applications despite a general shortage of workers. But fewer than 50% of these people are employed, because the selection is strict, because there is a lack of vacancies in which applicants are interested and because applicants lack the necessary qualifications. Sometimes there are medical reasons for non-employment. Very frequently applicants are not satisfied with the starting wages. Thirdly, what I find very interesting—and I hope the Opposition will listen to this—is the number of applications for re-employment. In 1970 there were 20 099 re-applications, or 30,2% of the total number of applications. In 1971 there were 20 337, or 27,5% of the total number of applications, and in 1972 there were 22 330, which represents 33,6% of the total number of applications in that year. Unfortunately it was not possible to furnish me with the statistics specifying how many of those re-applications were being made a second, third or fourth time. The data I have mentioned here gives the lie to all Opposition arguments on the unpopularity of the S.A. Railways and the unfairness of the Management. If conditions are so poor, the question is why such a high percentage want to return to the Railways, to the old pastures. Lastly, in the fourth place, I come to the aspect of re-employment, and these statistics are really instructive and irrefutable. In 1970 there were 11 319 successful applications for re-employment out of a total of 20 099, in other words the Railways were only able to accommodate 56,7%. In 1971 there were 10 335 applications for re-appointment, in other words 50,8% were successful. In 1972 there were 6 668 applications for re-appointment out of the grand total of 22 330 successful applications. That means 29,9%. These figures are a clear indication of the very strict selection applied by the Railways, and that the Management is not all that keen to re-employ all the ex-Railway officials.

I want to conclude with the statement that there are few industries or employers who so consistently grant their employees general salary increases as the South African Railways does. In the memorandum tabled by the Minister of Transport there are particulars on page 33 of improvements in staff remuneration between April, 1948 to 30th November, 1972. These prove unequivocally that the earnings of the staff have been generously supplemented. It should be taken into consideration that the salary increases of the staff of course have a cumulative effect because an increase in a particular year already forms part in the ensuing year of the salary structure and also of the structure in the years after that. For the sake of interest I want to refer to the salary improvements over the past six years. These have amounted to R125 122 287. If the recent increases are added it totals an amount of more than R225 million. If we compare this with the number of staff, and particularly the White staff, each one of us can work out what the increase was which every railway servant has received over the past six to seven years.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort raised a few points to which I shall return, but before I do so it is necessary for me briefly to repeat the essence of the amendment that was moved by this side of the house. The United Party’s amendment to this Budget reads, in the first instance, that the railwayman must be provided with a pensionable allowance that must be linked to the cost-of-living index. I have thus far paid strict attention to the debate, and I do not think there is any hon. member on the other side who has registered any objection to this point, i.e. that a pensionable allowance should periodically be granted to railway officials. Secondly, we say that the Rates Equalization fund and other funds should be supplemented as soon as possible. Thirdly, we believe that the Railways must establish a rating policy that will make it possible for the Railways to furnish its transport services without carrying any losses. Together with that there is the fourth point which reads that if losses must be carried, and such losses must be carried in respect of social services, the State must be persuaded to comply with its responsibilities in respect of those losses.

I want to say at once that these points have thus far been argued about as if we actually wanted these changes all to take place overnight. It is, of course, absurd to want to believe that these specific amendments can be introduced overnight. However, what we would like to suggest is that the hon. the Minister and his department, and hon. members opposite, should begin to give consideration to the problems of the Railways. In the first place they must acknowledge the problems of the Railways, and once they have done this, they must indicate to us that they are, in fact, prepared to resort to action as far as those problems are concerned. But what do we find? Yesterday afternoon the debate was introduced, on the Government side, by the hon. member for Randburg. What was his argument? He says that as soon as one goes to the Government and asks it to subsidize specific services, the railwayman will lose his self-respect. I really do not know what the hon. member objects to, because there is a wide range of services in South Africa that receives subsidies from the State. I cannot believe that a person who receives a subsidy from the state cannot have any self-respect. The hon. member was not thinking very far. What about all the Public Service officials, what about the people in the Post Office, what about the people in the municipalities? Those people are paid with money voted by this House. Does that hon. member want to say that all the officials in the Public Service, because they are being paid by the State, do not have any self-respect? That is surely an absurd argument. Then he placed the seal on his whole oration. He says we must not ask for a subsidy; he says we must rather write off the capital which the State lends to the Railways. I am still struggling to see what this has to do with the price of eggs. Whether one writes off the capital which the Railways borrows, or whether one subsidizes the losses as far as rates are concerned, in principle there is no difference, so it appears to me. I see that the hon. member for Parow, who is not present in the House either, in spite of the fact that we are speaking about the Railways, contradicts what he said here last year.

He is in the House.

Thank you, I do at least see that the hon. member for Randburg is here. The hon. member for Randburg contradicted the hon. member for Parow, but what is more, the hon. member for Parow contradicted himself in the light of his attitude last year in this House. Let us look at what the hon. member for Parow said at the time about a similar standpoint of this side of the House. This side of the House said that the Railways could not continue to play Father Christmas, that it could not continue to carry uneconomic transport. His standpoint was that we have two problems. I do not want to quote the hon. member for Parow incorrectly, but I do just want to show hon. members how the hon. member, on this occasion, contradicted the statement he made last time, and how the hon. member for Randburg contradicted him. The hon. member says there are two problems the Railways are faced with. Those problems are that the consumer index is rapidly increasing and that the rates index is not keeping pace with it. That is the first point. He says he would like to see these two indexes brought closer together. The second problem we are faced with, he said, is that we know that since 1910 the Railways has been transporting material and goods uneconomically, as a result of historic problems, to provide a social service.

Yes.

Yes, I am glad the hon. member for Parow agrees with that. Now I want to quote what he then said, and I am quoting from col. 3167 of last year’s Hansard—

That is to say, the burden of social services—

Here I want to concede that there was something in what the hon. member for Yeoville had to say about this matter. I do not agree with him entirely …

That is correct.

So far, it is still quite correct—

That is correct.

Hon. members must now listen well, because I shall continue to quote what the hon. member said—

[Interjection.]

That is now being done.

If the hon. member wants to tell me in this House today that the direct costs of the Railways are already being recovered on all its goods …

No, I said “certain”.

Ah, “certain”. The standpoint of this side of the House is specifically …

It must be everything.

No. The hon. member was not present when I said what our standpoint was. The hon. member must not think that we want to introduce these changes overnight, but we do want a start to be made, in fact, a drastic one.

A start has been made.

I am afraid the hon. member has adopted a standpoint this time that cannot completely be reconciled with the standpoint he adopted last year. The hon. the Minister himself said last year: “No, it would just be too easy a matter for us to want to write off the losses of the Railways against the State”.

I referred yesterday to what is already being done.

It is not the intention of this side of the House merely to shift the losses off onto the State. What we are trying to do is to explain to the hon. member opposite that we are dealing here with a basic problem in the rating policy of the Railways and that we must begin to think of finding another answer.

What was the hon. member for Koedoespoort’s answer? He says that in 1971 the hon. member for Yeoville said we should write off the losses on the Rates Equalization Fund. Now the hon. member comes along and asks what would happen if this were to be done? If the hon. member had read the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville carefully, he would have found that in 1971 we challenged the Minister. We said that since the Government had adopted a standpoint against and declared war on inflation, the Minister, who also sits in the Cabinet, ought to do exactly what we proposed, i.e. to write off the losses on the Rates Equalization Fund, because then next year there would be considerable profits in the Railways. That is what he had to do if he entertained any hopes of plans against inflation being successful. The hon. the Minister knows the Nationalist Party Cabinet much better than we do. It is a fact that at the time he did have some doubt as to whether the war, which was declared against inflation, would be won. I realize this and want to concede the point to the hon. the Minister on both counts. He certainly knows the Cabinet and the Nationalist Party’s policies a little better than we do.

Let us go on. If we look at the position of the Railways, it seems to me as if there are two things one must understand about that. In the first instance one cannot look at the Railways in isolation. This was stated very clearly here yesterday, and for the purposes of my argument I just want to reiterate that the Railways is a national economy of South Africa. If one thinks of the Railways, one must also think of South Africa’s economy. It is a part of that; the one is a reflection, as it were, of the other. What is just as important is that the hon. the Minister is not isolated either. He sits there as a member of a Cabinet, of the Government that rules South Africa. If, because of the Government, the economic situation is such that the Railways suffers losses, the hon. the Minister is co-responsible. It is no use his telling us that as a result of a specific point of policy the Railways is in this or that position. My standpoint is that the hon. the Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, is co-responsible for the economic situation in South Africa. If that situation reflects poorly on the state of affairs in the Railways, the hon. the Minister is also responsible for that. Let us just see what the hon. the Minister says in his speech. It is quite interesting. The first sentence of his Budget speech reads—

The words “interests of the country” are very important—

I repeat that the excessive consumer demand had to be curbed. Then the Minister continues and says that it was a more drastic curbing than was apparently adopted as a point of departure. Why was it curbed? This was a part of the plans the Government had to combat inflation. The curbing of consumer demand was part of the war programme against inflation. This side of the House said it is totally wrong to encroach upon the consumer demand or to curb it; what one must do is to produce. The hon. member for Randburg came with a perfect answer this afternoon when he made this glowing acknowledgement for the first time. He said: “The only answer to inflation is production.” He is, of course, correct. But why, then, curb demand if production is the answer? It is very clear to me that the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet, have made a mistake there. He says it was done in the interests of the country, demand was curbed in the interests of the country. It was, however, more drastically curbed than was envisaged and as a result the Railways found it difficult. In other words, the country’s interests were not served. The curbing was too drastic as a result of the Government’s action, and this operated to the detriment of the country. This detrimental effect on the country reflected on the Railways and this forms part of the problem the Railways is saddled with. We hear all day long that the country’s economy must be balanced. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance is very fond of the statement that we must have balanced growth, a balanced economy. Now the balance has been lost because of the Government. The curtailment and curbing was more drastic than was foreseen, with the result that the Railways found it difficult. I want to read to the hon. the Minister what Die Burger had to say, because they summed the matter up so perfectly when they said: (translation) “There was reason to expect such an upswing …”, we were also told there would be such an upswing, “… but then it was not such a large one and now the Railways is left in the lurch”. The conclusion I want to draw, the conclusion I want to come to, is that the stew the Railways is now in is the stew the Government, of which the hon. the Minister is a member, cooked up for the Railways. We must not make a mistake. The hon. the Minister is co-responsible for the situation which developed as far as the Railways is concerned.

He is actually the chief cook.

I believe that if South Africa wants to become the workshop of Africa, as we would like to hope, the Railways has the necessary talent and ability to become the transport division of that workshop. Before we can do this, however, there are two matters we must bear very clearly in mind. The first proviso is that if the Railways wants to become the instrument of transport, it dare not be handicapped by the ideologies of the Nationalist Government. I shall give a very fine example.

Let us take the question of labour. I am so sorry the hon. the Minister of Labour is not present, because Die Burger writes the following in the same article on 8th March (translation): “The Railways gives a striking demonstration of how, through the judicious co-operation between the Management and the workers, still greater use can be made of non-White labour to relieve the shortage of White labour.” [Interjections.] Wait, let me draw my conclusion: The Railways gives a fine demonstration.

Why are you complaining?

I shall state in a moment why I am complaining. If a person asks me today how I see the workers and their conditions in South Africa, what I think of job reservation, or of the Physical Planning Act, I say he must look at the Railways. There is no job reservation and no physical planning. As Die Burger says of the Railways: “A fine demonstration to show how it can, in fact, be done,” i.e. a larger intake of non-Whites and a more productive use of the Whites in South Africa. In his day the hon. the Minister was himself Minister of Labour; he now sits in the Cabinet with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Labour, and I now want to ask how it is possible that this man, about whom everyone has so much to say in the Railways, cannot sell his policy to the Government? Does the hon. the Minister of Labour want to tell me this is also his policy? The forceful demonstration must surely not end with the Railways. After all, the Railways is a part of South Africa.

Where does the argument come in about the ideology now handicapping the Railways?

The Government’s labour programme is a part of the ideology of the Nationalist Party. The point is that the hon. the Minister forgot about ideology, and therefore the Railways is a success on the labour level. I now state: The Railways cannot be a success on its own while the South African economy fails. That is the point.

You have not proved anything yet.

No, Sir, I have proved it. It is very clear. The hon. the Minister has not succeeded in selling his policy to the Government; and to the extent in which he has not succeeded in doing so, the South African economy has been damaged, and the Railways has suffered indirectly as a result. Let us make no mistake about that.

Let us look at the question of labour. Since 1961 the hon. the Minister has had a Management Committee investigating labour matters in his department. This has now been in progress for 12 years. How perfect would it not have been if the hon. the Minister of Labour had introduced similar committees for the whole of South Africa’s labour field? How far would we not have progressed! But what must we now hear? The labour machinery has just about been destroyed. Nothing remains, as far as the larger labour field in South Africa is concerned, except that the Minister of Transport is setting a fine example, an example that is not being followed by his own party.

The first proviso, I am saying, is that the Railways must not allow the ideology of the Nationalist Party to handicap it in its service to South Africa. Secondly, the Railways must stop playing Father Christmas to numerous sectors of the South African national economy. We do not want this overnight. We know it will take time. But the State must realize its duty in this respect, and the quicker the State does this, the better. What is the result of the situation we now have? Last year the hon. member for Parow said he thought we had reached a stage where the rates should be increased every year or two. That is how the situation in South Africa has developed. All of us know of the burden of capital.

It seems to me I was right.

If the hon. member was right, I shall accept the fact. It strengthens my argument. We know of the capital and interest burden which the Railways must bear every year. We know the fact that in the last five years the Railways have suffered increasing losses. We know that the relationship between revenue and working expenses is on the increase. In fact, in 1967-’68 the relationship was 84,1%—now that relationship stands at 94,5%. We must bear these things in mind. We know that the Rates Equalization Fund is completely exhausted. R91 million has been withdrawn from it in the course of three years, and I do not see its being supplemented this year. We also know that other cash assets have been tampered with. All these assets will have to be supplemented. Just look at the pipelines. If one studies the figures, one finds that the losses of the Railways are to a large extent eliminated by the profits of the Pipelines. The United Party men also had a great deal to do with that. [Interjection.] Oh yes.

Of course!

But such a situation is extremely unbalanced. What is the result of this handicapping process, the Father Christmas game with the railwayman? I hear again this afternoon that they have obtained a 15% increase.

You have got the wrong notes!

No, my “notes” are correct. The hon. member must not make a mistake. Take for example a person who earns R160 per month. And hon. members must not tell me there are no such people. That person lives in a railway house and pays R17 per month for it. From 1st March his rent goes up by 40%, i.e. by R7-50. He earns R160 per month and gets a 15% increase, which amounts to R22-50. From 1st March he immediately pays a whole third of that in house rent. The hon. the Minister may say that rentals have not been increased for many years. But in view of the general position of the worker in the railways, why is this now being done to him? When we speak of loyalty, I am the first to admit that the railway workers are loyal, but there is an old adage which goes like this? “When poverty comes in at the front door, love flies out at the window.” I say that if poverty comes in at the front door, loyalty flies out at the window. Make no mistake, then loyalty will fly out at the window. Loyalty does not keep the pot on the boil. I speak from personal experience. There are people I run into in my constituency who tell me: “Sir, we have obtained 15%, but Heaven knows what has happened to it, because we have nothing left”. Mr. Speaker, just page through the newspapers every day; there is nothing today in respect of which prices have not increased. I understand that matches do not cost any more, but that there are only half the number in the box. Everything has gone up, Sir.

The position is that the railwayman’s last increase in his standard of living was in May, 1970, and then the hon. member for Randburg makes a great fuss about productivity. The hon. member for Koedoespoort also spoke of the wonderful productivity. I agree with him, but what recognition does the railwayman get for that? The last increase in his standard of living was in May, 1970. Would the hon. member be satisfied if he worked in the Railways? Can you understand, Sir, why the people are unhappy? The cost-of-living allowance was adjusted by the Hiemstra Commission in September, 1972, but we are now in March, 1973, and what has not happened since September last year? We do not have a penny in the Rates Equalization Fund; it is exhausted. The rates have just been increased. I now ask the hon. the Minister: When will there be another chance to look at the railwayman’s standard of living and his cost-of-living adjustment? I do not see it, Sir. If I think of the funds that must be supplemented, if I think of everything that must be done with the profits and the surpluses of the Railways, and if I think of the refusal on the part of that side of the House to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, I can only say that I see sombre days ahead for the people in the Railways.

Sir, we can depend on their loyalty. These people form the biggest labour force in South Africa in one undertaking, and I agree with the hon. the Minister that their productivity, as the Englishman says, is “next to none” in South Africa. But I advocate that, since we are now discussing Railway matters here, we should tell ourselves that the time has now come for us at least to give a little recognition to this labour force, which sets the best example in the sphere of productivity, by also increasing their standard of living a little. If we do not do this, then I say we have failed in our duty as members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a few points raised by the hon. member for Maitland. In the first place he referred to house rentals which were increased so unrealistically by R7-50, from R17-50 to R25 per month. He did mention, quite by the way, that rentals had not been increased for a long time. Let me inform him that the rentals for those railway servants had not been increased in 20 years. The other sectors all had increases in their rentals from time to time because rentals had to be adjusted, but the hon. member is implying now that it is such a terrible thing for the rentals of railway officials to be increased after 20 years from R17-50 to R25 per month. I say that it is a very fair rental.

The hon. member also said that labour problems should not be allowed to handicap the Railways, and then he presented the hon. the Minister of Railways with a bouquet. If he has his objections to the general labour arrangements, why does the hon. member not raise these during the labour debate, for is he not perfectly happy and quite satisfied with the labour arrangements in regard to the non-Whites in the South African Railways? So that is irrelevant to this debate. The hon. member maintained—and I think we agree with this—that he was of the opinion that the Railways and the economy should go hand in hand. That is true, but the Railways also contributes its part to the development of the economy. If that infrastructure which the Railways established, had not existed, our country would not have developed. But he must also remember that the economy has an effect on the financing of the Railways; each affects the other. There are a few other statements which the hon. member made to which I shall return.

I now want to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville. He apologized for not being able to be here this afternoon. Sir, we have listened to the hon. member for Yeoville frequently. As the hon. the Prime Minister rightly said, we can listen to the hon. member, for he is probably the best speaker they have on that side, but the way he carried on here yesterday was truly pathetic. In the days when the hon. member for Yeoville still had time, he could climb a mine-dump to see how long it took to push a cocopan around. He knew his subject then and he did his homework; but I am afraid that in this case the hon. member very definitely did not do his homework; that was very clear to us. Sir, it has been a long time since a shadow Minister of Railways last participated so ineffectually and with such lack of preparation in a Railway Budget debate as the hon. member did here yesterday.

I want to return to the amendment moved by the hon. member and in particular I want to refer to the first part of it, namely the request which he addressed to the Minister of Railways. How does that request by the hon. member read? He requested the Minister to ensure the payment of an adjustable allowance which would be regularly adjusted to the cost of living index. That was the first leg of his amendment. It was a wonderful idea, but I think it was the most stupid idea I have ever heard.

Tell us why.

I shall tell the hon. member why. I shall indicate to him how impractical that suggestion is. The hon. member for Yeoville himself admitted that when they paid a cost of living allowance in their time the weakness inherent in it was that that cost of living allowance was not pensionable. Sir, how does this allowance which the hon. member proposed work in practice, the one which the hon. member for Durban Point supports so eagerly since he wants to know what is wrong with it? How was it done in the past?

It was an allowance.

As soon as the cost of living index rose by a few points, an adjustment had to be made to the salary; this is how it worked. I can remember very well that one sometimes received an additional 2s. 5d. per month and sometimes 3s. 7d., for after all your salary was being adjusted from time to time. Sir, if this allowance is now to be made pensionable, as hon. members of the Opposition are suggesting, can you imagine what administrative problems this is going to entail for the Railways? Month after month the member’s contribution to the superannuation fund will have to be amended, for the allowance is now pensionable. Not only will the member’s contribution have to be amended, but the Railways contribution will also be affected by it. Sir, I want to go further: If that allowance is pensionable then surely the hon. member’s contribution to the medical fund must also be taken into account. This means that the amount deducted from his salary each month will have to be adjusted when he receives an increased allowance.

But why not?

Surely the railway servant will have to pay income tax on that allowance, or does the Opposition like a Father Christmas, want to say that it will not be taxable? This means that the amount deducted from the railway servant’s salary or wage for taxation purposes will have to be adjusted every now and again. Sir, I have never in my life heard of such an unrealistic proposal. The Railways has a staff of approximately 236 000, and one may perhaps have six or eight salary or wage adjustments each time. This means that over a million adjustments will have to be fed into the computer each time. If that has to be done, I doubt whether the railwaymen will ever get their salaries. I say that this is an administrative burden; it is a mill-stone which they want to hang around the neck of this organization. Sir, I then want to put this question to hon. members of the Opposition: If the amount has to be adjusted from one month to another or from one quarter to another, how is one going to work out one’s budget for the coming year, for surely one does not know what one will have to pay out in salaries during the year, and one’s salary account is after all one of the basic items in any revenue and expenditure account. I have never heard of such an absurdity. And then these are the people who talk about streamlining, efficiency and productivity.

You are still living in the days of the ox-wagon.

I say it is a nonsensical proposal. The hon. member harped on the dispute which arose between the Administration and one of the staff associations. One would swear this was the most terrible thing that could have happened. That hon. Minister has been controlling the Railways for 19 years. There were disputes in the past and these also went to arbitration, and I think by way of exception, in the case of a technical trade union of the Airways, their representations were acceded to. Apart from that the standpoint of the hon. the Minister was upheld every time. But now the hon. member implies that this is such a terrible thing. Now they want to throw overboard this sound labour arrangement which exists in the Railways. Surely there is nothing in terms of this system which prevents or prohibits any trade union from negotiating with the Management of the Railways now, or tomorrow or whenever it is necessary, on conditions of service or on wages or salaries. Between 1948 and 30th November, 1972, a number of adjustments were made to salaries and wages. Between 1948 and 1952 these amounted to R110 million, in 1962-’63 they amounted to R24 million, in 1964-’65 R20 million, in 1965-’66 R37 million, in 1968-’69 R43 million, in 1969-’70 R13 million, in 1970-’71 R65 million, in 1971-’72 R2 million and from 1st April, 1972, to 30th November, 1972, R2 million—altogether an amount of R316 million in adjustments to salaries and wages between 1948 and 1973. This took place by way of negotiation. I ask why one should want to mar sound labour arrangements.

This was all ad hoc.

No, it was by means of proper negotiation between the trade unions and the Management.

I want to come to the second leg of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, that hon. member who is now so deeply concerned about the reserves of the Railways. He is so concerned now about the subsidence which has allegedly occurred, and consequently the second leg of his amendment states that these reserves should be replenished. I still recall, and so do all of you, the words the hon. member used in the debate last year when he said—

This is what the hon. member said last year. Nevertheless it was proved chapter and verse in that debate that that contribution to the Renewals Fund of the Railways was not less; that on the contrary, it was greater. Yesterday he made a similar statement in this House, and said that the Minister, in his Budget for the financial year 1972-’73 had cooked the Budget a little. He found that between R70 million and R80 million was being disguised in these Estimates because the legitimate contribution had not been made to the Betterment Fund and the other funds. These are the funds over which the hon. member wants to play guardian and is so concerned about because of the subsidence which allegedly occurred. I say it is a pity he is not present, but what a reprehensible statement this is to make. Then he went on to say—

I take it the Witsies were keeping him too occupied over the weekend. He did not check the contributions. In other words, he is now insinuating by implication, without having checked it, that the Minister is doing the same thing in this financial year.

What do you think?

I shall tell you what the factual position is and not only what I think. I shall tell you what the positions of those funds are. Let us take the Betterment Fund, which the hon. members are so concerned about now. The contributions to this fund for the year 1971-’72 amounted to R20 million. For the year 1972-’73 these also amounted to R20 million. But the hon. the Minister came to this House with the Additional Estimates and requested an additional R10 million, which brought it up to R30 million, and in this Budget provision is being made for R40 million. This is a twofold increase over what it was two years ago. Now the hon. member is asking for the funds to be strengthened. I am asking whether the funds have then been weakened?

We come to the Renewal Fund which he was so tremendously concerned about. The amount for 1972-’73 was R74 million. For the year 1973-’74 an amount of R97 million was budgeted—an increase of R23 million! An increase of more than 20% in the contribution to that Fund! What, then, is the hon. the Minister disguising?

†No, Sir, on the contrary! The contributions to the Betterment Fund have been increased during this year and the contributions to the Renewals Fund have also been increased. I want to stress the point that these contributions have been increased by an amount of R30 million. Is the hon. the Minister trying to disguise his budgeted surplus for this year? I ask the hon. gentlemen; they must reply to this question: Where is the sinking of funds or the inroads which have been made on the Betterment and Renewals Funds?

*I say these are ridiculous statements. My question is whether the hon. the Minister has cooked his estimated budgeted surplus. I say it is no wonder, if the hon. member makes such a speech in this House, that a crowd of irresponsible students do not want to listen to him.

During the few minutes I still have left I want to spend a little time on the Budget. We have a Revenue and Expenditure Account of plus/minus R1 403 million which we have to approve. We have a Capital Account of R382 million which has been submitted to us for approval. In my argument with the United Party I shall now have to begin at the end, for one accomplishes nothing with him if one begins at the beginning. I want to begin with the capital programme, for the capital programme which we have to approve has a direct impact on the Revenue and Expenditure Account. I went through the Brown Book rapidly and I want to advocate in earnest to the hon. the Minister that since the hon. members for Yeoville, Maitland, Durban Point and Jeppes are so concerned about the tremendous interest impact of R182 million on the Revenue and Expenditure Account, we should cut down on certain items. The hon. member for Maitland has just been discussing growth. They are the people who say that we should maintain a growth rate of 10% and that we are not utilizing the economy; we should develop as Japan is developing! I am now asking the hon. members who are forever talking about the congestion which we are supposedly experiencing at our harbours whether we should not suggest that the entire Richards Bay complex be cancelled.

Never! Speed it up!

Oh, the hon. member says “Never! Speed it up!” The hon. member for Durban Point is sitting here and I wonder whether he agrees that it is so urgent. [Interjections.] In this Budget R4 million is being requested for the first and second stages of the Durban passenger station. Here, for the first time now, funds to the amount of R38 million are being requested for the third stage. I think we should hold back that R42 million, for then we would surely be saving a great deal of money in interest. The hon. member for Durban Point would probably be very satisfied with something like that, for then we would be saving on that burden of interest which hon. members are so concerned about. In Pinetown we have to construct a goods yard costing R1 million. In Berea we have to do work to the amount of R7 million. I think the Natalians, who are so loyal, should be satisfied if we delay that work a little, for we would then be saving a considerable amount of interest on our capital burden which they are so concerned about.

I want to proceed to deal with the Revenue and Expenditure Account. We have to make an analysis of this Account since we have to approve a total expenditure of R1 303 million. In this Account provision is being made for the payment of staff, and there are approximately 236 000 workers in all the services. The salaries are a fixed item, and they amount to R623 million. Yesterday the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had a great deal to say about the posts which should be upgraded, but it is obvious that the hon. member knows as much about the assessment of posts as the man in the moon! These hon. members who pleaded so much for salary increases must bear in mind that if their pleas are acceded to, the amount required for salaries will have to increase, and more than R623 million will then be necessary. In addition, the hon. members urged that the implementation of the various services should be expedited, but that would then entail that the amount of R181,5 million which is a direct expenditure owing to the burden of debt would also have to increase. The hon. members were also concerned about the Renewal Fund. They said that the amount of R129.5 million appropriated for that purpose is insufficient. They complain that the amount of R40 million for the Betterment Fund is also insufficient. That is what the hon. members say. Sir, have you ever heard anything as ridiculous as that? If we take this direct expenditure, plus the contributions to the auxiliary fund, to insurance and so on, one finds that the direct expenditure is R1 046 million of the total Budget of R1 303 million. Now, not one of the hon. members has made any suggestion in regard to how and in which field a saving should be effected. This is quite simply as far as the revenue is concerned; what is at issue here is the rates, and that in my opinion was dealt with very effectively by hon. members on this side. What can one do to narrow that gap? I should like to refer to the graph which appears on page 3 of the annual report. In my opinion this is one of the most informative graphs I have seen in a long time. It shows the expenditure per ton-kilometre and the revenue per ton-kilometre. What do we find if we study this graph? We find that the gap between the expenditure and the revenue widened between January 1970 and December 1971.

That is correct.

What does the graph for the period January 1972 to June 1972 tell us? In December 1971 the expenditure per ton-kilometre was 132 points on the index while the revenue per ton-kilometre was 113 points. In June 1972 the revenue per ton-kilometre was 101 points, while the expenditure was 111 points on the index, therefore the gap was closed by 10 points on the index as far as revenue is concerned. What does this graph tell us if we study it and analyse it? What is stated there? The answer is that it indicates sound management. It indicates efficient management, diligence, teamwork and co-operation on the Railways, it indicates loyalty—that is not what it indicated to the hon. member who lent an ear to what “canaries” came and whispered to him. It indicates reliability. That is what one finds in this graph. If we are able to maintain on the Railways what this graph indicates and if we take into consideration that narrowing of the gap which has now been affected between low-rated traffic and high-rated traffic, and we accept that with the flourishing economy which at one stage was very depressed—we can still remember that the current account in our balance of payments of R1 000 million in 1971 diminished to less than R100 million in 1972, and that the gold and foreign assets of the Reserve Bank increased from R375 million in December 1971 to R1 000 million on the 9th February 1972—and if we take into account the influence import control had on our economy and if we also take into account that 120 commodities were exempted last week from import control, I think that having taken all these factors into account our high-rated traffic will increase. We know, and this was proved very conclusively to us in the past, that a slight increase in the high-rated traffic has a tremendous impact on the revenue of the Railways.

I am afraid that I do not therefore foresee that same dark future for the Railways which the hon. member for Maitland foresees. I foresee only a future of growth and prosperity for the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus the attention in this debate on to something which has not yet been discussed and which we believe is very important in this era, in the year 1973. Not only are we faced with a substantial deficit, as we all know, but we are also faced with another tremendous problem in South Africa, a problem which is touching the very heart of everyone in South Africa, that is the agriculturist and the consumer, with particular emphasis on the consumer. We have millions and millions of people to feed and unless we can produce food at a price which the people can afford to pay, we will find ourselves faced with an underfed nation in this country. I believe that this is a very serious problem indeed. For this reason the railway tariffs must be tailored not only to suit the agricultural economy, but also to suit everybody who has to be fed. It must be tailored to face the traffic and what the traffic can afford. The Government cannot expect the agriculturist to make up the loss that we find in the Budget today. I know that the hon. the Minister will immediately ask: Who must make up this loss? I believe that the Treasury will have to make up this loss; you cannot expect the agriculturist to do this. For many years we have had to face this issue. If we have to increase the tariffs at the cost of the agriculturist, we will find that he will go out of business, as is already happening in South Africa today. I believe that there is only one solution to the problem, namely that the Joss in respect of agricultural products—that is, the requisites the agriculturist needs on his farm to carry on business and the product he has to sell on the markets—will have to be carried by the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Otherwise, as I have said, our whole economy will be affected. I know that the hon. the Minister will object and say that this will create a precedent. I am not concerned about this because I do not believe it will. We have already created precedents in other spheres. I serve on the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters and every year we write off millions of rands as bad debts. Who carries that? Not the irrigator who happens to be farming in an area of the country where there happens to be plenty of water and which has a good rainfall. He does not have to make up that loss because the other irrigator is suffering under severe drought conditions and is faced with empty dams. That loss is made up by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We do this every year, but now we find that in agriculture the unfortunate farmer has to carry this heavy burden. He must not only carry it but is also expected to make up this loss. This cannot be done. The farmer today has to pay tariffs twice. In other words, he is always paying double to the South African Railways. On all his farm requisites, such as maize, which he uses as rations for his staff, the tariff our maize is up by approximately 24%. On fertilizer it is up by 37,2%. Incidentally, the rebate on fertilizer has gone altogether. There is no more rebate on fertilizer. This is pushing production costs. In the case of lucern the tariff is up 50,6%. Lucern is used to keep stock alive and to produce good meat. Today one has to pay R26 per ton for lucern f.o.r. Upington. The railage from Upington to Queenstown comes to R18 per ton. To land a ton of lucern by rail at Queenstown therefore costs no less than R44. This is completely uneconomical and a shocking state of affairs. But the agriculturist is told to produce more and more and we will have to produce more because we know where our population figures will stand by the turn of the century. Just ordinary hay, which most agriculturists use in times of emergency and in times of crisis when they are faced with a drought, has had a tariff increase of 50,6%. There are also other items too numerous to mention. The famer has now paid this in order to carry on with his business. I mentioned that he pays double. Now let us look at the other side. Once he has produced the goods, the produce, the food then he starts paying again. When he sends his produce to the markets, then he pays for the second time. He is subjected to increased tariffs in this respect as well. In the case of maize it is up by 36,4%, fruit for our local market 53,8%, export fruit 36,4%, vegetables 57,4%, mealie meal 36,4%, butter 31,7%, cheese 31,7%, eggs 59,2% and in the case of livestock the tariff is up by 60%.

And Tony says …

That hon. member has had his opportunity for making a speech, and there was not all that much in it. I am talking about the increased tariffs in the case of livestock. The tariff on sheep and cattle, to the market, is up 60%. I notice from the Stock Owners’ News: that in January, 1973 it was announced that the increase of Railway tariffs for livestock which took effect on the 1st January, 1973, amounted to 60%. Other charges payable by the consignors of livestock have risen even more spectacularly. Cleaning fees, which were 30 cents and 60 cents for a small and large truck are now R1 and R2 respectively, an increase of 233%. Delivery fees, the placing of trucks in sidings, have advanced 33%. Charges for reloading after feeding and watering have risen from 70 cents for small stock and R1-40 for large stock to R1-50 and R3 respectively, an increase of 114%. This is how it is affecting the agriculturist. The consumer also has to pay. I quote further—

Now what does this really mean to the ordinary man? I worked out what it costs to rail one steer from Molteno, in the Cape Province, to Cape Town. In December, 1972, just before the rates went up, it cost R9-13. In March, 1973, to rail that same ox it costs R14-62, an increase of 60%, or R5-49 extra. I was speaking to some people at the abattoirs this morning and I want to mention the price of first grade beef. Let us assume that that ox is not super prime, that it is not baby beef, but an average ox. I will not even grade him high, say a 1B or a 1C first grade. Today the wholesale price per kilogram is from 75 cents to 80 cents. This is the cheapest meat you can get. When I discussed lamb with a butcher in Long Street this morning, he just laughed. He said, “Can you see any lamb here? I haven’t seen a lamb for three weeks.” He asked, “Do you see any other meat here?” I said, “Yes, I see five oxtails hanging here,” and he said, “That is all I have got—five oxtails.” The Railways are killing the meat industry here in Cape Town. He said, “There are butchers like myself who have to close down, we can’t get the stuff here; it is too expensive.” I will not even talk about super-grade lamb. This is a luxury anywhere in South Africa today, and the ordinary man cannot afford it. First-grade lamb which is not the highest grade. The wholesale price at the abattoirs this morning was R1-26 to R1-28 per kilogram. This is wholesale—we are not even discussing the price the consumer has to pay at the butcher.

According to the Agricultural News of the 26th January, 1973, within a period of almost 50 years agriculture’s contribution to the gross domestic product has declined by 12%.

Order! What does that have to do with the Railway Budget?

It has everything to do with it, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to persuade the hon. the Minister to be sympathetic towards agriculture as far as Railway tariffs are concerned. The hon. the Minister has increased the Railway tariffs to such an extent that it is going to put a lot of people out of business. The Agricultural News further states that the gross domestic product of the manufacturing industry has increased by 19%.

*Sir, I am speaking on behalf of 90 000 farmers this afternoon. According to Agricultural News of last month our White population in the rural areas has decreased tremendously. I want to quote the figures for 1936. Let us look what happened in the Free State. There the number of farmers decreased by 40%.

Order! What does that have to do with the Railway Budget?

Mr. Speaker, it has a great deal to do with the Railways. These are people who now have to pay double for Railway tariffs, and consequently they are constantly decreasing in number.

But surely the decrease of the population in the rural areas has nothing to do with the Railways!

But, Sir, I am pleading on behalf of the consumer as well as the producer. [Interjections.]

†It is no use trying to put us off. We are having complaints from agriculturists from all over the country. Unless the hon. the Minister can review the tariffs on agricultural products, these farmers are going to be put out of business, and what are we going to do then? How are we going to feed the nation? I am sure the hon. the Minister is sympathetic. I am sure he is going to review the whole picture. I believe that, unless it is done very soon—there is not much time to waste—you are going to find many people not being able to afford the food which they so badly need in South Africa. You only need to walk up some of our back streets in Cape Town to see how little food is being sold in the greengrocer shops, particularly in the butcher shops, because of the high Railway rates. I am an agriculturist myself and I know what it costs to produce and to deliver produce to the market. I believe that unless we get our priorities right in this regard, we can write off agriculture in South Africa. It is not an industry that can pay for the bad debts of the Railways. As I have said, we must look to the Treasury; I suggest that the Treasury should subsidize the losses of the Railways and not the agriculturalists.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat conducted a debate on agriculture, and there is one very important question which he left totally unanswered. What part of the food prices mentioned here by him is made up of the transport components? What part of the total cost does it amount to? I intend coming back to this.

Three percent.

Three percent, says somebody opposite. Sir, I have listened to many Railway debates, and I have often had the opportunity of taking part in them. But you will agree with me, Sir, that the contributions made on the opposite side of the House in the course of this debate are probably the poorest ones I have ever heard. This is probably one of the poorest Railway debates we have ever had. The hon. member for Yeoville, who was the main speaker opposite, rose here yesterday and we gained the impression that he was still punch-drunk as a result of something that had happened to him. He quoted by the yard; he just about never said anything original. And then I come to the hon. member for Durban Point. Sir, it has been a long time since I last heard him sound so unconvincing. I am grateful that he is one of the few members opposite who took part in the debate and are in fact present here. I do not like addressing a remark to a person if his bench opposite is empty. You know, Sir, I do have a certain measure of admiration for the hon. member for Durban Point. He always reminds me of the old hind ox which is harnessed when the rear wheel of a wagon gets stuck in a hole, but yesterday he could not even lift the yoke. He was quite powerless.

But reply to the debate.

Sir, perhaps we should not be too unfair to them in our judgment. In seeing how they come up against the barrage of the hon. the Minister of Transport year after year and how they have to endure, year after year, the punches he metes out here so freely, one has sympathy with hon. members opposite and understands why they cannot do any better.

Sir, I should like to try conclusions with the hon. member for Jeppes, who is also conspicuous by his absence. There are too many hit-and-miss speakers here in the Railway debate; they make speeches here and then they simply disappear from it, and this is a great pity. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Jeppes made a few statements which one cannot allow to go unchallenged. I just want to quote some of the statements made here by him: “Greater consultation between the Railways and other bodies is necessary … Greater collaboration is needed and experts from abroad should be brought in to advise the Railways.” Sir, the hon. member for Jeppes said yesterday that no negotiations were taking place, that there was no consultation, but he went much further than that by saying that we had to get experts from abroad to advise the Railways Administration on how to prepare estimates. Now, what did he actually imply by that, Sir? I just want to give a very brief survey of some of the steps being taken in preparing estimates. In the first place, information is obtained in writing over a very broad spectrum of the whole of the South African economy. A large number of private and public bodies are consulted. The railway needs of all these bodies are ascertained. I shall mention you a few examples. The Mealie Board, for instance, is asked what their export programme is and what their shipping programme is, and also what their domestic consignment will be. On the basis of these particulars it is determined what the grain-elevator revenue will be, what the quay and dock dues will be and how much railage can be expected. The South African Sugar Association is consulted. Their world quota is taken into account; their views are asked. Fertilizer manufacturers are asked what their production is. At the same time agricultural co-operative societies are asked how much fertilizer they still have in stock, what the extent is of their accumulated stocks, and so forth. The possible buying power of farmers in specific areas is determined. Manufacturers are asked, in respect of the farmers, how much prepared animal fodder they have in stock. Agricultural organizations such as the Meat Board—and the hon. member for East London North can listen to this—are asked how many head of cattle are going to be slaughtered during the year and how many sheep are going to be slaughtered, what the anticipated movement of stock during droughts will be, etc. Agricultural Economics and Marketing is asked what the effect of higher wool prices and of stock reduction schemes is going to be on the total number of live-stock slaughtered in the course of the year. The Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association is asked what their coal-export program is. Escom and other organizations are asked how much coal they are going to supply to the Natal power stations and how much they are going to supply to, for instance, the East London power station or the power station here in Cape Town. Iscor, Seifsa and the Federated Chambers of Industry are asked what the transport prospects are in respect of steel production and other base metals and other products consisting of such metals. The building industry is consulted in respect of cement production and building programmes. Last year, for instance, on the previous estimates, the timber industry had a very big truck allocation. They are consulted.

In addition, Sir, conclusions are drawn from available information, such as the increase in investment and consequently the increase in capital goods. Provision must then be made for additional transport of machinery if that trend should develop. The views of the Secretary for Commerce and Industry are asked on public spending and on the resultant infrastructure which is created in that process. The Bureau for Economic Research of Stellenbosch is consulted. The Reserve Bank is consulted in order to determine trends in private fixed investment and to infer from them what the effect on the real imports of our country will be. Sir, I could read out to you lists and lists of bodies consulted in this regard. Questionnaires are sent to every sizable firm in the country so as to outline in advance its transport requirements for the year. The hon. member for Jeppes has now asked us to bring in experts from abroad to advise us here. Sir, that is a motion of no confidence in the Administration of the Railways; that is a motion of no confidence in the Administration itself, which is responsible for the estimates.

Sir, I want to pause for a moment at the working results of the current financial year, with which we are dealing now, before I come to the Budget. Up to the end of August, 1972, the working results compared well with the estimates, and by the end of that month the nett deficit was only R1,3 million less than the deficit budgeted for, but as from September, 1972, a deterioration set in, and by the end of the month the deficit was R2,8 million more than the amount budgeted for. The reason for that is that the economic revival, which was expected in the second half of the year, fell short of the expectations. The blame for this was cast by the Opposition—by, inter alia, the hon. member for Maitland—on the Government, but what has the Government done in the meantime? The House will recall that various incentive measures were applied in order to revive the economy. In the first place, there was a relaxation of import control; then a reduction of the bank rate was announced; higher ceilings for bank overdrafts were provided; favourable terms of credit were made available, and in addition to that a reduction of the sales duty was announced. All of these are incentive measures initiated by the Government in an attempt to revive the economy. Sir, the results which are going to flow from this will not become noticeable in the accounts and in the finances of the Railways for quite some time. They will not be reflected immediately and it will take several months before the Railways will be able to see the results of these measures. In the meantime the Administration has made purposeful attempts to keep the cost structure of the Railways low, but there was an increase in prices and material and it was therefore no easy task for the Administration to try to keep the cost low in fact. Mindful of what I said a moment ago, one appreciates that when the higher wages were offered to the Railway staff on 1st January of this year, the only alternative was that the rates had to be increased. Now the hon. member for Yeoville has come forward with an amendment, the third leg of which reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that the Constitution provides that the Railways shall be administered on business principles, but surely it is not secret that it is not always possible to comply strictly with those principles. Let us take a look at the position proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville in his amendment. Does he propose that agricultural commodities be conveyed at a remunerative rate, or does he in the alternative propose that the cost on passenger journeys be covered completely? In essence this is what his motion says. Sir, rates are not merely a means for obtaining revenue. Rates are also an instrument for the implementation of the Railways’ business policy. I just want to give you a further indication of what is done in connection with rates. If rates therefore have a comprehensive effect on the extent to which the Railways has to fulfil its role as a national transport organization now and in the future, it is essential that when rates are increased consideration should be given to the extent to which the existing rates structure meets the present and future transport requirements, and, if necessary, to transform the structure so as to harmonize its requirements. Then what does the hon. member for Yeoville say in regard to his amendment? I quote from the Hansard report of the speech he made yesterday—

The hon. member moved an amendment in which he said that economic rates had to apply to both transport and passengers; at least, these are the words contained in the amendment, but then he immediately contradicted himself by saying that he was not content with certain increases in rates. This is also the vein in which the hon. member for East London North spoke.

I just want to pause for a moment at the question of agricultural rates. Rates for livestock remained constant since 1958. In order to improve the economy of the conveyance of livestock to such an extent that only 50% of the total cost is covered, it was necessary to raise the rates by approximately 60%. Please note, just to cover half of the transport costs it was necessary in some cases to raise the rate by 60%. Now the hon. member for East London North has made the mistake of attributing the total escalation of prices in the agricultural sector to transport. Sir, transport is a small component of the total increase in agricultural prices. But he omitted to say this to the hon. House. I shall mention a few examples to you, Sir, from a part of the world which you know well. The cost of transporting one head of cattle from Grootfontein in South-West Africa over a very long distance to Cape Town, has risen by R4-36 because of the increased rates The transport costs have increased by R4-36 and, as you know, Sir, a head of cattle in Grootfontein is after all worth much more than R100. What minimal part of the eventual cost of the meat is therefore made up by transport? Take sheep. From Beaufort West, a major sheep-producing area, to Johannesburg, the price increased from 61 cents to 99 cents, an increase of 38 cents per sheep. What effect does this have on a pound of meat which is eventually sold in Johannesburg? There are further examples. I mention the increase in rates for conveying maize from Lichtenburg, a maize-producing area. Previously it cost 64 cents to convey a bag of maize from there to East London; now it costs 81 cents. In the case of potatoes from Bethal, the transport rate is 33 cents per 100 kilogram bag as against 21 cents prior to the introduction of the increases in rates.

Shocking!

The hon. member says it is shocking that there has been an increase of 12 cents in the cost of transporting that product, and therefore in the price of that product.

But what is the percentage of that increase?

I want to point out that previously it cost 2 cents to rail a box of tomatoes from Nelspruit to Johannesburg. Now it costs 3 cents. The present cost cover—i.e. after the increase in rates has come into effect—in respect of fruit is still only 62%, that of vegetables only 56%, that of hay 51% and that of fertilizer 69%. From these percentages it can be seen that the Railways are still conveying these products far under cost, and I think the accusations levelled by the hon. member on the opposite side are not justified.

I should also like to discuss the passenger rates. A large section of the White as well as the non-White population does of course make use of the train services, and that is why I deem it necessary to deal with this aspect as well. I want to discuss in particular two facets of this aspect, namely the economic fact and, secondly, certain concessions and excursions which applied previously but were withdrawn as from 1st January this year. As regards passenger traffic, broadly speaking, the Railways incurred a loss of R99.6 million during the financial year 1971-’72. To make the picture more complete. I want to point out that the revenue was R100,3 million whereas the total cost amounted to R199,9 million. Therefore the loss was virtually just as big as the revenue. If we were to apply the business principle in this case, it would mean an increase of 100% in passenger rates. People will agree with me that such a step would be totally unrealistic, in view of the considerable losses incurred on passenger traffic the Administration was obliged to increase first and second class mainline fares by 25%. However, this should be viewed against the background—you will find this interesting—that first class train-fares would have to be increased by at least 567% and second class train by 174% in order to cover the total cost. Of course third class train fares do cover the total cost, and when the recent price increases were introduced it was therefore not necessary to effect any changes at all in this regard.

Now I come to the question of concession and excursions. There are, of course, many people who enjoyed the benefit of these over the years. The Railways annually gave up approximately R4 million in revenue as a result of these concessions and excursion. It was simply felt that this practice could not be proceeded with and that is why concessions were withdrawn.

Now I come to the hon. member for Yeoville’s policy in respect of the subsidization of uneconomic rates. By way of his amendment proposed the hon. member had already said that this had to be a complete subsidization, and then he went on to say this in the course of his speech yesterday—I quote from page H.1 of his Hansard manuscript—

In other words, the hon. member for Yeoville is advocating a principle of full subsidization of deficits. Now I want to ask hon. members whether this hon. House would regard it as fair if the taxpayer who may perhaps be making minimal use of railway transport in some form or other, were saddled with the obligation of wiping out the uneconomic factor on the Railways. Should there now be a blank subsidy on all rail traffic, for this is after all what the hon. member for Yeoville is advocating? Let me go further. He does not leave any doubt whatever as to precisely what he wants. He advocated the appointment of a commission, and then he said—

The hon. member for Yeoville is therefore advocating the principle that the Treasury should now take over the obligation of meeting the deficits on the Railways. He is therefore pleading that the business principle, about which we have heard such a great deal, be thrown overboard and that the taxpayer now accepts full responsibility for making good the deficits of the Railways.

What is the use of a business principle if it is run at a loss?

What are the implications of the proposals made by the hon. members? They imply that the economy campaigns on the Railways would be largely fruitless. After all, there is a subsidy; therefore it is unnecessary. What incentive is there for the railwayman to proceed with economy campaigns and to make every effort to balance the accounts, because there is after all a subsidy? The principle as stated on the other side cannot be accepted, but I do concede that a great deal can in fact be done in this direction. If hon. members were only more realistic about the principle and examined it instead, they would see that the principle is already being applied in respect of resettlement areas where use is being made of suburban train traffic. An amount of approximately R20 million is being budgeted for that purpose. In that case the Railways and the Government feel that it is fair, for every taxpayer benefits by the labour conveyed to him in this manner. Every single taxpayer in an urban area benefits in some way or other by the transport with which those people are provided, even if it is only by way of the removal of refuse, the sweeping of the streets, or whatever the case may be. Everybody consequently benefits by it, no matter how indirectly this may be. The principle that the taxpayer must contribute a share, is therefore a justified one. In respect of border industry development, too, this principle has already been accepted, but selectively and it is applied selectively. This is not merely blank cheque subsidization by the Treasury, but a principle which is being applied piece by piece. The Reynders Commission accepted the same principle in respect of export, but what is happening in practice? When a product is exported, the Railways do as much as they can to export it at the most economic rate. If it is ascertained that the transport component is still responsible for costs which do not make it competitive enough, an individual investigation is made into the matter, and in such a case it is possible that the Treasury may subsidize it even further.

I want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Durban Point. Yesterday he said two things here which we cannot allow to go unchallenged. He referred to overtime and said that overtime was being created deliberately. In all fairness to him I want to quote his words.

In certain instances.

I quote—

The hon. member for Durban Point levelled an accusation against a very large number of railwaymen. He said …

I said in certain cases.

He said they deliberately created overtime in that they saw to it during the course of the day that some work was left over so that they might earn extra money by working overtime. By implication he therefore made the accusation that there were a large number of railwaymen who deliberately … [Interjections.]

I did not say a large number.

I have just quoted the hon. member’s words. He said by implication that there were railwaymen who were stealing money from the Railways. That is what he said.

I did not say a large number.

I hope that the railwaymen outside are taking notice of his saying that they are stealing money from the Railways. In essence that is what he said.

That is a distortion of my words.

He said they were not doing their work at normal rates but were waiting for an opportunity to steal money from the Railways by creating artificial overtime. That is what he said.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member say that the hon. the Deputy Minister is distorting his words?

The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote yet another statement that was made by the hon. member for Durban Point—

He said that for very innocent, minor infringements people were punished as if they had committed a serious offence.

Yes, I did.

Did he, when he came across those cases, bring them to the notice of the Minister or of the Administration?

I did.

Did the hon. member try to remedy the circumstances? Did he do something about the matter?

I did.

The hon. member went on to say—

That is quite correct.

I gain the impression that the hon. member is a real refuse-bin for gossip. What did he do? Surely it is highly unlikely that a person would have taken a step in the interests of safety and would have been reported for doing so!

Vause, you have become a political scavenger.

These are facts; you cannot get away from them.

The role played by the Railways is much wider than the hon. members see it to be. An the few minutes I still have at my disposal I just want to refer briefly to a few of its phases.

Are you going to deny these things which I have alleged?

We can debate them again; we can debate them at the committee Stage. To lay a general charge against a lot of people without mentioning names or being specific and so to cause a sword to hang over their heads is not the proper thing to do. Is that decent? Is that responsibility towards one’s voters? This is not a fair way to act, and the hon. member is the first person who ought to admit this. After all, if he has the slightest grain of decency, he would admit it.

Mindful of the fact that gold will not always remain the most important export article, we consider the role which the Railways will have to play in the future in order to make the balance of trade tally. There are three phases of activity of the Railways: The one is the transport of primary products, the second the transport of processed and semi-processed products, and the third is the development and stimulation of domestic industries. That is why the Railways have a tremendous task to perform when it comes to the decentralization of industries and homeland development. Furthermore we should remember that the Railways themselves are the creator of a tremendous market and a consumer of a vast amount of goods. The Railways are responsible for creating their own infrastructure, and the Railways are buying at a rate of approximately R200 million per year in South Africa. Therefore consumer goods also constitute one of the major spheres in which the Railways themselves are providing encouragement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention in coming into the debate this afternoon to deal with a new matter, but I feel that there are several remarks made by the hon. the Deputy Minister which require reply. It was not at first my intention to do so, because it seemed to me that his speech would merely reply to previous speeches made by hon. members on this side, but he went on to make certain attacks which I feel should not be allowed to go unanswered. The first, or the last for that matter, was his attack on the hon. member for Durban Point who had brought to his attention certain practices, certain weaknesses as he saw them in the Railways Administration. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not reply specifically to these complaints or accusations. He in fact took them, exaggerated them, dressed them up in his own words and threw them back at the hon. member for Durban Point in the form of insult. This is not a proper manner of debate. I believe that if accusations or points are made it is only reasonable that the hon. the Deputy Minister should deal with those points or accusations, accept them and promise redress or deny them if he feels justified in doing so, but not merely to catch them, to dress them up with various forms of exaggeration and to toss them back to this side of the House. We do not accept this as an effective reply to the criticisms made by the hon. member for Durban Point.

The other point where he left me in some puzzlement was on the question of the rating policy. I would have thought that it was common cause in this House that the Railways are to some extent the captives of their own situation; in other words, that the Railway Administration is a great State corporation which is expected by the State to conduct enterprises and to provide infrastructure for the State in various forms. Some of these forms are in fact economic and profitable; there are others which are not. It is possible, for example, for the State to require of the Railways that it should run a railway line to an underdeveloped area or that it should carry traffic on a railway line at a frequency which does not make the operation profitable. The Railways, as good servants of the State and of the public, carry out this task even though it may be unprofitable to do so. Because they are an autonomous economy to a very large extent they are obliged on the more profitable lines, on the lines with greater density or frequency, to make sufficient money to pay not only for the costs of operating these profitable lines or these economic lines, but to gain sufficient profits out of these lines to pay for those which are uneconomic. When a corporation is a captive of this sort of situation it may well be obliged to charge rates which are far too high on the profitable lines in order to gain sufficient profits to pay for those which are uneconomic. It is this situation we are referring to. We feel that since the Railway Administration is to some extent the servant of the State, it must be allowed to charge economic rates on those lines which it can operate profitably, but not extravagant or exorbitant rates in order that these should pay for the uneconomic ones. We feel that when the State asks the Administration to run uneconomic lines for the benefit of the population as a whole, then the State must in fact subsidize such services.

The hon. the Deputy Minister admits that this is in fact the case. He mentioned the border areas, the new developing Bantu areas. He mentioned certain urban areas where traffic has to be carried under subsidy. He mentioned the ease of exports, which on certain lines are in fact subsidized by reducing their freights. The hon. the Deputy Minister in fact accepts the principle, but he argues that this principle must be applied selectively; in other words, that the State may say when it will subsidize and when not. He argues that it would be unfair to the general public to be asked to subsidize all the uneconomic activities of the Railways. Now, Sir, who is being asked to subsidize all these uneconomic activities? It is, in fact, the successful lines, the successful trades and industries. Those industries that are exporting successfully, giving to the Railways a good deal of traffic and, in fact, giving the Railways its revenue, these geese that lay the golden eggs, are the ones being asked to subsidize the uneconomic lines. Surely these industries are a sectional interest; they are not the broad public interest. Why should a sectional interest which has nothing to do with the development of a Bantustan or of certain areas in the country where they do not operate, be asked to bear the burden and not the general public? If the Minister accepts the principle, which he does in certain instances, selectively, then I think he must look at the general principle and recognize that if the principle is valid at all, it should not be applied in such a way that the sacrifice must be borne by only a small section. It should be borne by us all because these services are conducted by the Railways Administration not on behalf of certain small sections, but for the main. The economy of the country requires that the country should be endowed with an all-embracing transport service which makes a vital contribution to the general infrastructure of the country. This is not a sectarian interest; it is a public interest, and the public should pay for these services when they prove to be uneconomic.

I come now to the main point of my contribution. I wish to refer to the question of the development of the harbour at St. Croix. This is a matter which has been debated in this House several times, and I very much hope this will be the last occasion on which we will need to raise it from this side of the House It is in fact a problem which has troubled us for quite a considerable time and I believe the delay in bringing this matter to a head has already cost the country a great deal of money. It has cost the Railways a good deal of revenue, and it has cost our balance of payments a good deal as well. I would like to begin by congratulating the hon. the Minister on coming up to our expectations in the sense that we believe him to be, in the interest of the country. This is realism leads to the acceptance of fact as fact, and, the facts being accepted, that logical conclusions will be drawn from them; that these will lead in turn to his taking decisions which will be, or must be, in the interest of the country. This is a train of mind, a habit of thought which we attribute to the Minister and we have not been disappointed; because we believe that the logic, the facts and the conclusions were inevitable from the start. My purpose in raising the matter this afternoon, therefore, is to follow the same train of thought as I believe the Minister has applied and to bring even greater clarity to this very urgent matter. The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that St. Croix was a harbour which would be complementary to Saldanha. We agree with this. He went on to say—

I want to consider these two points, that is to say, when Port Elizabeth harbour will in fact become saturated and whether larger ships will need to be used. As regards the saturation of Port Elizabeth harbour, the hon. the Minister gave replies to a question by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central not very long ago. These indicated that the total calculated capacity of the harbour at Port Elizabeth at the moment is 6,35 million metric tons per annum; that in the past year the ore which passed through that harbour was of the order of about 4,3 million tons; and that in the years 1973 to 1975 the ore which is expected to pass through that harbour will be 6,395 million metric tons per annum. In other words, the Railways and Harbours Administration anticipate that as from 1973 yearly, up to 1975, the total tonnage to which they are committed will in fact exceed the calculated total tonnage of the harbour, although by only a small amount.

Now my first submission to the hon. the Minister is that I do not believe that the capacity of the harbour is really 6,35 million tons per year. It is, of course, arguable theoretically that this amount of tonnage can be handled. But, Sir, it is only true, I believe, when you refer to the ore-loading capacity at that harbour. There are other questions which have to be taken into account. One ship comes in at a time and that ship, having been loaded at greater or lesser speed—and greater speeds are possible—sails out with the high tide. A heavily laden ore-carrying vessel cannot sail out on any tide, and though you may speed up the loading process, you cannot speed up the tide. The tides are a natural phenomenon and ships have to wait for them. There are other reasons why in fact the total capacity of the harbour cannot be achieved. If one has any doubt about this, one only has to look at the roadstead outside Port Elizabeth harbour. There are on an average at any given time four to six ships riding at anchor, awaiting their turn to enter the harbour. However rapidly the ore-loading plant may work, the fact is that when ships are waiting outside the harbour upon each other, demurrage is incurred, costs are incurred, delays are incurred, and in consequence the harbour itself becomes an unattractive proposition for the ships which carry cargoes to and from it. It becomes, therefore, an unattractive proposition also to contractors who purchase from South Africa.

I believe that if St. Croix were to be put in hand right away—and I speak with some authority for I am in touch with the people who are concerned in this matter—it would be possible to enter into contracts now which would take effect from 1975, for an additional 5 million tons of ore per year. At present 4½ million tons, in round figures, are being handled at Port Elizabeth. This includes 2½ million tons of manganese and between 2 and 2¼ million tons of iron ore. This brings us to about 4½ million tons a year, and, as the Minister himself indicated in his answer to this question two weeks ago, he expects this quantity to rise to over 6 million tons. If the additional tonnage of 5 million is in fact acquired, this will mean that, through that area, a total of 9½ to 10 million tons will have to be exported …

It is not what I expect; this relates to the trucks allocated in this regard.

Sir, I assume that the hon. the Minister allocates trucks because he foresees such a contingency?

I allocate less trucks than they ask for, but usually they utilize less trucks than I allocate.

Sir, I accept what the hon. the Minister says. My point really is that the theoretical capacity of Port Elizabeth harbour is of the order of six million odd tons, but that this can hardly be achieved because it is limited by conditions of tide, congestion, berthing, the kind of vessels, etc. So it is a desideratum; it will not necessarily be achieved. The operators who work through Port Elizabeth say that for practical purposes they believe that 4½ million tons is much nearer reality than the figure of six million odd tons. But even so, conceding this point, it is already clear that by 1975 a far greater capacity in Port Elizabeth or nearby will be needed than can be provided.

There is a further consideration, and this relates to ships. It is a fact that ore is a low-cost material. Iron ore sells on the world markets, at the present devalued price of the dollar, at approximately 10 dollars per metric ton. This is a very low price for a metric ton of material. The freight cost moreover goes to make up a very high proportion of this amount. If you compare the freight charges levied in respect of the large 350 000-ton freighters, the giant ore-carriers, operating between Brazil and Japan, with the charges in respect of the small ships of between 50 and 100 000 tons, you find that there is a large saving in the case of the large ships, and even if this is reduced by the lesser distance between South Africa and Japan, you find that the saving in respect of the same freight would be two dollars per metric ton. A saving of two dollars per metric ton on freight alone is a very sizeable portion of the total selling price. The saving alone is 20% of the price. If you are competing on an international market, a saving of 20% is a very large figure. This can be a vital figure when you are trying to secure exports against international competition. It is therefore becoming vital that by 1975 we should not only have adequate handling facilities for our ore, but that we should be able to place our ore on these giant ore-carriers. If we do not, we will not be able to compete at all. No amount of contracts and no amount of loading capacity in Port Elizabeth harbour or anywhere else is going to help us, because the stage is being reached very quickly where, unless you put your ore on these giant carriers, you are not in the game at all. This is something we have to contemplate very realistically. One of the consequences of this, which is already a reality in the minerals world, is that the small ore freighters are going out of business. They are not being built any more and quite soon we will not be able to charter them any more, which means that even if we have the ore, even if we have the contracts and even if we have the harbours, that is to say small harbours with corresponding loading capacity, we will not be able to keep to those contracts simply because there will not be ships to carry our ore. They will not be available for charter. Therefore we have to adapt ourselves to this new situation. We will have to make available as soon as possible a harbour which can in fact receive these ships.

Now we come to the question of the rail capacity to Port Elizabeth. I believe that the rail capacity to Port Elizabeth has already considerably improved. The figure which I have been given is 9,6 million tons a year. This is more than adequate for what we need at the moment. It exceeds what Port Elizabeth harbour can handle. But it is a figure which approximates very closely to what the exporters of iron ore believe they will need if they obtain these new contracts which they are seeking to confirm now. The figure which they have in mind is at least 9½ million tons a year, which is what the Railways can now carry. The Railways can go well beyond this. As the hon. the Minister knows, the improvements which are being made will in fact raise the capacity to some 16 or 17 million tons or higher. What is the point of having this excellent enhanced carrying capacity if we are stuck with a harbour which cannot handle more than six million tons theoretically and 4½ million to 5 million tons in fact? Quite clearly we must get cracking in this respect and we must produce a harbour as soon as possible which can handle these enhanced quantities and can put them on the giant ore-carriers so that we can compete on the world markets.

Now, Sir, I am authorized to say on behalf of private enterprise which is interested in this development that they are prepared to negotiate with the Railways Administration on a very free basis. I would like to ask the Minister what is his view on the construction of this ore-loading terminal at St. Croix. Private enterprise is prepared to do it in any one of the ways which are available. It is prepared to finance, to build and to operate this system itself. Alternatively, it is prepared to finance and build it and allow the South African Railways to operate it. Thirdly, it is prepared to find the finance only and to ask the South African Railways to build and to operate the line and the ore-loading plant with a guaranteed minimum tonnage. In other words, it can be a guaranteed facility. It is prepared to negotiate any one of these three possibilities, but, Sir, it is essential that a start should be made now. The costs are increasing but the money-lenders can be found, and in the past week negotiations have been re-opened with people who are ready to supply the capital and, if necessary, the building know-how and the building facilities to put this installation into being. The main point that I wish to stress, Sir, is that it is urgent to do this now. We have already lost two to three years of time through various delays, through various regrettable disputes which have occurred in recent years. The fact is that if we were to start tomorrow, this loading facility could be available by the end of 1975, which is about two and a half years from now; that is the earliest date on which it can be got ready and operational to do its job. Sir, by 1975 we shall need these facilities for the reasons which I have indicated, for Port Elizabeth’s capacity will long have been overtaken because of the high pressures placed on the whole situation by the urgency of adapting our exports to the giant carriers of ore and because of the urgency of securing these contracts and getting them under way as soon as possible. The importers do not possess infinite patience. I believe, Sir, that it is urgent; that if we do not take a decision soon, the years will go by and we will find ourselves in 1976 instead of 1975 and, with further delays, in 1977 instead of 1976. Sir, these contracts running into millions of tons are worth a great deal of money. They are worth a great deal of money to the country’s economy; they are worth a great deal of money to our balance of payments. They are worth a great deal of money to the Railway Administration, which in fact needs to make this line to Port Elizabeth more profitable. It could be one of those lines which is a great generator of revenue for the Railway Administration at a time when it has difficulty in covering its deficits. I believe that all these things lead one to the inescapable conclusion that although it is late, the time to bring this matter to a head is now, and I hope very much that the hon. the Minister, with the realism to which I have already paid tribute, will negotiate directly with the private enterprise which wishes to put this scheme into operation and that he will do this thing for South Africa which is so urgently needed.

Sir, would the hon. member for Von Brandis be so kind as to pardon me if I do not follow up on what he said? I shall leave him to the hon. the Minister. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will furnish him with adequate replies to the representations he made.

I am convinced that this debate will be recorded in Hansard as the debate in which the official Opposition dug their own grave as far as the Railway officials in the Republic of South Africa are concerned. Sir, it has been my privilege to be a member of this House for the past eight years and never before have I had to listen to so many accusations coming from the Opposition, without their being able to submit to this House any proof whatsoever in connection with the staff of the Railways—from the General Manager down to the last man. Sir, I want to deal with two hon. members: the one has already been effectively dealt with by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I do not think there is much more left of the hon. member for Durban Point. Sir, I really want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Durban Point, because I am going to read his speech from platform to platform in my constituency during the next election, and he can be quite sure that I shall be returned to this House with an even greater majority than in the last election. I find the accusation made by the hon. member for Durban Point, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has put it here … [Interjection.]

On a point of order, is an hon. member allowed to say that he will read it but that he will distort it deliberately?

Order! Did the hon. member say that the hon. member would distort it deliberately?

No, I said he would probably only quote it in part and distort it. I did not say that he would do it deliberately.

The hon. member made an accusation and the hon. the Deputy Minister replied to it effectively. But what I find quite reprehensible in the hon. member’s accusation is that he did not produce one item of proof to substantiate his accusation. The Railway service has many ramifications. Let the hon. member for Durban Point stand up here this afternoon and tell us in which instances overtime is being unlawfully earned on the Railways? In which branch of the Railway service is this being done? He will not be able to prove that accusation. I want to leave him at that and return to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana whom I warned to be in the House but who is now conspicuous by his absence. I am sorry but I shall leave it at that. [Interjection.] Oh no, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is after all unable to stand in for him. He is too much of a lightweight for that. Sir, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana made various allegations in this House, and I want to deal with two of the accusations made by the hon. member. As far as the second is concerned he will land himself in trouble with his party. I shall mention the first one now.

Another Cathy Taylor?

Yes, another Cathy Taylor. He said—

Sir, may I ask the General Manager through you, Sir, to take no notice whatsoever of that hon. member if he should make representations to him in the future. According to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana the General Manager, the Minister and the Management are not approachable in regard to any complaints coming from any member of Parliament or from any Railway official. I think this is a shocking accusation to make against the General Manager and his staff.

But the hon. member made so many accusations that I cannot deal with all of them. What is more, my time is limited. Before dealing with them, I just want to say that since the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the officials of the Administration have created a kingdom for themselves, he will have to resign from the United Party tomorrow morning because he does not adhere to the policy of his party. What is the policy of his party? “You want it, we have it”. [Interjection.] Yes, the hon. the Minister says that it is an old policy, but it is still true according to them. On page 26 they say that should the United Party come into power they would ensure that the Railways would be run by well-paid staff.

Hear, hear!

But the hon. member for Umhlatuzana attacks the very same staff who now forms the Management of the Administration and says that they have created a kingdom for themselves and that the workers cannot penetrate to them. Therefore he has deviated from their policy and should be brought before the caucus of the United Party at their next meeting, or he should go back to his constituency and tell his voters that he has been elected to this House under false pretences.

There is a second argument which I wish to deal with as far as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is concerned.

Will you be nominated again?

I am not afraid of nomination contests. The hon. member said—

He admits that he does not know what experience they have—

The hon. member is casting aspersions on the integrity of those disciplinary officials in the service of the Railways. I could not believe my ears yesterday. I could not believe that it was an ex-official of the Railways speaking, because he speaks about “canaries”. I know them as “yellow ‘canaries’ ”. I refer to the disciplinary charge-sheet of the Railways, which is usually typed on a yellow form. The hon. member mentions those charge sheets and says the people come to him with those “yellow ‘canaries’ ”. They also come to me, but the difference between the hon. member and myself is that he does not know what to do with those “yellow ‘canaries’ I know. I help the people and I arrange an appeal for them through the proper official channels. That is what the hon. member must do as well. However, he does not know what they are, but he casts a further reflection on the officials of the Railways, because he says the officials do not know that they can lodge an appeal, or some of them do not feel like lodging an appeal. He alleges further that some officials do not want to assist those who want to lodge an appeal. As far as that is concerned, the hon. member is not very well informed on Railway affairs.

I want to come back for a few moments to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban Point when speaking about overtime. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point to stand up in this House this afternoon and furnish a definition of “excessive overtime on the Railways”. We would like to hear once and for all what “excessive overtime on the Railways” means.

Four hours per day.

There are many shunters in the employ of the Railway Administration who work 12-hour shifts. There are officials who work more than that. Why do they do this? Because they show the necessary loyalty towards the Administration and because they compensated for that loyalty. The list can be checked from 1939 to 1972. What amount is being paid out today for Sunday time and overtime? In 1972 alone R94,03 million was paid out in this respect. I want to make this very clear now. I know the hon. member for Port Natal will be the next speaker. I challenge him to say that, when the United Party comes into power again, they will do away with overtime because they object to it. In my constituency I have not yet come across one single railway official who objected to overtime; not one! What is more—I know my constituency far better than the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central knows his, because I have to do a third of his work as well—when an ex-railwayman comes to you for help and asks to be reinstated in the service of the Railways, he will make one condition, namely that he be assisted to find a post in which he will also be able to work overtime and Sunday time. It is a common phenomenon and I call all the hon. members in this House to witness. But such a hire and cry is now being raised about overtime. However, the official Opposition creates the impression that it is only the operating staff who work overtime, but that is not true. It is not only the footplate or the operating staff who work overtime; it is the various sections of the Railways, such as transport, harbours, stock accounting staff, catering staff, airways, mechanics, engineering department, etc., who are all prepared to work overtime. Why? Because they have an hon. Minister, a Management and a Government which look after their interests. We have heard so much about staff shortages. The total number of staff members increased by 3 488 last year. On looking through Hansard one can see what kind of questions are put by the hon. Opposition. Every question which is put here on the question paper, is aimed at exploiting the staff shortage for political reasons. The hon. member for Port Natal did this on 13th February, 1973. On 13th February, 1973, he asked the following question in connection with the cancellation of goods trains in 1972:

A wonderful question! That is the kind of question they ask for overseas consumption and the hon. the Minister has to furnish an answer to it. Hon. members try to imply that the vacancies in the service are responsible for the cancellation of trains. Vacancies which do occur on the Railways, are not the only factor responsible for the cancellation of trains. There are also other factors such as illness, leave, rest claimed, unauthorized absenteeism and delays to crews of incoming trains, etc. All these factors are additional factors which contribute to the trains being delayed, and this is not only caused by the shortage of staff. We have heard about the shortage of staff. What was the position last year? Let us consider apprentices for a moment. The youth of our country have once again shown us that they have confidence in the Administration and that they are prepared to enter the service of the Administration because they know the Administration offers them security. In 1960 the comparable quota as far as apprentices were concerned, was 607. In 1963 it was 851; in 1967, 1 706; in 1970, 2 035; and in 1973, 2 172. In 1972 the quota was 2 417 and we managed to fill 1 824 of those vacancies. That is further proof that we are drawing young men to the Railways. What has the National Party Government done as far as the Railway pensioners are concerned? They have once again received an increase with this Budget. Hon. members will find that since the time the National Party came into power to the present time, the interests of the railway pensioners have been looked after. Those minimum income levels in the case of married and unmarried persons were constantly raised and it is under this National Party Government that the mean level for the payment of temporary allowances was done away with effect from 1st October, 1968. We also did away with the mean level as far as the payment of special supplementary allowances was concerned with effect from 1st April, 1971. All this was done for elderly persons by the National Party Government, namely for those who had given a lifetime of service to the South African Railways. What did the National Party Government do for the White staff as far as housing was concerned? During the year ending on 31st March, 1972 alone we spent an amount of more than R11 million on the house ownership scheme. What more must we do? We now hear from hon. members that there is dissatisfaction among the staff. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said they were “fed up”. Let him prove it! He cannot do so. There are 23 700 departmental houses available at present, and what is important, is that 70% of the White married staff who are in the employ of the Railways presently receive assistance under some scheme or other and own a house. Show me an employer in the Republic of South Africa who can match this achievement! There is not one! The Railway Administration believes that if one’s staff is properly housed, they work well.

I am going to tell your people you are satisfied with everything they are getting.

The hon. member can come to my constituency and make a speech there. He can come and say whatever he likes there, but if he repeats the speech he made in this House, I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that what happens to him there will be worse than what happened to the hon. member for Yeoville in Uitenhage, and the hon. member for Yeoville knows that what happened to him at the University of the Witwatersrand was nothing compared to what happened to him in Uitenhage. [Interjections.] I am responsible for everything in the political sphere in my constituency, and I want to invite the hon. member to come there. I say to the hon. member that the criticism they have levelled at this Budget was totally unfounded. I say again that the railwayman who is loyal towards the Administration, the right-thinking railwayman, knows what the National Party Government has done for him. The hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana only made matters easier for us in the next election.

Mr. Speaker, I have seldom risen in this House with more pleasure to reply to a member on the other side.

Do you understand what he said?

Perfectly! The hon. member made a few allegations here which quite frankly stunned me. He spoke of what a friend the Railways Administration is to the worker of South Africa and how well the railway worker is treated by them. I should like to read just two lines from the report of the Hiemstra Commission. It says here—

This is the Government body which controls the affairs of the Railways, and it says that, whilst the worker can expect a rise in his standard of living, it is not possible under the circumstances. Well, I am very glad that I do not work for such a boss if all he can do is put my expectations down on a piece of paper and say that these rises are not practicable. I will return to this matter in a moment.

The hon. member said that the result of what the United Party had said in this debate would be the grave of the railwayman. Before I proceed, I would like to welcome the hon. member for Klip River to the House. The hon. member for Klip River was also a representative of a railway constituency, the railway constituency of Umhlatuzana. Because of his lack of activity in that constituency, which is basically a railway constituency, he had to go and seek pastures new. He then went to the constituency of Klip River, which the Nationalist Party claims has one of the biggest concentrations of railway workers in this country. If I remember rightly, they said it had the second biggest concentration of railway workers in the country. I would say that in fairness to the railway workers of Klip River, where the hon. member just skidded in by 200-odd votes, I hope he takes part in this Railway debate. Why do I say that? Because it would be quite unique. When he represented another railway constituency, he sat in this House, as I remember, for six or seven sessions but took part in only one railway debate for about three minutes. I only hope in fairness to the railway workers of Klip River, that he takes a greater interest in Railway affairs while he sits temporarily again, in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Uitenhage said that the railwayman works these long hours of overtime because of his sense of duty to the Railways. I think that that was a noble sentiment. I would then ask the hon. member and the hon. the Minister why people who are so loyal to the Administration are treated so badly? This is what I would like to know.

Why does he fine them if they do not?

Yes, why does he fine them if they do not? The hon. member also said that he has had railway-men plead with him for overtime, Sunday-time and so on. Of course they do plead for this, and why? Because the Administration does not pay them enough to make a decent, normal living. The hon. member asked whether we on this side of the House would do away with overtime. To do away with overtime on these rates of pay would in fact be a cruelty to any human being. They have to work overtime because their rates of pay are so low. What we would do is to make sure that the basic rates of pay would at least enable them to live like normal human beings, like everybody else in society. If overtime would then be necessary it would merely be to supply the plums and the cream as is the case with everybody else. If the railwaymen are so loyal to the Administration—and I submit that they are—I believe they deserve better treatment from the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member also mentioned that the Railways provided a great deal of housing. This is perfectly true; they deserve credit for it, but there again, if they did not supply housing on the rates of pay they pay their men, they would never be able to live. That is why the Railways have to supply housing. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister, and it seems to be a thought that has gathered ground amongst people working for the Government in one form or another, that it seems to be accepted that they can have low rates of pay and low incomes because they have advantages. Housing is one, medical aid is another, and a certain amount of free or cheap travel. What seems to be forgotten is that if they did not have these advantages and these privileges the Government would have to pay a great deal more than they do. It is true that they have Railway houses at low cost, but in my constituency—I do not know what the position is in the constituencies of other hon. members—the condition of some of those Railway houses has to be seen to be believed. They have not been repaired in years. By the time the Railways gets round to repair them, they are indeed in a very sorry state. When it comes to other aspects of these privileges the railwaymen have, I believe they do not outweigh the salaries the hon. the Minister pays them.

I would now like to turn to other matters. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that he can indeed accept the praise from members on his side for the salary increases he awarded the staff of the Railways. We too were delighted with the increases, but we thought they were long overdue. I would like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention the fact that the railwaymen first started asking for these increases in September, 1970. The final increases that were agreed upon came into operation, after they had been through the proper channels, in January, 1973. If any person asking for an increase in salary has to wait over a year for that increase to be awarded, what has happened to the cost of living by the time that increase has been awarded? In regard to this particular increase I would suggest that by the time it was awarded, it was already out of date. My sympathies go to every railway worker in South Africa when he next has to ask for an increase, because if it takes another 12 months before that increase is granted, I suggest that if it is eventually granted to him all it does is to serve to pay off the debts he has been forced into by having to wait to receive a decent living wage. There are other aspects to this as well. The hon. the Minister has published figures as to how these increases will be effected and I want to turn immediately to the fact that if one studies these increases, one will immediately see that despite the Government’s claim that there has been an effort to narrow the gap between White and non-White workers, the gap has in fact widened in many respects. But there have been other interesting developments as well.

Before I deal with that, the hon. the Minister in his Press statement detailed some of the increases. He said, for instance, that there would be exceptions for rail travel concessions to scholars and blind persons, and that the rest would fall away. But what the hon. the Minister did not say, was that the age of a scholar eligible for a concession was going to be reduced from 16 years to 12 years. This was one of the hidden increases about which we were not told. There were certainly others as well. The Minister listed various class increases, for example, an increase of 12% in class 1 and an increase of 26,1% in class 14. But again, the hon. the Minister did not say that he was going to change the rating of some of these classes so that an item rated under 9, could be moved to 12 or 13, and the effective increase would become 150%. These were the hidden costs. As my hon. colleague for East London North said, these are the costs which are now being borne by the housewife, for example in that the cost of the delivery of beef increased by 60%. When one thinks of it, one wonders how the non-White will be able to afford the increased prices of food due to the increased tariffs. That is the truth of the matter.

Now I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a few specific questions in regard to the salary increases. He said in a debate last year, when I inquired as to why only one Indian worked in the Durban harbour staff, that the type of work did not seem to attract them. Then I studied the salary scales of these people, and I found that for some unknown reason—a reason unknown to me certainly—that the Indian staff is paid at a rate lower than the Coloured staff, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why this should be so. Now we had these various increases. I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to just a couple of the classes of the salary increases. The starting salary in the labour and general grades which one takes as the lowest grade of all, has been increased for Coloureds to R61, for Indians to R58 and for Bantu to R45. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister something. I assume that these three groups do exactly the same work, because they are rated exactly the same. Why then is there differentiation in their actual salary scales? As their service lengthens, the gap between these various race groups also widens. The non-White employees I take it would fall under group I in the Railways. According to the new salary scales, the minimum salary for a Coloured is R73 and the maximum R97. The maximum now for Indians is R76, and for Bantu R63—again a wide difference which I cannot explain. But here again it can be shown that as the service lengthens, the gap between these three race groups widens. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: In view of the Government’s stated policy, which has been stated by the various departments from time to time, i.e. to close the wage gap between Whites and non-Whites, why in respect of non-White and non-White is this wage gap widening? I believe that this is a matter for which the Minister owes us an explanation. They presumably do exactly the same job. Then, of course, what alarms me most of all in this respect—I hope the Minister is listening—is that it also now occurs that the ration allowance for these various grades where rations are paid has been increased by 100%. Sir, there has been an increase in salary as well, but I would like an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why the ration allowance has been increased by 100%.

I, too, was very interested to see the wage rate for the new train marshallers. I submit that the term “train marshaller” is probably going to be a very important term in the history of South Africa. It marks a new era in the development of the South African Railways, and here again the salary scales make very interesting reading. Suddenly, out of the blue, we now find that the Coloured and the Indian earn the same salary. From now onwards there is to be no differential between the wages of Indians and Coloureds, but the Bantu will still be earning a good deal less. It is also interesting to find that an Indian clerk and a Coloured clerk start at the same rate of pay, but a Bantu clerk starts at almost R400 per annum less. Sir, I believe that the time has come when the Government should practise what it preaches. It must not only seek to close the gap between the wages of Whites and non-Whites, but it can certainly no longer have an excuse for continuing with the gap between the wages of non-Whites and those of other non-Whites doing the same job.

Sir, in the time left to me I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to another matter entirely and that is the question of suburban travel. Many speakers on this side of the House have mentioned the difficulties experienced in suburban travel and have dealt with the question of fares. I want to deal at the present moment with something entirely different. In the city of Durban—this is a parochial issue but it is one of such magnitude that I believe it should be raised in this debate—we have had a great deal of difficulty in transporting our people from one side of the city to the other. The question of building some other form of transport—freeways and so on—has been mooted, but I do not propose to go into the details of this because it does not fit into this debate. I would like, however, to make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister: In Durban at the moment there is a railway line that runs from north to south in the city of Durban, and it is my conviction that if this railway line were up-graded to the proper status, it could provide a commuter service such as we have here in Cape Town running to the southern suburbs. I think that the service that we have in Cape Town is a first-class one, and I would like to see this service introduced into the system in Durban. The line already exists; it runs from north to south. In the north of Durban, in the very near future, new Indian and Coloured townships will be established for many hundreds of thousands of people who will have to travel from north to south to their places of employment. Sir, if we wish to solve some of the major transport problems of the city of Durban, then I think they can only be solved by means of such a commuter service. As I have said, the line is there, but it obviously needs up-grading to carry the faster trains and so on. I think if this were done, it would be cheaper than any other scheme such as the proposed freeway; it would affect less housing. Thousands of houses would otherwise be affected. It would be less chaotic; there would be less destruction of buildings, and it would be a great deal safer than any other system.

Finally. Sir, I want to raise a matter which I have raised in this House on previous occasions. I have had assurances from the hon. the Minister that fly-shunting is a thing that does not take place on the South African Railways; that it only takes place under very exceptional circumstances. Sir, we have had complaints from my constituency and many other parts of the country with regard to this matter. I have had letters of reassurance from the hon. the Minister that the noise is no longer as bad as it used to be, etc., but I would like to say to the Minister that fly-shunting is still taking place and that it only diminishes when an inspection is due. Not only is it a noise hazard to the people living nearby, but it causes injury and death to live-stock. As the hon. the Minister knows, there have been complaints in this respect. But, Sir, then I come to one of the most serious aspects of this fly-shunting that is taking place, not only in the marshalling yards in my constituency, but in many other centres. It is no good the hon. the Minister or any official telling me that the noise emanating from fly-shunting in my constituency is no worse than anywhere else. I have heard shunting in many places and I can assure the hon. the Minister that the noise in my constituency is exceptionally bad. But the point I want to raise is this: I submit that the trucks which are badly damaged in this heavy shunting are causing pressure on the workshops where these vehicles have to be repaired. Some of these trucks, of course, do not undergo repairs because the damage is not always noticed immediately. It has been suggested to me that some of our derailments may have been brought about by trucks damaged by heavy shunting in the marshalling yards. Therefore I feel that this is not only a matter which creates inconvenience and causes the death of livestock but may well contribute to the accidents and derailments on the railway lines because of the lack of service to repair them.

The other matters which one could raise in this debate I will raise later on, but I want to say that in view of what I have said in regard to salaries, I believe that the last leg of my hon. colleague’s amendment deserves the support not only of this side of the House but in all honesty also of that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today events in this House really sounded to me like a mockery, i.e. the fact that one member of the Opposition after another stood up to supposedly advocate the interests of the railwayman. I can only say, the gods preserve the railwayman the day his fate depends on this Opposition. I think it is already enough for them to know that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was previously a railwayman. The Opposition’s trouble is that they come along here annually with the finest possible words in their amendment, but that those words actually run diametrically counter to each other every year. Thus we have them coming along this year with the slogan of higher and more economic rates and a substantial Rates Equalization Fund. You will remember, Sir, that two years ago their standpoint was actually the reverse. Then the Rates Equalization Fund had to be utilized, and rates not increased. Listening to their argument this year, as I have done, it appears to me that hon. members opposite have a bone to pick with certain big users of Railways, as if they are eager, this year, to get at certain industrialists who are perhaps a little too inclined to listen to Joel Mervis’s advice. I can find no other explanation for their change of front this year. Thus, on the face of it, this year’s amendment is again a lot of very fine words. But I want us specifically to look at the one leg of the hon. member for Yeo-ville’s amendment, which is again only a fine slogan to try and bluff the railwayman. He advocates a system of pensionable allowances linked to the cost-of-living index, exactly what he asked in 1968, except that he has now added the tail that they should be pensionable. It sounds like a popular argument, but let us regard it a little more closely.

Let us proceed from the supposition that the Government had applied that formula, which is now being proposed here, since 1963. We find that in 1963 the average earnings of Whites on the Railways was R1 899. These increased to an average of R3 821 in 1971. In other words, calculated in terms of money, it is an increase of 101,2% over the past seven years. The rise in the cost of living in the same period, 1963 to 1971, amounted to 33%. When the amount of the earnings in 1963, i.e. R1 899 is therefore adjusted to the increase in the cost of living of 33%, one arrives at the figure of R2 526. It is this figure that must be compared with the average of 197l’s salary, i.e. R3 821. One finds that there was a real increase of 51,3% in the average earnings of railwaymen over the past seven years. If the United Party’s system, as they have presented it here, had been introduced and was applicable today, the railwayman would have earned an average of R2 526 in 1971, but because they are under National Party rule they received, in actual fact, R3 821. Do you now see how the hon. Opposition tries to diddle the railwayman with fine-sounding formulas?

In addition I want to ask the hon. members on that side, who movingly supported this amendment, whether, if this formula, which they propose, were to be accepted, it would mean that future increases would be eliminated and that they would merely be kept to a basis of the increasing cost of living? The hon. member for Yeoville asks that we should continually adjust the allowance in accordance with variations in the cost of living. The Railways as a whole, and its trade unions, must of course still be able to bargain with a view to sharing in the prosperity of the country, but by this action we shall specifically take away the bargaining power from the railwayman. It can be argued, in addition, that as the cost-of-living increases, the necessary adjustments in salary will be made. It is surely known, too, that there are three important factors in the determination of the cost-of-living index, i.e. those of transport, pharmaceutical and housing services in which the railwayman is actually better off than the workers in other services.

The hon. member also suggests that this allowance should also be pensionable, because this was specifically the weak spot in their old system. If I understand the hon. member correctly, he wants adjustments to take place every three months, as was the case in the war years. In other words, the railwayman must no longer come and beg the hon. the Minister three of four limes, as he put it, there must be an adjustment every three months. One can imagine the chaos there would be under such a system, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark rightly indicated so strikingly this afternoon. I do not think the railwaymen would lend themselves to such silliness. I think that this motion, that contains fine words, is a jelly fish similar to the policy of the United Party: If you press it on the one side, it jumps out on the other side. No, I think the Opposition is indulging too blatantly in ardently courting the railwayman, but in that process it, too, is making a few slips.

The hon. member for Yeoville celebrated, the high productivity of the railwayman, and then he is almost in tears because that man does not obtain recognition for his productivity. The hon. member for Durban Point alleges, however, as piously as you please, as has been indicated so frequently this afternoon, that these people do one day’s “job” in three days because they need the overtime so much. The one celebrates the productivity and the other hon. member accuses the railwayman of stealing. One surely cannot go on like this and then think one will win the railwayman’s confidence. I want to leave the Opposition there for a moment. What we find characteristic of this Budget is that there are a few substantial chief characteristics that run like a thread through the whole Budget. There are three basic concepts in which one can sum this up. On the one hand there is greater efficiency in all the services as a result of effective planning; secondly, that there is greater saving and effectiveness; and thirdly that there are more realistic rates that are aimed at our gradually reaching the position where the profitable services do not always need to subsidize the uneconomic services. Therefore I briefly want to confine myself to one of those services, i.e. Harbours. We find that in the 1972-’73 financial year this particular service furnished a profit of R26,019 million. In the coming financial year a surplus of R33,083 million is being budgeted for; in other words, an increase of a little over R7 million is being budgeted for; that is also, in actual fact, the surplus for which the hon. the Minister budgeted this year. The harbour service can be measured against the chief characteristics of the Budget I have just mentioned to hon. members. Higher staff productivity in the harbour services has, for example, already made it possible for them to be able to work a Saturday-free week; this was introduced in October, 1972. But it is a Saturday-free week without productivity being relinquished and without any additional costs being involved. The staff responsible for the handling of cargo are, according to a time-table, exempted from Saturday duty. That this could be achieved also merely attests to thorough planning and proper productivity in that particular service which the Railways furnishes. What is more, the Administration is continually prepared to take a critical look at its own work procedures in order to design new methods. If more companies in the private sector were to follow that example, I believe that a higher degree of productivity could be achieved without there necessarily being an increase in costs. Thus, for example, a port operating proficiency certificate was recently designed and put into operation for every ship that loads or discharges cargo; those completed statements reflect a detailed history of the berthing of the ship—the discharging of the cargo, its loading, etc.—so that the Administration is in a position to specifically be able to determine its weaknesses and thus take positive steps for their elimination. As far as supervisory staff is concerned, there are also benefits to be detected as a result of the stricter selection that is being applied. Drastic reorganization is also being done of the harbour sheds to intensify supervision and to introduce efficient control measures. There is another problem, i.e. the clearance of cargo. We do not always have the co-operation of the private sector. The co-operation has not been as good as it could be, particularly at Table Bay harbour, with the result that there has been a large accumulation of cargo in the harbour sheds. This has resulted in the Administration being compelled to also hire a private storage depot. Goods that had not been cleared after seven days have been transferred there. It is specifically about this additional storage space that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had such a long story to tell in this House last year. However, this year the hon. member for Salt River comes along and complains about the few facilities in the harbours. The hon. member for Salt River tells us by implication that the Railways’ programme in respect of capital works is not keeping pace with the profitability of the harbours. That is a completely false argument that would have been equally logical if one had applied it in reverse, i.e. that the Administration should not engage in additional capital works on the services where losses have, in fact, been suffered. The statement that capital works do not keep pace is not correct at all. I want to concede that, as in the majority of overseas harbours, there are also, in the South African harbours, facilities that have already been in existence for many years. The fact is that our harbours are continually being equipped with the most modern equipment and facilities, for example wharf cranes, fork lifts, goods sheds, precooling sheds and other such items. In fact, the Administration has just completed a five year programme for the replacement and addition of cranes. In that programme 140 new cranes have been acquired at a capital cost of more than R7 million. Over the past ten financial years alone about R258 500 000 has been spent on harbours. This was chiefly spent on construction works on quays, floating equipment, cranes, rails, etc. This gigantic amount does not include the third phase of the construction of the outer harbour at Table Bay. Neither does it include the third and fourth phases at Durban harbour, nor the construction after the first phase at Richards Bay. In addition to the R258 million on large works, many millions of rands have also been spent on grain elevators, precooling sheds, other buildings, mechanical loading apparatus, lighthouses, other navigational aids, etc. Seen from the point of view of capital expenditure, it is surely clear that the harbours in the Republic have not lagged behind the other departmental services. On the completion of the second phase, which is now in progress, Table Bay harbour alone will offer 30% more berthing space. It will also make provision for berthing space for container traffic, one of the concerns of the hon. member for Salt River.

I now want to dwell for a moment on harbour rates, because rating is specifically one of the legs of the Opposition’s amendments. In this connection memories on the opposite side of the House are very short indeed. I remember the hon. member for Yeoville advocating a decrease in rates in 1968. Now again he is advocating just the opposite. I want to try to indicate that rates in respect of harbour services are progressively being placed on a firmer footing and that there is a narrowing of the gap between high rates and low rates. To be able to indicate this I want to tell hon. members initially that the services furnished to ships are virtually without exception furnished at a loss. Shipping services have in the past been subsidized to a large extent by the importers and exporters. They had to guarantee that by the payment of wharfage according to value. In fact, that has also been the greatest source of revenue for the department up to now. The rate adjustments that have now been made are specifically aimed at bringing shipping charges into realistic proportion to cargo charges and to move further, at the same time, along the road towards recovering full costs on each separate service. That is something the Opposition is specifically advocating, but in a different way to that which is being applied here. According to the value of import goods, wharfage has not been increased. Only that small group of primary export products which have been assessed at 40 cents per R100 pro rata according to value has been increased to 50 cents per R100 pro rata according to value. That is in reality a meagre increase. It is only an increase of 0,1% in the free alongside ship value of goods. This adjustment is in accordance with the recommendation of the Schumann Commission that there should be a narrower gap between the lower rate of 40 cents and the higher rate of 80 cents pro rata according to value on export goods.

The shipping rates on products such as maize, ore, minerals and everything loaded by mechanical equipment, have not been increased. The shipping rate for coal and anthracite has in fact been increased from 30 cents to 40 cents per 1 000 kilograms. This was done because it is the scale at which coke is being assessed at this stage. Although the charges on coal have been increased by 10,85 cents per 1 000 kilograms—this 32,5% sounds like a terrible percentage—it is merely a percentage increase of 1,3% on the value of that 1 000 kilograms of coal. The influence which the increased harbour rates will have on other export articles will percentage-wise be even much smaller because the value of those articles is naturally considerably greater than that of coal. Since wharfage has not been increased on import goods according to value, the influence which increased harbour rates will have on retail prices will be minimal. I may mention as an example a stove with a free on board value of R200, which is packed in a crate of one cubic metre for delivery per rail. There the percentage increase on the value of the stove will amount to only 0,1%. The effect these increased harbour rates will have in respect of shipping services or freightage, and consequently on retail prices, we cannot determine. I notice that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens specifically asked this question this afternoon. Over the past two years freightage increased in total, between Europe and South Africa, by 65%, whilst in the opposite direction, from South Africa to Europe, it increased by 52%. That increase took place despite the fact that harbour rates at that time were only increased by 10%. It is clear that with the adjustment of its harbour rates, the Railways tried to keep pace with exports and did not in any way hamper the stimulus there was for exporters. On the contrary, during the previous financial year, 1971-’72, the Railways made concessions to the tune of R13,4 million in respect of export rates. This R13,4 million represents the amount which is the difference between the revenue at the normal rate and that at the lower export rate. At this stage there are 170 of those export rates in operation. But these rate concessions all took place on an economic basis. Notwithstanding the difficult period through which the Railways has passed, and is still passing, it nevertheless also furnishes its contribution to the economic growth, particularly with a view to exports. The Reynders Commission found that the promotion of export trade by means of transport concessions is too important to be the exclusive responsibility of the Railways. Because this was their finding, they recommended that in cases where the export rate, which the Railways can grant in accordance with its policy, is insufficient, the relevant exporter must be placed in a position to export by way of the Department of Commerce, which must investigate the matter further with a view to possible transport concessions. It is that department which must finance the transport concessions.

A further recommendation the Reynders Commission made, is that the State should compensate the Railways for all uneconomic export rates. The Railways is at present engaged in taking the necessary steps to implement that commission’s recommendations. The most important of those recommendations is that export rates now be determined on a more scientific basis, and that the necessary calculations also be made in connection with the recovery from the State of the losses on uneconomic export rates. But, Sir, this can surely not mean that the Railways must now simply continue granting uneconomic export rates, and that State coffers must supplement the deficit. That is what hon. members opposite advocated. The Railways, as a business-orientated organization, grants export rates on very strict economic grounds. The general rule applicable here is that special export rates are granted in those cases where it can be proved that the Railways will thereby obtain additional economic traffic, which would otherwise not have been the case. This is surely only sound business technique, which we must try not to disturb. That is what the hon. member for Yeoville suggested here.

Sir, in the single minute I still have at my disposal, there is another matter I very fleetingly want to touch upon. I want to express my regret at the fact that the hon. members involved are unfortunately not present at the moment. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout delivered a tirade the other day in the Budget Debate against what he called “minor apartheid” or “official White rudeness”.

It was not a tirade; those were facts.

He had the support of the Leader of the Opposition and members on that side. It is all very well for the hon. member to come and speak in such vague, general terms about this matter. But now I want to ask: Why did the hon. member not come along today, specifically in this Budget debate, where it is of such specific importance, and advocate that separate facilities should be abolished in our public transport system? Had he done so today, and been specific, the general public would surely have had an idea of where they stood as far as this Opposition is concerned. Then the railway-men would also have known who their quasi-spokesmen are. When I spoke of the “tirade” of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for East London City also expressed his agreement and said that these are facts. May I now ask the hon. member for East London City: Would he say that separate subways at stations are petty apartheid?

Come on, Uncle Jan!

It is surely not my turn to reply.

Sir, you see, when we come to these specific matters, there are no answers forthcoming from the opposite side, nor from the hon. member for Wynberg, who is unfortunately absent and who movingly advocates this matter in private, but here drapes about her the cloak of morality.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 87.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, if adopted, will deprive a large number of persons in South Africa of what are now two public holidays. Sir, I want to suggest—and it has become clear both in the debate from the reasons offered by the hon. the Deputy Minister and also from the reaction outside of this House—that this legislation has been introduced with very inadequate investigation and with little or no consultation with the persons who are affected. It is interesting to recall that public holidays were first provided for in legislation in 1910, and any change in that legislation has been regarded as so important that no Government, from 1910 to 1973, has introduced measures to change the public holiday system in this country without having gone first of all to a Select Committee or to a commission of inquiry. I would remind you, Sir, that in 1925, when it was considered necessary to change the public holidays, a Select Committee was appointed by the then Government, and in passing I might mention that it made one very interesting recommendation. It suggested that Boxing Day should no longer be Boxing Day, but should be Labour Day. That was at the time of the pact between Labour and Nationalists. The recommendations of that Select Committee were not adopted by Parliament and no legislation was introduced. The position was left unchanged for a period of time until 1936, when there was again a Select Committee, which had lengthy deliberations, heard evidence and made certain recommendations to Parliament, and again, because it affected so many people in this country and there was not a consensus of views, the Government of the time decided not to introduce any legislation. Then, Sir, we come to 1950 when the matter was regarded as sufficiently important by this Government, the Nationalist Government, to appoint a commission of inquiry into the question of public holidays and any adjustments or changes that might be necessary. Sir, its terms of reference were most interesting. The terms of reference of that commission were to investigate and report on the desirability of amending the Public Holidays Act, No. 3 of 1910, with a view to obtaining a more suitable and better arranged calendar of public holidays, and on the desirability of bringing some of the recommended public holidays under the provisions of the legislation in regard to Sabbath days. That commission reported and its recommendations were adopted and enshrined in legislation passed by this House. The only changes which have since taken place have been the necessary changes in name from Union Day to Republic Day and from King’s Birthday to Family Day in 1961.

This commission also stated in its findings—and I believe this is a matter which has been overlooked by the Government in proceeding with this legislation—that holidays are threefold in character. There are religious holidays, there are holidays of historical or cultural significance and there are ordinary days for relaxation and pleasure. Now what has the hon. the Deputy Minister offered us during the course of this debate to justify the cancellation of two of the public holidays in this country? He says first of all we have too many holidays. Secondly he says that most holidays are unpaid in many businesses and industries, and thirdly he says that if payment is made it is made on an overtime basis. He says that doing away with holidays will save a considerable amount of wages. Sir, where is there any indication in the motivation of the Deputy Minister that there is any consideration for the persons who benefit from these public holidays? The importance of having a proper investigation is exemplified by this commission of 1950. It heard no less than 44 witnesses covering the whole spectrum of South African life. They represented bodies such as the provincial administrations, the Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings, various churches, the Kultuurraad, the Vrouefederasie and so on, right through to the Federated Hotel Association and directors of education. These persons were all consulted before there was a proposed tampering with the existing public holidays. But the hon. the Deputy Minister has consulted nobody. There was a suggestion here that nobody was really affected by these particular holidays because most of them were unpaid. But that is quite in correct. According to the figures I have been able to obtain in the short time since this Bill has been before the House—and it was tabled only a week ago—it has become evident that no fewer than 250 000 workers in two trade unions alone are going to be affected by this Bill. The Deputy Minister has approached this in the typical way, that the Government will tell the country what is good for it; there are too many holidays and they must just take it.

Tell us which trade unions.

We will come to the trade unions. Sir, I have here a telegram which I received from the secretary of the Tobacco Workers’ Union saying that Family Day and Van Riebeeck Day are paid public holidays in terms of the Industrial Council agreements applying to the tobacco industry and they must protest most strongly at these two days being taken away from the tobacco workers by the Government. Now, that is one trade union. There are many others. There is the general secretary of the National Union of Distributive Workers who on the day the Bill came before this House made a public statement to the effect that they were totally opposed to the removal of these two public holidays. The leader of the Garment Workers’ Union said that his union also was opposed to the taking away of these two holidays, although in the case of the garment workers only the one public holiday is a paid holiday, namely Family Day; Van Riebeeck Day is not a paid holiday. So it goes on. Then there is Mr. Alpin who is the chairman of the Parliamentary Trade Union Sub-Committee, who said that 250 000 workers in his union would be affected by this Bill. The hon. member asked me who was affected. Those I have mentioned have just come to light between last Friday and today. And I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister must have received a few communications since last Friday. Perhaps he will be able to tell us. If not, it would indicate that the trade unions apparently feel that there is no point in making representations to this Government. It would be most extraordinary if he has not had representations.

He does not have their confidence.

These persons who are going to be deprived are not amongst the affluent society of South Africa. One thinks of all the thousands upon thousands of office workers who are paid. Every office clerk is affected because he will have to work on this day and not have it as a paid holiday. These people will want compensation, and it will be by way of increased wages and adjustments.

I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members opposite are overlooking the changed circumstances in which one determines holidays. I want to mention one or two of these changed circumstances of today. One need only look around to see in all the metropolitan areas the vast distances that have to be travelled by our working classes to and from their places of occupation. They leave home in the dark, many of them, and they return home in the dark day after day. What do these people have of the company of their young families during the normal working days when they are busy earning a living? Sir, I know of members of this House who have young children and who find that they see very little of them after working hours, when they sit in this House until 7 p.m. and then go home. They have very little time to spend with their children, but think of this being multiplied at both ends of the day for so many of our workers. I believe it is wrong and unfortunate that there should be a suggestion that these people should be deprived of these two days. These two days were not lightly brought into the calendar as holidays; they were brought in by this commission. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to wipe them off the slate without any consultation whatsoever with a large number of people who will be affected. [Interjections.] I do not know why he could not consult. When I heard that the hon. the Deputy Minister said that we should look to productivity, I was reminded of a debate we had in this House on a motion by the hon. member for Kensington, who suggested that Parliament should sit longer hours. The hon. the Leader of the House then took up the view that extra hours in Parliament would not, in fact, mean extra work and that we could do more work in less time. It appears to me that a different test is applied when it comes to the question which we have been debating for a few days, because now the hon. the Deputy Minister suggests that these two days are going to make such an enormous impact on productivity in South Africa.

I want to say that we shall continue to oppose this measure. We have opposed it before and we continue to oppose it today. This measure has been brought without prior consultation. I want to say, with respect, that I do not think this House is fully aware of the impact of this legislation on the salaried man and the wage earner in South Africa and their reactions. We are not aware of that. There has been no investigation of the kind which was considered necessary in the parliamentary history of this country. In the second place I believe that this measure is an arbitrary step which is being taken and which will certainly not achieve anything of the nature which the hon. the Deputy Minister suggested this Bill would achieve.

I can only say that there are going to be many side effects to this legislation. It may seem very little to some hon. members that a man has two days a year on which if he works he may find himself able to earn a considerable amount of overtime in relation to his own income. To deprive him of that is going to place an unnecessary burden upon the lower-income people of this country. For those reasons we oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as far as this side of the House is concerned, we have no doubts about the effect which we would like this legislation to have on our society. We want to see greater diligence and greater productivity among all our people. The necessity for this has already been indicated very clearly at this stage. However, it is very necessary for it to be repeatedly pointed out that all of us should have a far more responsible attitude in respect of all holidays, whether they be religious holidays or national holidays. Each member of the public—we are also included in that—must perceive the deeper significance of our religious holidays and also the deeper significance of our national holidays. We must appreciate their real import and display the necessary piety, the necessary gratitude and sense of responsibility towards them. Holidays in general should not cause the general public, nor us in this House, to think that the days which precede and follow them are to be wasted in sloth and idleness. As the old people used to say: “Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do.” No one must doubt that the basis and the premise of this legislation is that we want harder work and that we want to see a greater productive contribution in all spheres of our society. We would like to create a spirit and a climate in South Africa in which the motto “Labour ennobles” will have a place of honour not only in our family life, but also in our offices, our schools, in our workshops and everywhere where work should be done. We have almost a million White pupils in South Africa, almost 60 000 White teachers, 80 000 students and between 5 000 and 6 000 lecturers. These people will be affected by this to a lesser extent because both holidays already fall within holiday periods, but it is essential that these people, who in a certain sense have more holidays than other people, should also use those days for research and activities concerning preparation for their later life. The world in which we are living today is a world which has a tremendous number of questions and problems. It is essential for us all to prepare ourselves and to deal with those problems more meaningfully. It is very important, and in fact very interesting, to look at the entry in Jan van Riebeeck’s Diary on 6th April, 1654. Van Riebeeck said there that this day should be commemorated as a day of foundation and that the necessary gratitude should be displayed towards the authorities on the one hand and towards God Almighty on the other who had protected them in those days. If we look at the activities of the rest of that day, we shall note that at that time the people also continued with their normal activities. They sailed to Robben Island; they even made preparations for sailing to Saldanha Bay, and disposed of various other matters. It is also interesting to note that no real, substantial criticism has been levelled at this legislation, apart from the fact that there are people in our society, particularly among our cultural leaders, who object to the fact that we are going to celebrate Van Riebeeck Day in a manner different to the manner in which we have been celebrating it since 1952. It is essential for us to inform these people that we in the National Party, who are really the people who restored Van Riebeeck Day to its place of honour, who placed great emphasis on Van Riebeeck Day, do not have less piety in respect of this day; that we do not have less feeling for the significance which 6th April holds for us; that we do not have less respect for it, and that we do not wish to deprive Van Riebeeck Day of any of its dignity and value. We do not care less for it, and for the same reason that we established Van Riebeeck Day at that time, we still wish to maintain it now.

Hear, hear!

We want to say that perhaps by this means we want to render a greater service to our fatherland and do more for the promotion of our ideals and the solution of our problems in that we want to see greater diligence and productivity among our people on the very day on which our nation was founded.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I would like to make an appeal to our cultural leaders, to our schools and universities and to people who feel as I do about Van Riebeeck Day—I can tell hon. members of the Opposition that I have reason for feeling about it the way I do because my forefathers came here in 1652 and therefore played a part in this—to celebrate and commemorate Van Riebeeck Day now in the same way, and not as we have done over the past 20 years, but with greater clarity, insight and piety. I want to express the hope that we shall perform our usual activities, but that we shall commemorate Van Riebeeck Day either early in the morning, or in the course of the day, or even in the evening. By placing this Bill on our Statute Book, we want to make it very clear that we shall still maintain and develop Van Riebeeck Day with everything that it means to our people. We on this side of the House, as the National Party, will contribute our full share to that.

Mr. Speaker, I think we must get our perspective straight as far as this matter is concerned. I want to start off by making an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to deal so lightly and so heartlessly with the rights of the ordinary man in the street. The last time this matter of public holidays was discussed, was two years after the Nationalist Party had come into power. Because they had a different view of matters and because they probably attached more value to certain days than did other people, they felt that some changes should be made. The old Nationalist Party Government of Dr. Malan did not act in the way the Deputy Minister is acting. It appointed two Select Committees which submitted reports. Because, it was still not satisfied that the people had been properly consulted, it appointed a commission. It was a strong commission comprising a man such as Dr. Pellissier, a man to be honoured by all of us who know something about the history of the cultural movements and other matters in South Africa, and men such as Mr. William Alfred Campbell, Dr. Ebenhaezer Greyling, the hon. Charles Lowe Henderson, Col Anthony Yorke St. Leger, Prof. Hendrik Bernardus Thom, who later became principal of the University of Stellenbosch, and Prof. Johannes Cornelis van Rooy, whom many hon. members will know. These men met to hear evidence and it amazes one, when one refreshes one’s memory by looking at this report, to see how representative they were of all the population groups and interest groups in South Africa. I mention but a few of the witnesses because the list of witnesses runs into many pages. Look at the witnesses who were called before decisions were taken: Mr. Hart, legal adviser to the Transvaal Provincial Administration (by request); the Anglican Church; the South African Academy for Science and Art; the “Federation of Afrikaans Cultural Organizations”; the “Nederduitse Hervormde” or “Gerefor-meerde Kerk van Transvaal”; the “Kultuur-raad van Pretoria”; Prof. A. N. Pelzer, in his capacity as historian; the “Gerefor-meerde Kerk van Transvaal”; the “Afdelingsbestuur van die Herenigde Nasionale Party van Transvaal; the “Suid-Afrikaanse Vroue Federasie”; the “Hervormde Kerk”, Pretoria; the “A.T.K.V.” of the South Africcan Railways and Harbours. In addition there was the Provincial Administration of the O.F.S.; the “O.V.S. Onderwysers Vereniging”; the “Oranje Vroue Vereniging”; two gentlemen as legal advisers of the O.F.S. Provincial Administration; the “Helpmekaar van die O.V.S.”; the “Ge-reformeerde Gemeente”, Bloemfontein; Prof. Britz in his capacity as Director of Education in the O.F.S.; Archdeacon Vincent of the Anglican Church, Bloemfontein; the “Bloemfontein Skakelkomitee”; the “Ned. Geref. Kerk in the O.V.S.”; and Prof. C. J. Uys in his personal capacity. Apart from that there are two more pages of witnesses which I shall not quote in full, but they are all people of the same calibre who are representative and who hold authority. They made recommendations, and as a result of their recommendations we have our present register of holidays. Now this young Deputy Minister comes along on his own initiative and without consulting anybody of real standing in South Africa, and without ascertaining what the opinions are of the people whose opinions influenced the decisions of the 1950 commission, he simply takes away these people’s holidays. These are two important holidays. During the Second Reading, when we said it was an injustice to the workers of South Africa, various members …

Which workers?

Like the member has said just now. I am glad he asked that …

That “honourable” member …

Yes, of course. Did I omit “honourable”? My goodness, how could I make a mistake like that? I am glad that hon. member interjected because I do not have to repeat the Second Reading debate now since he is giving me the opportunity. The hon. member for Green Point mentioned the tobacco workers and the workers in the clothing industry and the shop workers. Not only do they lose a holiday, but they also lose the opportunity to earn money. It is an economic injustice which is being inflicted on them. I asked the Minister—and he has not yet replied—whether the State is going to assume responsibility for the money these people are going to lose, money these people need to live? [Interjection.] The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark feels like making a speech. Let him reply to this telegram. Hon. members ask: “Which workers?” Let me now read the following: The following is the text of a telegram dispatched today to the Minister of the Interior: “The S.A. Society of Bank Officials …” After all, that includes Volkskas, not so, and Trust Bank? [Interjections.] I read further: “… a registered trade union representing some 18 000 bank employees strongly protested the proposed legislation to abolish two public holidays and the undue haste with which this matter is apparently being steamrolled through Parliament without any prior consultation with the trade union movement who represent the workers vitally affected. At the very least we consider that the matter should be referred to a Parliamentary Select Committee before the Second Reading.” Here we have one group of workers after the other complaining and protesting. This Bill was submitted to Parliament last Tuesday and Just look at the reaction we have even at this early stage. And the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite happy and satisfied. It does not matter if those people lose their holidays; it makes no difference to him if they lose the money they earned by working on those holidays. I do not want to delay the Third Reading, and I know the hon. the Deputy Minister is a fair person. I therefore want to make an appeal to him: Give the people who are affected the opportunity—in the spirit of the Malan Government of 1950—of submitting their case to Parliament. It is too late to do so in this House, but there is nothing to prevent the Deputy Minister, when he goes to the Other Place, from moving that a Select Committee from the Other Place hear evidence and ascertain the extent of the injustice he would be perpetrating. Parliament does not want to do anybody an injustice. You taught us, Mr. Speaker, that our Parliament is one of the best in the world, and this Parliament would be the last to want to do the people an injustice. Give the people an opportunity to discuss the matter with their representatives in the Other Place. That is a reasonable request, and I can already see the hon. the Deputy Minister writing a big “yes” in his notebook.

Mr. Speaker, I am immensely grateful for the telegram which the hon. member for Yeoville quoted here, because it indicates the discrimination which exists between worker and worker in South Africa. It indicates very clearly that a certain category of workers—and I am referring to the bank clerks now; the hon. member for Green Point referred to the office workers and the clothing workers—receive a normal day’s salary or wage on that day.

The tobacco workers.

The hon. member says the tobacco workers, but I shall mention many workers to him who did not receive this and who, as a result of the passing of this legislation, will now no longer be discriminated against. There are a great number of citizens in this country who have always felt that they are being regarded as second-class citizens because they do not enjoy the same privileges as the other workers in this country as far as public holidays are concerned.

Go ahead and abolish all the public holidays then.

We shall come to that. The hon. member need not be hasty now. I say I am grateful that that telegram arrived. The hon. member for Green Point has just referred to the financial effect which it will have on the workers. The people who now have to work, will not lose a cent. All that will happen, is that they will work on that day. There I agree whole-heartedly with the Deputy Minister. After all, productivity must be increased if those few thousand—or, as the hon. member wants to suggest, 250 000—people now have to work, whereas they did not work on these days in the past.

Now I want to come to the discrimination perpetrated against those hundreds of thousands of workers. Those workers who feel that in doing away with the two days that point of friction will now be eliminated. I should like to refer to the industrial agreement in Government Notice No. R. 1432 which is applicable to the iron, steel, engineering and metallurgical industries. Now I want to tell you what trade unions are concerned here. They negotiated for this. They are the following trade unions:

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the arguments which have been advanced here. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments of hon. members opposite. I believe that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has given an adequate reply to those arguments. Sir, I concede that what the hon. member for Yeoville said, namely that there may be a number of workers who enjoyed the benefit of a paid holiday, is correct, but if one weighs the benefit enjoyed by those people, firstly, against the interests of the other workers who do not enjoy that benefit, and secondly, against the interests of the country, which needs the production which is lost on these holidays, then one cannot accede to the request made by the Opposition. Sir, I just want to correct one thing. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District stated here on Thursday that I had allegedly received a telegram from a certain Arthur Grobler. At that stage I said that I had not received any telegram. Sir, I have now received such a telegram; I received it on the 12th, that is, yesterday. This telegram was sent on Friday the 9th, at 4.46 p.m., in other words after the question had been put to me whether I had received such a telegram. The telegram was only sent subsequently, and just to ensure that no member of the Opposition digs up this telegram at a later stage and tries to make political capital out of it, I just want to make it clear that I only received the telegram yesterday, and therefore the answer which I supplied when the question was put to me, was completely correct. Sir, I have of course received other telegrams as well. I have received telegrams from many people, but not one of the cultural bodies have complained about the fact that we are abolishing Van Riebeeck Day, for example, as a holiday. All of them asked what is now going to happen in regard to the festivities on that day. Our viewpoint—and this has satisfied these people now—is that our nation was founded here in South Africa on 6th April and it behoves us to work for our continued existence, propagation and national destiny. [Laughter.]

Order!

I also have a telegram here which reads as follows (translation)—

The women of South Africa want to bear the torch onwards for us. The women of South Africa again have to show the United Party that it is by means of work and work alone that South Africa can be saved. Sir, I have also received congratulatory telegrams from other people. I do not have that long telegram which was received by the hon. member for Yeoville either; it was not sent to me.

It is a waste of time to send such a telegram to you.

No, it is not a waste of time. I consider all representations; I even considered the hon. member’s ridiculous arguments and had to reject them. I had no choice. It is necessary for us to work on these two days. We have no other choice. We shall have to improve our production in order to put South Africa on a sound economic footing again.

If you are such a great patriot, why do you not abolish all holidays? [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. member for Hillbrow is not patriotic enough to put South Africa first. He simply has it in for the National Party Government and he will do anything to injure the National Party Government, but he will do nothing positive to build up South Africa, and that is what is required now.

Question put and the House divided:

AYES—85: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; (Brakpan) Le Roux, F. J.; (Hercules) Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Otto, J. G; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—40: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.;. Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to keep the House very long on this measure. The position is, as was pointed out the other day, that the Bill makes provision for the Minister’s protective arm to be thrown around the sea birds and seals on islands which are listed in the schedule and on islands generally. That covers all the islands, whether they are named or not. In the main I think one may say that the protection they require and that it is anticipated they will require in terms of the Bill, is protection from poachers, egg-gatherers and folk of that ilk, including people who are just trigger-happy who go out in boats and, when they see sea birds or seals on an island, have pot-shots at them. As I pointed out the other day. I think that there may be a need to have another look at this Bill because it seems to me that it only deals with the ability of a law-enforcement officer to apprehend a wrongdoer on an island itself. I think that that is the case. So, if there are some trigger-happy folk out in a speedboat who, when going past an island where there are seals or a number of sea birds, take a few pot-shots at the birds and seals as they go by, they cannot be dealt with in terms of this Bill. I mentioned this the other day but as the hon. the Minister is back in his seat now, I refer to it again.

I would like to deal with another matter here at the same time which is probably the biggest threat of all to the seals and sea birds, namely the danger of these creatures being what is today called “oiled up”, or covered with oil, as a result of oil spillage somewhere in the vicinity. This is becoming a very great menace to the whole of our marine biology along the whole of our coastline. These seals and sea birds, as I have pointed out, are a source of quite considerable revenue. They provide us with an annual harvest and, apart from conservation, they deserve protection merely on the grounds of their economic importance to us in South Africa. This question, as well as the position of malefactors who are not actually on an island, is not dealt with in this Bill, but perhaps the Government will have a look at it again from the point of view of being able to deal with such an eventuality in order to protect these creatures from oil spills and the difficulties that may arise therefrom.

We are supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the previous speaker by congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister on the introduction of his first Bill in this House, and I want to trust that his boat will have a very safe voyage in future. It is also my privilege to support this Bill. It is a Bill dealing with two very important components of our marine biology, viz. the sea birds and their products and seals and their products. But what I should like to add as an equally important third point, is the effect of these two components on the most important product of the ocean, viz. our fish resources. If we think of past problems, if we think of the drastic measures which had to be applied to protect our fish sources against over-exploitation, if we think of the impossible situation which existed and the fact that it was practically impossible to obtain permission for the further exploitation of seals, for example, this consolidating legislation is a definite ray of light. Whereas the control is now being assigned to the hon. the Minister, I should like to take this opportunity to bring a few matters to his attention.

In the first place I should like to refer to sea birds and their products, guano. It is interesting to note that before the large-scale production of our modern fertilizers, there was a great demand for natural fertilizing material. For that reason guano was much sought after in former years. During the eighteenth century guano was accordingly known as “stink-gold”, especially because of the big profits which could be made on it in countries such as those of Europe. Round about the year 1845 the rich guano resources, the islands on our west coast, were discovered, and they were exposed to uncontrolled exploitation by each and everyone who could reach those islands. For instance, at one stage no fewer than 450 ships lay at anchor at the island of Ichaboe—one of the islands listed in Schedule I—and no fewer than 6 000 people found themselves on that small island with an area of approximately 6 ha. Within a period of approximately two years roughly 300 000 tons of guano were removed from that one single island, but all these activities resulted in the sea birds moving off and, with them, the people as well. No control could be exercised since those islands did not fall within the jurisdiction of the then Cape Colony.

During the year 1866 the Colonial Government took possession of the islands as dependent parts of the Cape Colony and the Colonial Government leased these islands to private organizations which produced the guano there for their own gain. As the then Government realized that guano was a very important product, they also realized that control measures had to be introduced. Control measures were in fact introduced, and on 1st July, 1898, the gathering of guano became a Government undertaking, which it still is today.

I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that approximately 4 000 tons of guano are produced annually. Of this the State produces approximately 2 500 tons and private organizations 1 500 tons. In contrast to this production of 4 000 tons of guano, approximately 2 million tons of fertilizer are produced annually. The production cost of guano amounts to approximately R76 per ton and is sold to farmers at R52 per ton. Farmers who buy guano at these already subsidized prices, are entitled to a further Government subsidy as well. It should also be noted that this guano is used by only about 0,5% of all farmers. The annual loss incurred on the exploitation of guano amounts to approximately R152 000. I want to suggest in all courtesy that the hon. the Minister should investigate the possibility of transferring the gathering of guano on these islands to private undertakings so that the burden on the Department of Sea Fisheries, under which this matter falls at present, may be lightened. I believe that it can be done quite easily on a basis of tenders.

Concerning South-West Africa, the position is somewhat different in that part of the guano is already being gathered there by private undertakings. I am referring in particular to the guano at Walvis Bay and Swakopmund. However, the position is that the guano platforms in South-West Africa fall under the Mines, Works and Minerals Ordinance, No. 20 of 1968, of South-West Africa. At the time of the readjustment the Administration’s rights were transferred to the Department of Mines. The Department of Mines is therefore exercising control over these guano platforms at present, and licence holders who obtain permission from the Department of Mines for exploiting salt or other minerals there, are creating artificial lakes and building platforms on which guano is produced. This action has given rise to these birds being provided with additional breeding places where they can multiply in an undisturbed and unnatural manner. Although I have no wish whatsoever to interfere with these private concerns and although I am by no means pleading for the deprivation of those particular rights, I nevertheless want to express the opinion that it is of great importance that we should guard against any further extension of platforms on the islands.

This absolutely protected environment for the birds is unnatural and leads to a rapid increase of their numbers. In former years one found hundreds and thousands of birds on the beach in the evening and then there were also dozens of foxes hunting the birds. Today one finds almost no foxes there because the birds have protected places where they can sleep. I therefore find it a pity that clause 16 of the Bill excludes these very platforms. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to review this matter again. I think it is necessary that the Minister should also obtain control of these guano platforms.

Next I want to refer to the seals and seal products. It is gladdening to see that the Minister is now being authorized to control and protect seals effectively. The exploitation of this natural resource with which we are provided by the seals, is at present being undertaken partly by the Government and partly by private enterprise and is mainly aimed at the production of pelts. Both the national and the international societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals often make representations in regard to the over-exploitation of seals, as they call it, as well as the methods by which reals are killed. This department used to fall under the Superintendent of State Guano Islands, who is now known as the Assistant Director of Sea Fisheries. I want to assure the House that sufficient control is exercised over the methods by which the seals are killed, viz. the killing by clubbing of the cubs and the shooting of bulls. It has been ascertained that these methods are the most effective ones. I also want to point out that adequate arrangements have been made for the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals to visit those islands at any time and to acquaint themselves with the methods used there. From time to time we have also received objections from the Nature Conservation and Tourism Division of the South-West Africa Administration, which regards this seal colony mainly as a tourist attraction. I should like to assure the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and this division of the South-West Africa Administration that it goes without saying that we, too, do not take the view that the seals should be exterminated completely. We are not pleading for over-exploitation, but we believe that over-population is just as detrimental. At present approximately 80 000 cubs are clubbed and approximately 5 000 bulls are shot every year. If one bears in mind that the seals number about one million, this is but a drop in the ocean …

Are you referring to South-West only or to both?

I am referring to the seal population along our coastline of approximately 3 000 kilometres. It is only a drop in the ocean and represents 8% of the total seal population. Even with a full-scale onslaught over-exploitation would be practically impossible, especially for the following reasons: In the first place, the seals are found over a distance of 3 000 kilometres along our coastline, from Port Elizabeth to the mouth of the Kunene. Large parts of this coastline are inhospitable, such as the Coast of Death, the diamond area and, off the coast of South-West Africa, the area controlled by C.D.M., where the seals enjoy total protection. In the third place, under Proclamation No. 58 of 1936 of the Republic of South Africa, cubs may only be clubbed between 16th April and 14th October and in South-West Africa only from 1st July to 15th October every year. Concessions are granted on an annual basis, although the Executive Committee of South-West Africa decided in 1968 to grant concessions for the clubbing of seals there on a basis of 25 years. I also wish to point out that small cubs are born in November of every year over a period of up to two weeks and that they all stay on land. Before the end of June these cubs are still too small and not all of them have completed their first moulting period by that time. Their pelts are therefore small, uneconomic and not suitable for commercial marketing. By the middle of October all the cubs are, however, ready to brave the ocean for the first time in search for food, and then they are quick and it is very difficult to corner and club them. Very few of them are then found in the colonies because, as I have said, they are all in the ocean, enjoying the pleasure of searching for their own food for the first time.

I mention these facts to point out to hon. members that the prescribed hunting season serves no purpose. Therefore I am thankful that this Bill gives the Minister the power to abolish or change these periods. November is pre-eminently the best time to shoot seal bulls. November is the mating season and then they all converge on the colonies in large numbers for that purpose. But this falls within the closed season, and therefore I am thankful once again that this will come to an end and that it will then be possible to exploit these seals more effectively.

The State Guano Islands Division which is also responsible for the exploitation of guano, as has been mentioned earlier on, handles the exploitation of seals as a subdivision of the Sea Fisheries Division. Although this division for the capture of seals shows a profit of approximately R65 000 per year, I would also suggest in all courtesy that it be considered to turn over this division to private enterprise as well. This will enable the Sea Fisheries Division to use their three boats, their other equipment and their able and experienced staff for the implementation of essential control measures and for research with regard to sea birds and seals.

In the third place, I should like to call attention to the effect of these two components on our fish resources. It is estimated that there are between 700 000 and 1 000 000 birds. For the purposes of my argument I want to accept that there are only 800 000 birds and point out that a bird eats approximately 2 kg of fish per day. If we accept that a bird only eats on 200 days per year, these birds, collectively eat 320 000 tons of fish.

The seal population numbers approximately 1 million, and a seal eats roughly 5 kilograms of fish per day. If a seal should also eat on only 200 days per year—during the mating season and certain other periods they do not eat at all—it means in any case that these seals consume one million tons of fish per year. Admittedly, these fish are not all of the pelagic kind. Not all the fish are edible either, but if we were to accept that only 50% of these fish are of the pelagic species, the seals are nevertheless responsible for the catching of an additional 500 000 tons of fish. The total therefore amounts to 820 000 tons of fish. In 1972 the factories in South-West Africa alone caught, according to their quota, 578 000 tons of fish, much less than the seals did. This, i.e. the 578 000 tons of fish, brought them a revenue of between R40 million and R50 million.

The seal population is immense. The hon. member for South Coast mentioned that they followed boats. They get into the nets. They react to the drone of the boats. When a boat switches off its engines to lower the nets, they literally swarm around that boat in their hundreds. Then the fishermen have to use certain methods to drive those seals away. One of the methods is to shoot into the nets. For that purpose small bore rifles are used, such as, 22s. Ammunition for those rifles are available at R150 per 100. I am aware that the Sea Fisheries Division, is experimenting with small bombs, crackers, or call them what you will, to drive these seals away. I do not know what the cost involved or how successful it will be, but what worries me at this stage, Sir, is that clause 3 prohibits the disturbance, pursuit or shooting of seals. It is imperative that these people who are responsible for catching fish, should not be hampered in the execution of their job.

This legislation also grants the Minister the power to issue a permit; but that permit may also be subject to many restrictions. In all courtesy I want to make this plea to the hon. the Minister on behalf of the fishermen, that he will consider inserting a clause to the effect that this provision will not apply in respect of fishing boats when they are catching fish in the usual manner which we all know. I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to use the powers now being granted to him, for saving our fish resources from over-exploitation. Pelts are in great demand and are sold at R10 each. Full-grown seals may be used. I also want to plead for more research on the utilization of these full-grown seals, possibly also as food for human consumption. But we cannot allow fish worth R50 million and more to be consumed by these beasts and birds of prey. The attack launched on these pelagic species of fish by the birds of prey the onslaught on these pelagic fish species by the beasts of prey in the ocean and by mankind is tremendous, and it is only right that man should launch as great an onslaught on these beasts of prey, otherwise one would upset the balance of nature. I trust the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to assist us in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Bill as well, of course. I am sure everyone in the House welcomes this Bill. It is welcomed for various reasons, including the occurrence of some of the calamities which came to pass in this respect through the hon. the Minister’s department. The hon. member for South Coast raised a very important matter when he spoke this afternoon.