Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

I have to announce that I have exercised the discretion conferred upon me by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in 1878 Gladstone made a speech in which he described a political opponent as follows—

I think I can very aptly apply that to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville on Monday. I think the hon. member found it rather difficult to speak for the full hour to which he was entitled. He certainly did not speak with the conviction, nor with his usual fire and enthusiasm, which we have come to expect from him. As a matter of fact, one could see that the hon. member’s heart was not in it. Well, Sir, we can hardly blame him for that. After all, he has gone through very deep waters during the past months, and I think he has hardly recovered. Now I am quite sincere when I say that he was treated rather shabbily by his party in the Transvaal. He was manoeuvred out of the leadership and I have been told the hon. member for Bezuidenhout played a not insignificant role in that exercise. Then, Sir, there were internal troubles in his party. A vicious campaign was launched by certain newspapers against him and especially against his leader. Then, Sir, there were the Nusas troubles where the whole English Press came down on top of him. It culminated in the experience the hon. member had with student hooligans on the Wits campus on Friday last. I am surprised that he still did as well as he did, but I must say that what the hon. member took an hour to say, he could have said more effectively in a quarter of an hour.

The hon. member devoted the largest part of his speech to a plea for the introduction of a pensionable cost-of-living allowance. He suggested that it should be periodically adjusted. What would the results of this be? First of all, I would be unable to make any correct estimate of expenses; of course, you can never correctly estimate your expenses for the year ahead. I think that Mr. Sturrock and Mr. Sauer found that too when there was a cost-of-living allowance in operation while they were Ministers. In those days the rise in the cost of living was very much lower than it is today.

Hear, hear!

If that suggestion were adopted, that the cost-of-living allowance should be adjusted periodically, it would obviously mean that rates and tariffs would also have to be adjusted, say, every quarter, because the money would have to be found for that additional expenditure. That, of course, would create a shambles in our economy. Hon. members know that wages have never caught up with prices. Every quarter there would be an adjustment of prices. The experience last year showed us that after the increase in wages was announced certain traders immediately increased their prices in December, in spite of the fact that the increase in wages only came into operation in January. Then, too, there would be continual adjustments of pension contributions. And one thing I do know, Sir, is that the staff of the Railways do not want allowances, whether pensionable or not. They want adjustments in basic wages for the simple reason that overtime and Sunday-time is calculated on basic wages and not on allowances. They have always regarded allowances as a temporary concession which can be removed or reduced at any time. For these reasons, amongst others, the hon. member’s suggestion is quite unacceptable. The hon. member for Yeoville gave a history of my negotiations with the staff organizations last year. He was more or less correct. But there were certain omissions, of course.

I only had an hour.

Does the hon. member require a whole day to give the history?

To deal with your delay in meeting the just requirements of the staff.

Did the hon. member require a whole day to do that?

Yes.

Well, Sir, he will have another opportunity of dealing with that in the Committee Stage of this Bill. But, as I say, more or less he gave a correct history of the negotiations, although there were certain omissions. I did negotiate, but I negotiated with all the staff associations, not only with the Artisans’ Staff association and the Federal Consultative Committee, and those negotiations commenced in April of last year already. I did say that they had a very good case. There had been a rise in the cost of living and I thought they were entitled to an increase in wages, but I asked them to exercise some patience until such time as the anticipated growth rate in our economy had become established. I did say that the increase in wages coupled with a substantial increase in rates and tariffs, at that stage, would be fatal for the anticipated growth, and I still believe that. All the staff associations, except the Artisans’ Staff Association, were prepared to wait. The Artisans’ Staff Association were pressed by their members, although the executive was quite sympathetic, and declared a dispute resulting in the appointment of the Hiemstra Commission. The wages and rates and tariffs were increased from the 1st January of this year and, Sir, it is an indisputable fact that this increase in rates and tariffs did push up the cost structure, and the cost of living was increased, as I had predicted. I also predicted that very soon the benefits that they would derive from the increase in wages would be dissipated.

Sir, the second part of the amendment asks for the Rates Equalization Fund to be replenished. I fully agree with that, but the hon. member must realize that the Rates Equalization Fund can only be replenished out of surpluses, and if there are no surpluses, there cannot be any replenishment of the Rates Equalization Fund. The hon. member can rest quite assured that if there is any surplus, this fund will be replenished, because I regard this as the most important fund; in other words, I regard it as an assurance for both the public and the staff when we go through bad economic times.

The third part of the amendment stated that the rating policy must be revised to eliminate the loss on the transport of certain commodities. With the recent increase in rates and tariffs, an attempt was made to implement the Schumann Commission’s recommendation, namely to narrow the gap between the tariffs on low- and high-rated traffic. There was an average increase of 20%, but the tariffs on the low-rated goods were increased by a much higher percentage than the tariffs on the high-rated goods, and I might say, Sir, that this was welcomed by commerce and industry. Sir, I want to say that hon. members opposite press every year for the implementation of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission, and now they complain about the hardships caused to certain railway users when I make an attempt, as I did, to implement the Schumann Commission’s recommendation by narrowing the gap between low and, high-rated tariffs.

The important part of his amendment is contained in the fourth leg, namely that the Consolidated Revenue Fund should be responsible for all losses on goods transported below cost. That, apparently, would be the panacea for all the financial ills of the Railways. It would, of course, place the Minister of Transport in a wonderful position. It means that I would be able to show a surplus year after year. I would have sufficient money for replenishing the Rates Equalization Fund, for granting increases in wages and all the rest of it. But, Sir, would that really be in the interests of the country? I must also say that this is really no original suggestion. The hon. the member’s predecessor, Mr. Hamilton Russell, made this suggestion 15 years ago. But I want to point out that this principle is enshrined in section 106 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, which reads as follows—

I say that that principle is enshrined in section 106 and that it has been accepted by the Government. That is why the passenger services which have been provided on instructions from the Cabinet to and from the resettlement Bantu areas and Indian areas are subsidized by Consolidated Revenue Fund. As a matter of fact, in the current financial year the Consolidated Revenue Fund has to pay over R20 million to the Railways for losses on those services. In Mr. Sturrock’s time of course the Railways were also used to subsidize the farmers. For instance, drought-stricken stock and fodder for drought-stricken areas, manure, fertilizer and lime, etc., were subsidized, but Mr. Sturrock was a weak Minister of Transport and could not stand up to Mr. Hofmeyr. Consequently the Railways were used to subsidize the farmers, but all that has been changed. That burden is now being carried by the Consolidated Revenue Fund. And even in addition to that, losses on export rates and subsidization of rates on goods from the Eastern Province, are the responsibility of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In other words, the Government has already accepted the responsibility of subsidizing certain uneconomic rates where the Government is responsible for the introduction of those services. But the hon. member wants to go further. He wants 70% of all goods transported to be subsidized. I think, Sir, I must give the hon. members opposite an elementary lesson in ratemaking, a principle which is not peculiar to the S.A. Railways but is applicable to all railway systems in all countries. There are two basic principles which must be observed in rate-making. One is the cost of transport and the second what the traffic can bear. These basic principles cannot be taken separately but must be taken in conjunction with each other. Every railway organization, even the railroads in the United States of America, transport certain goods at below cost, and the reason for that is very simple. It brings in revenue, it utilizes equipment and it employs workers who otherwise would be idle. It is an integral part of any general railway operation. Every railway organization in the world uses rates on certain commodities to subsidize a loss on the transport of other commodities. And so with our own organization. The harbours make a profit. The pipelines make a profit. I may say in passing that even if that oil and petrol were conveyed by rail there would still be a considerably profit on it. The only difference is that the cost of transport is now very much lower. But the profit made on the high tariff goods are used to subsidize losses on the low tariff goods. As I say, that is general throughout the world. It is an accepted principle by all railway organizations and it is not peculiar to the S.A. Railways alone. In other words, Sir, what you lose on the roundabout you make up on the swings. But apart from this fact, if the suggestion of the hon. member is accepted, namely that the Consolidated Revenue Fund must be responsible for all losses on the transport of low-rated goods, it will mean that only a small section of the public, of the taxpayers, would be responsible, and in the general interest of the country that is quite unacceptable.

Lastly I come to the interest on capital that the S.A. Railways has to pay to the Treasury. The hon. member for Jeppes raised that too. Again hon. members have not given this sufficient thought. Firstly, if the S.A. Railways were a private company or a public company, it would have to pay company tax, which the Railways does not pay. The S.A. Railways pays no dividends but like any other private or public company it has to pay interest on its loans. There is no redemption, of course, but it has to pay interest on its loans the same as any private or public company has to do. That is the position in regard to the S.A. Railways. That is the reason why the Railways cannot ask the Treasury to write off those loans so that interest need not be paid. That is as far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned.

Now I come to the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member was very concerned about the flowers that were provided at the National Party congress in Durban but he realizes of course that the Railways are a business undertaking and those flowers were paid for. They were not supplied free of charge. I can give him the assurance, Sir, that if the United Party congress wants the Railways to supply flowes, we will do it with the greatest of pleasure and we will charge them the same rates as we charged the National Party congress for those flowers.

What did they pay?

Flowers also for that party’s funeral!

The Prime Minister suggests that we should also supply flowers for that party’s funeral. Because it is only a question of the United Party being buried now; they are dead already, as we have seen during this debate.

Is that why you pay your policemen properly?

My policemen are paid very well to look after members such as the hon. member for Durban North, to see that they behave themselves and not transgress.

The hon. member for Durban Point said something very significant and I want to quote him. I read from page Q.1 of the Hansard manuscript copy of his speech of the 12th March—

Will you read the sentence just before that, please?

I can read the whole of his speech, but this is what the hon. member said. I quoted from Hansard. I take it that the hon. member realizes of course what a serious allegation he made against certain railwaymen. He said, in effect, that these railwaymen, whoever they may be and whether they are a small number or not, are deliberately defrauding the Administration to get money to which they are not entitled. [Interjections.] I shall instruct the General Manager to obtain the necessary particulars from the hon. member so that disciplinary action can be taken against these men. In the public interest the hon. member will have to provide that information.

The hon. member referred to losses on the passenger service. That is so. He mentioned an amount of about R90 million; that is also correct. The main line losses are, of course, entirely due to the fact that passengers prefer the road and the air. On the suburban services, where the main losses are incurred, these losses are entirely due to the fact that the suburban trains are mainly used in the mornings and in the evenings; in other words, during the pack periods. There are valley periods when these trains run almost empty or half empty and the result is that considerable losses obtain. The solution, of course, will be the staggering of working hours. If working hours are staggered, there will be less capital expenditure to provide services and facilities, there will also be less expenditure to increase the carrying capacity of the lines and there will be smaller losses on these services. My colleague, the Minister of Planning and the Environment, intends appointing a commission to go into this whole matter and I hope that we shall get a report in the near future.

The hon. member wanted to know what my plans were for mass transport. My plans are to provide adequate rail services and these plans are being carried out. Rail services are being improved, commuter services, additional facilities are being created, more rolling stock and traction power is being purchased, the capacities of the lines are being increased, etc. Everything possible is being done to provide for mass transport and to improve the facilities.

The hon. member suggested that there should be tube trains. However, it is not the function of the Railways to provide tube trains within city boundaries. That is the function of the municipalities. Whether they will be able to obtain the required funds from my colleague, will have to be seen in the future.

The hon. member spoke about mono-rails. That is still in the experimental stage. There is no mono-rail system of any length established in any country in the world. The longest is in Japan. They built that system when the Tokyo show was held, but even that system has not proved an unqualified success. As a matter of fact, there are more drawbacks than advantages.

The hon. member for Salt River spoke about rail accidents. I agree with him that the number of rail accidents is very disturbing, but these accidents are mainly due to the human factor in just the same way as road accidents are. We have a very efficient railway safety organization manned by specially trained men. I can give the assurance that no stone is left unturned in an endeavour to reduce the number of accidents. We are gradually replacing the wooden coaches with steel ones. It is quite impractical to marshal wooden coaches in such a way that they do not adjoin steel coaches.

I now come to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I have been very tolerant with the hon. member. I realize and I accept that he comes from the ranks of the ordinary railway workers and that he speaks the railwayman’s language, which I of course know very well. But on Monday he made accusations and cast reflections on my senior officers of which he should be thoroughly ashamed. He said, for instance in regard to these wage increases, that the senior staff were well-off, that they looked after themselves, but that the bread-and- butter grades had been hard done by. I am responsible for these wage concessions, not the senior officers. Furthermore, the Hiemstra Commission recommended a percentage increase and that percentage increase is applicable to all the grades of staff, both senior and junior. Obviously, the higher the salary, the greater the increase in terms of rands. While R50 per month is a substantial increase for unskilled railworkers, R50 per month is not worth anything at all for the General Manager of the Railways for instance. When the hon. member was a platelayer, would he have been satisfied if the unskilled railworker under him received a higher increase than he received? Surely there is such a thing as job evaluation. Surely a person must be paid according to the value of the job he does and apart from that, there must be some inducement for the workers to progress to higher grades. Consequently you cannot accept the principle that the lower grade workers should receive a greater cash amount than the higher grade workers. It has never been done and it cannot be done. For these increases that I have granted to the staff, I have received appreciation and thanks from all the grades of railway workers. Then the hon. member said that senior officials also participated in cheap housing and he wanted to know why that was the case. He did not say whether he meant departmental housing or housing under the House Ownership Scheme, Surely, in regard to departmental housing, the System Managers must have the right to live in departmental houses as they are transferred from one system to another. They also have a certain living standard to maintain as well as a certain social standard. Stationmasters are transferred from one station to the other and must surely be provided with departmental housing. Surely even senior officers must have the privilege of enjoying the House Ownership Scheme, the same as any other worker. What is wrong with that, especially when we remember that almost 70% of all White railway workers are today housed either departmentally or are enjoying the benefits the House Ownership Scheme? Then the hon. member said something else that disturbed me very much indeed. He said the lower wage groups were being persecuted. What arrant nonsense to say that the low-grade groups are being persecuted, persecuted by being punished for disciplinary infringements. Surely if you do not break the law, you will not be punished. If the railway workers do not contravene the regulations, they will not be punished. The hon. member referred to a circular that was sent to the System Managers wherein it was said that there should be more severe punishment for certain offences. That is quite right. When lives are at stake, you cannot be too severe. If a train is derailed through negligence or if a collision takes place through negligence, punishment must be severe. We take the position of road accidents. We have the highest road accident rate in the whole world, and one of the problems is that our courts are too lenient. There are not sufficient and adequate punishments for road offences where 90% of the road accidents are due to the human factor. We have found time and time again that a man under the influence of liquor behind the steering wheel who is a potential murderer, when he comes before the court he may only get a suspended sentence. Until such a time as the punishments are more severe, and until such time as the courts are prepared to do their duty as they should, there will not be any reduction in road accidents. The same applies to rail accidents. Where there is gross negligence where lives are at stake, and we have had several derailments and collisions where people have lost their lives, punishment must be severe and I make no apologies for that. The hon. member said …

Say it to the magistrates.

I did not catch that, what was it about a magistrate? [Interjections.]

Are you criticizing the courts.

Of course, I am criticizing; I am criticizing the courts whether they are magistrates or judges.

Have you taken over Justice as well, Ben?

No, but I wish I did have the right to give instructions to the courts. I would like to have done it, but I know that my colleague does not have that right. [Interjections.] I can only reply to one hon. member at a time. I cannot reply when they all sing together. The hon. member said that a lot of workers have been punished without being able to defend themselves. That is nonsense, of course! He should know that. He should know that when someone infringes the rules, breaks the regulations, first of all an inquiry is held before the punishment is meted out. He should know that at that inquiry the guilty servant has the fullest opportunity of defending himself, of putting his side of the case. That inquiry then submits a report to the disciplinary officer. If the hon. member does not know that, he should, because he was on the Railways for many years. The disciplinary officer then decides whether to accept the report or not. Only if it is found that that particular servant is guilty, the punishment is meted out. Then he has the opportunity of appealing to the head of the department, to the General Manager and the Railway Board, on the one hand, or he has the right to appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Board. Does the hon. member not know that? Does he know that the servants own fellow workers are represented on the Disciplinary Appeal Board? Every grade of workers is represented on that board. In other words, according to the hon. member the Disciplinary Appeal Board is so unjust that it is not prepared to uphold any appeal, but merely dismisses it out of hand? Is that what he means? He says that the General Manager dismisses appeals because he does not want to go against the disciplinary officers who mete out the punishment. In other words, what he is saying is that the General Manager does not deal with appeal on their merits, but merely dismisses those appeals whatever their merits might be. I think that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana owes an apology to the General Manager of the Railways. I think it is a most uncalled for and very serious reflection on the integrity of the General Manager of the Railways. I also consider it a reflection on the integrity of the Disciplinary Appeal Board on which the railwaymen themselves are represented.

Speak up, Gideon!

I want to suggest to the hon. member that in future he should put a guard in front of his tongue and refrain from being so irresponsible.

*The hon. member for Namaqualand gave a very interesting view of what the railway network in the North-Western Cape should look like in the years to come. It is true that there are many rich copper and other mineral deposits in the North-Western Cape. When these are mined rail facilities will have to be provided there. There is no doubt about that. It will cost many millions of rand, of course. I think that in the years to come posterity will remember with appreciation the vision of Grafie Maree of Namaqualand.

†The hon. member for East London North was guilty of gross exaggeration, I am afraid. He said, for instance—can you believe it?—that the Railways were killing the meat trade in Cape Town by increasing the tariffs. One head of cattle transported from Grootfontein in South-West Africa to Cape Town costs the farmer approximately R4-50 more than before. Meat is selling at Rl-50 on an average in Cape Town, and the increased rates work out at less than one cent per kilo. Can the hon. member really suggest that this increased rate is killing the meat industry in Cape Town? Can he make such a suggestion?

It is killing the meat producer.

Is it killing the meat producer by requiring him to pay R4-50 extra on cattle which are reaching the highest prices today, they have ever reached in South Africa, and is it killing the meat trade? The hon. member also said that farmers were going out of business as a result of the increased tariffs. The French philosopher who lived in the sixteenth century, Montaigne,—I am not quite sure of the correct pronunciation, but probably a linguist on the other side will be able to help me—said …

We know; we understand …

So you know whom I am referring to? That is the main thing. [Interjections.] He once said: “No one is, exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.” And I think I can say that about the hon. member for East London North. I have every sympathy with the farmers; I myself have farmed for 25 years, but I seriously want to ask hon. members in this House whether there is any other section of the community who receive more Government assistance than the farmers? I do not think there is. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport replied to the rest of the hon. member’s speech adequately.

I must say that I am deeply grateful for the advice given by the hon. member for Von Brandis based on his very long service in the House as to how the debate should really be conducted. Only recently he told the House how Parliament should function, I think it was only a few weeks ago. As I have said, he based it on his very many years of experience in this House. It reminds me of a new member we had here in the House in 1938, a Mr. Lindhorst. In his maiden speech he spoke about the time wasted in Parliament by hon. members in the House. He had then only been in the House for a few weeks. Everybody showed him the usual courtesy; there were no interjections, and they listened quietly. But I am afraid that speech did not make him very popular and it took him a long time to live it down. I think the hon. member for Von Brandis must bear that in mind. After he has been here for ten or 15 years he can say things like that.

It does not take him as long to learn as it took you.

What the hon. member forgets is that it is only a fool who never learns, and that any intelligent man is always learning. I am still learning today and I have been here for 30 years.

Aren’t you being churlish to the hon. member?

No, I am speaking the truth to the hon. member, and I would say the same to that hon. member. He too has been here only a year or two and yet he tries to tell Parliament how it should function. He did that on the motion he introduced here.

Did you understand the motion?

You did not understand the motion.

I understood the motion, but the hon. member did not.

Order! The hon. the Minister must return to the Bill.

I am going to talk about St. Croix now. The hon. member called it St. Crocks. That might be the right pronunciation, but I know it as St. Croix (pronounced Croy) and everybody else does too. [Interjections.] I say I do not know whether that is the correct pronunciation; all I am saying is that we know it as St. Croix. Everybody talks about St. Croix and nobody knows the pronunciation the hon. member used. In any event, I dealt with this matter in my Second Reading speech and said that the picture had now changed completely. Originally the Sishen-Saldanha line would have been a public line for the use of all producers, but now it will be a private line for the exclusive use of Iscor. I also said that St. Croix was not an alternative to the Sishen-Saldanha project, but supplementary or complementary to it. In my Second Reading speech on Wednesday last I said that when the capacity of the Port Elizabeth harbour had been fully utilized, consideration would have to be given to St. Croix. When the hon. member raised the matter last session I said that no evidence had been submitted to me or to the Government that the exporters could obtain contracts for the export of more ore than Port Elizabeth could handle. I challenged the hon. member for Von Brandis to ask these people to get a letter of intent to say that they will be prepared to enter into contracts for millions of additional tons of ore if St. Croix is built. I am still waiting for that. I will repeat that today. No evidence has thus far been adduced that these exporters can obtain contracts for the export of more ore than Port Elizabeth can handle. The hon. member must remember that there are five exporters. Consolidated African Mines is one of the small exporters. South African Manganese is one of the big exporters. Iron Metalling is one of the very big exporters. There are five altogether. More manganese is being exported through Port Elizabeth than iron-ore. I received no evidence neither has the Government that these exporters can enter into contracts which will be more than the Port Elizabeth harbour can handle. I also want to say that the Government has received no application or request for the use of St. Croix Island. Neither Consolidated African Mines nor any other exporter has made a request to the Government for the use of St. Croix, not by outright purchase, renting or whatever other manner there may be.

They will do so.

But they haven’t done so. I am dealing with the position as it exists at present. I must say however that when that project is proceeded with certain conditions will be laid down. I want to mention certain of those conditions now. First of all private enterprise will be entirely responsible for the financing, construction and operation of the project. Secondly, loans without Treasury approval would not be obtained, neither internally nor externally. The S.A. Railways will have to be compensated for any loss of revenue resulting from the disuse of the ore loading appliance at Port Elizabeth harbour. The S.A. Railways will not be responsible for the handling of ships at the ore wharf at St. Croix. At present the capacity of the railway line to Port Elizabeth is approximately 10 million tons. The hon. member mentioned that in his speech. The capacity of the ore loading plant is approximately 6,3 million tons. We had trouble of course having only one iron-ore wharf there. There was the further trouble that we could only get the ships off during high tide. But the ore loading appliance is still working under capacity. Last year only 4,2 million tons were exported through Port Elizabeth, despite the fact that most of these producers received more trucks than they actually used. Then there is the railway line itself. I said that we can transport at the moment 10 million tons. Now, if the St. Croix project is built, increasing the carrying capacity of that line will depend entirely on the availability of capital funds. I might say in passing that I cannot see that the construction of the St. Croix project will have any detrimental effect on the Sishen-Saldanha project. Altogether different producers and exporters will make use of these two lines.

*The S.A. Railways went through an extremely difficult period in the past year. We all know that the Railways is completely dependent on the country’s economy. If all is well with the economy, all is well with the Railways, too, and vice versa. The volume of goods offered for transport is something over which the S.A. Railways has no control at all. We are dependent on the volume of goods offered for transport. The Railways is subject to rising costs to the same extent as any private enterprise. Costs are constantly rising. There are certain fixed cost items over which the Railways has no control. I need only refer to interest on capital; I refer to depreciation. The larger the number of assets acquired, the more railway lines built, the more rolling stock and traction put into service, the more the depreciation. The Railways is responsible for its contributions to the Superannuation Fund, over which it has no control. So I say that there are certain fixed cost items over which we have no control and which are constantly rising, along with the usual costs.

But I can add to that that in spite of the serious shortages of staff, which I have already mentioned in the House, the Railways conveyed a greater tonnage in the past year than in the previous year. Productivity was increased, mainly as a result of mechanization and automation; this contributed towards increasing productivity. The Railways has kept abreast of all the most modern developments in this field, and will continue to do so. I can say, without any fear of being contradicted, that we have one of the most efficient railways of any country in the world today.

As far as our air services are concerned, I ask hon. members: Is there any other international service which is more efficient, which is safer and which provides better services than the South African Airways? I think they will agree that there is none, especially those members who have travelled all over the world with other airlines. They know that we have an excellent service which compares with any other airline in the world.

And then, Sir, we have—and I am not boasting now—the most luxurious passenger train in the whole world. There is no doubt about it. It is acknowledged by everyone who has travelled on that train and who is also familiar with other luxury trains in the world. I have travelled on the most luxurious train in America myself, on the Blue Zephyr. I have travelled on the Trans-Europe Express, and the General Manager of the Railways has travelled on the Union Pacific, the latest and most luxurious train in Australia. We have had people from abroad who have travelled on our train. There has been a person here, for example, who is a member of the Railways Board of Britain. All of them say that this Blue Train, this new train of ours, is the most luxurious train in the whole world. It is something we can show off.

In addition we probably have the lowest tariffs as well, lower than those of any other railways enterprise, even with our long distances. Consider, for example, the cost of conveying a head of cattle from Grootfontein to Cape Town and compare that with the tariff charged over shorter distances in other countries. I can really say without fear of being contradicted that our tariffs are among the lowest of any railway system in the world.

Sir, that is what the Railways is like. I may only say that all of us, that side and this side—the Minister is not the only one who is responsible for it—can be very proud of the South African Railways, Harbours and Airways

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—92: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; (Brakpan) Le Roux, F. J.; (Hercules) Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reynecke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebosch, A. L.; Schlebush, 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, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; 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, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—39: 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.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1: Revenue Services, R1 303 874 000, and Schedule 2: Capital and Betterment Services, R382 700 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I at this moment discuss matters under the Minister’s salary?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened with great interest to the reply of the hon. the Minister of Transport. Today we had fewer personal remarks from him than usual, and for that I am grateful, but he could not refrain from using a quotation by Gladstone against members on this side of the House. He has taught me something in the past which I rather appreciate, and that is that one must make very sure of one’s facts before one stands up in this House. Now I also want to teach him something. One must make very sure of one’s quotations before one quotes them in this House. What Gladstone said, is not what the hon. the Minister quoted here. It is more or less the same, but what Gladstone really said was “a sophisticated rhetorician, intoxicated by the exuberance of his own verbosity”. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister to have more respect for his authorities and make sure he quotes their words correctly.

Sir, I also want to express my disappointment with the somewhat superficial response on the part of the hon. the Minister to matters raised by this side of the House. The first matter in respect of which I want to record my profound disappointment, is his response to our suggestion that there should be regular adjustments of the cost-of-living allowances for railwaymen, allowances to keep abreast with the costof-living index—a pensionable adjustment. This the hon. the Minister rejected saying that the staff themselves are not in favour of it; he said it would be inflationary but what the people wanted was a regular adjustment of their basic salaries. But, Mr. Chairman, we have had the experience in this country that those adjustments are too few and far between. We have had this experience in the case I have just mentioned. The Minister said it was not only the artisan staff with whom he conducted negotiations; that he negotiated with all the staff associations. But those negotiations nevertheless went on for more than a year. The adjustment was made only after there had been an increase of almost 16% in the cost of living. And who suffered the hardships while the Minister was negotiating and while the Minister was doing nothing? It was the workers. Sir, the Minister and other members of the House may perhaps afford to see their real income drop by 16% over two years, but the ordinary working man cannot afford it. Or has the hon. the Minister forgotten that this is the case? Or, because it was too long ago, can he no longer remember the days when he was a working man? I can understand the Minister saying that there are difficulties about questions such as overtime, etc., when one pays an allowance. For that reason we on this side of the House suggested that the allowance should be pensionable, because that may affect a man for the whole period of his retired life and it may affect a widow. If one concedes the principle that there has to be regular adjustments—and this is essential in a world in which inflation has become part of the set-up—then, I added, negotiations have to take place from time to time concerning the permanent participation by the railwayman, and the employee in general, in the increasing prosperity of South Africa. When those regular discussions take place the question of consolidating these temporary allowances will also have to be discussed. It was by no means the idea of this side of the House—nor can anybody hold this view—that these allowances must be retained permanently and for all times, but they were essential in order to adapt the income of the Railway worker to the reality of inflation until such time as permanent adjustments can be effected through negotiations. I want to express my profound disappointment at the Minister who stood up here today, displaying such a callous and indifferent attitude to the real and essential interests of the workers of South Africa. The Minister can beat about the bush and argue as much as he likes, but there is no excuse for any employer to expect people with a fixed income, a non-justable income alone—and I stress “alone”—to bear the consequences of the raising cost of living while people in the private sector have the privilege of increasing prices to compensate themselves. If the worker must make sacrifices, a consistent Government will also ask the private sector, the employers, to do the same. We are not asking for it; that is not our viewpoint. But what we do ask is that the employer, just like the other components of the producing public, must have the right to be compensated. But the hon. the Minister of Transport adopts the same attitude as the Conservative Government in England does, that is that the workers must make sacrifices in the interests of combating inflation and in the interests of an orderly economy. But in England the Conservative Government had the courage to say that the same limits will be placed on the income of businessmen, traders, industrialist and of people drawing dividends. This Government, and this Minister in particular, expect the workers to make the sacrifice alone, in curbing inflation, while the rest of the economically active people in South Africa can do what they like. This, I say, is most unfair and indefensible. I hope the hon. the Minister will avail himself of the opportunity in the course of this debate of justifying this discrimination against the workers of South Africa, those people with a fixed income who are helpless against the effects of inflation, unless they are accommodated the way I have suggested. The Minister’s excuse was, of course, that he delayed adjustment in the latest instance because the economy first had to be stablized. I hope I understood him correctly. But has the economy been stabilized now?

I did not say that. I spoke about the growth-rate.

What did you say about the growth-rate?

I said that as soon as there are signs that the tempo of the growth-rate is increasing, I shall consider it.

But do you not agree with the Minister of Finance, because he says it is speeding up?

I am referring to last year.

I misunderstood the Minister in good faith. Is the Minister satisfied then that the growth-rate is such that…

I hope so.

He hopes so. Sir, the other thing that worries me about the Minister’s speech, is that he ignores the speeches from this side of the House completely, when it suits him to do so.

Which speeches?

For example, the speeches made by the hon. member for Jeppes and the hon. member for Maitland.

What did they say that you did not say?

The hon. member for Jeppes asked what the Minister’s attitude was towards the large number of Railwaymen, Whites, who were still earning less than R200 per month.

You also asked that, not so? Your whole speech was along those lines.

No, I did not speak about that. I did not mention a word about those people earning less than R200 per month. I did not raise their case in particular, but the hon. member for Jeppes did.

I had an hour to deal with all those details. It was impossible for me to mention everything.

Then I am raising it now. I ask the Minister what his attitude, and the attitude of the Railway Administration, is towards the fact that last year, even prior to the recent increase, virtually half the Whites working on the Railways were earning less than R200 per month. Does he think this is an adequate salary for a man with a family in South Africa? Does he not think that it is time that he, as a member of the Government, set an example and paid a proper living wage to the ordinary workers. I do not, for the moment, want to discuss the Bantu workers. We have had other opportunities to state our viewpoints on that matter and I do not want to repeat them. I want to discuss the Whites. What I said about the non-Whites in previous debates, also applies to the Railways. I now want to tell the Minister that I do not believe a wage of R200 or less per month is a living wage for a White man with a family in South Africa today. I want to ask whether the Minister agrees with that and, if he does not agree with that, how he can justify, how he can expect a White family to maintain the standard of living which Whites are accustomed, on an income of less than R200 per month. And if he does agree with me, what does he intend, what does the Railways intend doing in this connection? [Time expired.]

I just want to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. In all these years that I have been Minister, all the improvements which have been effected and which have run into hundreds of millions of rand in salaries and wages and other benefits, have been effected by means of negotiation with the staff associations and not with the Opposition. I have said this again and again over the years. There is no need for the Opposition to make representations here by pretending to have such tremendous sympathy with the railwayman. The railwaymen are man enough to state their case through their staff associations and this they do, and I do not meet them once a year or once every two years. There are continuous negotiations and meetings between myself and the staff associations in the course of the year. Everyone is satisfied with the last increase they received. I have only had appreciation and gratitude from the railwaymen and the staff associations. I challenge the hon. member. I shall convene a meeting of the executive committees of all the staff associations. I shall not attend their meeting, and the hon. member can go there and ask them whether they are dissatisfied with me and want to adopt a motion of no-confidence in me. If they do that, I shall resign. After all, I know these people. I have dealings with them. Negotiations are taking place all the time.

I have replied in full to his suggestion in respect of consolidation. I informed the hon. member why this is not acceptable to the staff. They do not like allowances because an allowance is something temporary which can be reduced or abolished at any time. They ask for adjustments to be made to the wages, and not for allowances. When the cost-of-living allowance was applicable years ago, it was on the insistence of the staff that I eventually consolidated it with the salary. The staff then asked me for heaven’s sake not to grant allowances, but rather an improvement by means of adjustments to the basic salaries. I also said so in my reply to the Second Reading debate, but now the hon. member gives out that I did not reply in full to his speech in this connection. Why does the hon. member not first contact the staff to hear what they have to say before making a speech in the House? I take it that they, like any Opposition, are exceptionally worried and concerned about the lot of the railwayman.

After all, the hon. member must realize that I, in the years gone by, have proved that I have real sympathy for the railwayman and that I convert that sympathy into action. Does he really think for one moment that if I was in the position to give them higher wages I would not do so? Does he think for one moment that if the money were available and I could do so, I would not give them higher wages every six months? However, I also have a responsibility to the country. He must remember that that money must come from somewhere. It is not money that belongs to me. The Railways do not belong to the Government. The Railways are not a private company which is out for profit. Everything it spends must be recovered through tariffs. Would it be wise to have substantial rates increases every now and again? Would this help the economy along; would this help the railwayman?

But how will he make a living?

He is making a living now. The hon. member does not know what their standard of living is; I know what their standard of living is.

I also know.

Oh really, he has a few railwaymen in Jeppes and now he thinks he knows everything about them.

No, there are many.

With what other railwaymen does he come into contact, besides the group living in Jeppes? I know that constituency and after all, I know how many railwaymen are living there. The hon. member must not come with such nonsense to me. Let me proceed. He asks me what I think of the position of the railwayman who earns less than R200 per month. I admit there are many of them who earn less than R200 a month and if it were within my power, I would have given them much more than that. Is the hon. member under the impression that I do not know? After all, I experienced it in my day. I was a very poor man and not like the hon. member for Jeppes who was fortunate enough to be born with a golden spoon in his month.

No, I was poorer than the hon. the Minister was. I used to stay in Salt River.

Yes, I know you begin in Salt River and end up in Houghton. [Interjections.]

You ended up in Northcliff. That is not so bad either.

Yes, but I was there temporarily before I came here. All that this amounts to, is that expenditure must be such that it does not exceed income. I fully agree that those who have families and earn less than R200 a month, are having a hard time of it. Of course, many of them work overtime and Sunday time. Some of the artisans earn bonuses and therefore get more than that. Today there are engine drivers who earn many hundreds of rand per month as a result of Sunday time and overtime. The people who suffer most—and these are the people I am concerned about—are the unskilled labourers. There are still a good few thousand of them, and they get substantially less than R200 per month. I should very much like to increase their wages, but does the hon. member not realize that there is such a thing as a wage structure? In other words, wages are determined for certain grades and for certain types of work. Does he not know that there is such a thing as job evaluation, that the wage must be determined according to the value of the work done? If my department, for example, were to pay unskilled labourers R250 a month, what about the skilled labourers who are not paid that wage? Everybody’s wages must then be increased, because if one starts at the bottom, one must increase salaries right through to the top and that costs millions of rand. The increases cost R100 million last time and it was only an increase of between 15% and 20%. To that I want to add that this was not a uniform increase of 15%. It was an adjustment and as a result of the notches of the various rates of pay many of them received an 18%, 19% and even 20% increase. That is what really happened. Therefore the hon. member must not ask me to do that. If I had the money, I would give it to them. This they have known for years now; they know that I am sympathetic towards them. I have given them many millions of rand during the years that I have been Minister of Transport. I am not indifferent towards the workers, and they know it. This plea by the Opposition is of no use; it is not going to make me give them more. I negotiate with the railway people and they are man enough to put their own case as they have been doing through the years. I must say that they have never yet been grateful to the Opposition for the pleas they have made here when speaking in favour of the railway worker in this Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased the hon. the Minister has entered this debate immediately, because now the standpoint of the Opposition as against that of the hon. the Minister is clearer than ever before. The hon. Minister has problems; he has sympathy for the people who earn R200 and less. He has sympathy especially for the unskilled workers who earn far less and he would very much like to give them more. He knows they are suffering, and we agree with him. Now his attitude is that he should give these people relief after negotiations every three or four years.

I do not only negotiate once every three years.

The difference is that while the hon. Minister realizes that the people are suffering today, how much more will they not suffer when the cost of living increases by 15% or 16% within two years? This is what he does not want to realize. That is the difference between his standpoint and ours. He says that the people are already suffering after the increase of 15% which puts them on the basis on which they were in May, 1971, and that they are already beginning to fall behind. We agree, but we say that if people are suffering already, what right do we, as a Parliament, and what right does the Railways as an employer, have to expect of those people to make this sacrifice to pay for the inflation for which the Government is in fact responsible. That is the only difference between us. I say they are entitled to interim relief until such time as they can once again have an adjustment made to their income as a result of negotiation.

Where must the money come from?

The hon. the Minister asks where the money must come from. The money must come from sound business management of the Railways. As long as I live, I shall never concede that any business, including even the Railways, can have the excuse that they pay their people too little and that the people who work for them must suffer because they cannot afford to pay more. If a business cannot afford to pay proper wages, it does not deserve to exist. This must be a matter of principle; there must be no doubt about that. If the people must pay, if the business community of South Africa must pay so as to ensure that justice will be done to the workers, then they must be willing to pay. I think it disgraceful of the hon. the Minister to want to hide behind purely financial considerations and in this way allow an injustice against his workers to continue. He spoke otherwise in 1940, 1941 and in 1944. Does he remember? Does he remember what he suggested in this House in 1943?

Then I was just as responsible as you are now, because at that time I was in the Opposition too.

Does the hon. the Minister remember what he said in this House prior to the 1943 election? How can a man change like that?

But I admit that I was just as responsible at that time as you are now, because at that time I was not a member of the Government party.

I shall never, as long as I live, be capable of delivering myself of so much silly and extravagant talk as that hon. Minister of Transport did in 1943. I shall never say that people must serve on boards of directors and that they must have a share in all the business of South Africa. I shall not say that there should be State-aided holiday resorts. After all, I am not completely mad. I want to be very serious. I say the difference is clear now: The Government and the Railways do not want to accept any responsibility for the effects of inflation on people who are unable to bear those effects, while the Opposition says that there must be constant adjustments to the income of people who suffer as a result of inflation which the Government is unable to control. If that means higher rates, if it means that the Railways must run at a loss some years, the people must be willing to pay that price in the interests of those people who are unable to do otherwise.

Then I also want to express my disappointment at the reply furnished to me by the Minister in connection with the Rates Equalization Fund.

†I asked the hon. the Minister whether he was satisfied that at the end of this year as a result of the high increase in tariffs of 20%, there would be some replenishment of the Rates Equalization Fund. The Minister’s reply was one of “ifs” and “ands”, of “perhaps” and “perhaps not”.

I said if there was a surplus.

It was a reply of “if this” and “if that”. Surely the Minister should plan for these things?

Don’t you know the law?

I cannot understand the hon. the Minister and I don’t think he understands himself either. Why should the hon. the Minister be able to increase tariffs in order to meet the accumulating deficit on the Railways and the increase in salaries and then not be able to plan for the replenishment of the Rates Equalization Fund? It is as simple as that. He can say, “Look, a 20% increase will compensate me for the losses I am suffering on the Railways today and will also compensate me for the extra money I have to pay out.” But when it comes to the Rates Equalization Fund he has to depend on the fortuitous, the accidents of this life. That is not planning; that is not responsibility towards the guarantee of the worker on the South African Railways, as he himself has described the Rates Equalization Fund. Surely one does not only, in a great organization like the Railways, live for today? One is not a complete hedonist. Instead one looks ahead and plans for the security of people in the future. Does the hon. the Minister accept that, under the policy of this Government of which he is a member and for which policy he is co-responsible, we must have this stop-go economic life, this economy with its deep valleys, with its ups and downs—increases in taxes and reductions in taxes, devaluation, depreciation of the purchasing power of the people followed by taxation to limit consumption, and then again followed by belated attempts to stimulate the economy by making concessions to entrepreneurs in South Africa? Must we accept that as a permanent part of the pattern of life in South Africa? Is he going to co-operate in it with this major enterprise which is the South African Railways, an enterprise which is responsible for 80% of the traffic carried in South Africa, one of the major factors in the economic prosperity and the business activity of South Africa? Does he just sit back and accept that he cannot plan because he belongs to a Government which makes planning impossible, that he has to depend on the fortuitous, the accidental, the perhaps and the may be of life because he has a Government without direction and without planning? Is that the position we face? Judging from the Minister’s response and his anger when he is faced with the realities of his problem, that is exactly what the position is. I want to ask the Minister one question. He said he answered my speech in his reply to the Second Reading debate, but there is one thing he avoided very studiously.

I am talking about the question of uneconomic transport services undertaken by the South African Railways especially. I made the point that 70% of the traffic carried by the South African Railways is carried at a loss. There are certain rates you cannot make economic; this principle is important. Certain types of traffic cannot be made profitable because the traffic cannot bear profitable rates. At that stage, we suggest, the Government should bring in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to assist it.

Did you listen to my reply? I dealt with it in detail.

I listened to the hon. the Minister’s reply and was happy to learn that in many instances that is the position. We are making progress. We have a debate every year; we have had one now for 25 years and every year we achieve one-fiftieth of what we set out to achieve, which means that in 25 years we achieve half of what is obviously necessary. The Government should move a bit more quickly than that. As about 70% of the traffic borne by the Railways is transported at a loss today, will the hon. the Minister tell me whether that is done because it is in the public interest, at the behest of the State President, the Cabinet or the Government, that it should be transported at a loss? If that is the case, my argument is sound, that that traffic should be subsidized from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I think you have better read my Hansard.

If it is not in the public interest, the Railways have no right to transport it at a loss. Then the Railways are disobeying their own charter, the Constitution of South Africa. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister again. He must not be impatient with me. I am putting a very simple truth to him. Either the losses which the Railways are suffering as a result of their own rating policy are suffered because the Railways are acting in the public interest in accordance with that provision in the South Africa Act which says that the Railways should in certain circumstances stimulate parts of the economy by subsidizing the cost of transport, in which case the Consolidated Revenue Fund on the Minister’s own admission is responsible; or otherwise the Railways is running at a loss for other reasons, reasons which are not covered by the South Africa Act. If that is the case, the Railways have no right to do that because they are transgressing their own Constitution. What is the hon. the Minister’s answer to that? It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to get up and say: We are making concessions to what is right; we are in a minor way obeying our own Constitution in that we are attending to matters—where export traffic is concerned or where suburban Black passengers are concerned, for which we get subsidies from the Central Government. But what about the principle, what about the general application? To what extent does the hon. the Minister’s principle apply to the 70% of the traffic and to what extent not? And to the extent that it does not, what is the hon. the Minister’s answer? [Time expired.]

I have replied to you.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville started his speech just now by pointing out to the hon. the Minister that he should check his quotations more closely. I do not think the hon. members would have any objections if I were to say that the hon. the Minister could have given another quotation, and that is that if one has nothing to say, one should not say it here. The hon. the Minister quite rightly pointed out that while the hon. member had a total of one hour and twenty minutes to speak, he could have said all he wanted to say within a quarter of an hour. The hon. member waxed eloquent here and repeatedly cried out dramatically that these people allegedly had to carry the burden alone. He compared them to people in the private sector, who have a wide field open to them; they have opportunities of making more money while these people are pinned down. If one did not know any better, one could have made the deduction that all people except for those in the private sector are on the establishment of the Railways. What about the other people who draw salaries? Why did the hon. member not say anything about them? He gave out that the railwaymen drawing salaries were the only people who were bearing the brunt through suffering and deprivation. I think the hon. member and his party would be well advised to accept for once and for all that the railwaymen in South Africa will not allow themselves to be led by the nose by this talk. This became very clear when the hon. the Minister placated his people last year and told them, “It is coming; I recognize your case.” Where will you find another case where people react so favourably? The railwaymen know where they stand.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to touch on another matter. At the end of last year a very gruesome accident happened in my constituency near Belmont when a car and a train were involved in a collision. It must be clearly understood that I do not intend blaming the Railways in any way. But what I do regret is the fact that the Press reacted so unfavourably. I was out and had scarcely arrived home when I was inundated with phone-calls from representatives of the Press who wanted to know this, that or the other. It immediately brought me under the impression that these people were once again on the prowl for something. It was a tragic accident and an entire family was killed. I acquainted myself with the circumstances there, the warning signs, etc. I am glad to be able to say that the General Manager of the South African Railways contacted me after I had made representations to him. He gave me the assurance that everything possible in the circumstances would be done to make this crossing safe. As the hon. the Minister indicated, here we are dealing with the human factor. If the fact is borne in mind that one train crosses the national road here in either direction once a day, one would have thought that the possibility of accidents would be virtually excluded. But accidents nevertheless happen. We must take the circumstances into consideration. If a traveller drives through the night in order to reach his destination as soon as possible, we must accept that he is worn out and weary and that it is human that he is not alert enough under those circumstances. The driver possibly thought the light which he had seen was that of a car which would have to wait for him as he was travelling on the national road. We appreciate what has been done but we should once again like to stress the question of level crossings. We know this is an expensive and time-consuming matter. We feel that all the goods conveyed on that line throughout the years cannot compensate for the family who was killed in that accident.

Then I should like to say something with regard to study loans. This is something for which I have the highest appreciation. The General Manager’s report also mentions these loans. I should just like to know whether the students who receive financial aid, are under an obligation to repay the loans eventually and whether they are obliged to enter the service of the Railways to make good the loans in that manner. This was not completely clear to me from the report. I also have the highest appreciation for the fact that the Administration saw fit to create chairs at two universities for training people for the service, especially in commerce and engineering. I am pleased the Administration gave financial aid to those universities to create those chairs.

There is something else which bothers me personally. This is not a reproach which I want to lay at the door of the Railways. It is something for us to reflect upon. It is the tremendous losses suffered as a result of theft, damage to property and in many other ways. In the case of goods which are transported, I think the losses are very often due to the mishandling of those goods. The fact remains that the Railways must compensate those who are directly concerned. I have received several complaints about this in my constituency. I have also tried to follow up these complaints, but the truth is that here we are dealing with thousands of people who handle goods. These people often work under the supervision of a foreman only. If something goes wrong, one once again comes up against the human factor. A person is either unreliable, or those working under him may take advantage of his good nature or the trust he puts in them. It is actually a chain reaction. The Railways is not alone in suffering a loss through this. The consignees often suffer heavy losses. For example, delivery is taken from the Railways of goods which are packed into containers and sealed. Such a consignee takes delivery of those goods from the Railways in good faith, only to discover eventually that the goods have sometimes been damaged beyond repair. I want to stress this matter although I am not saying that I can suggest anything in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the clear challenge which the hon. member for Yeoville directed to the hon. the Minister. There is a simple choice which faces South Africa and this House in its judgment of the losses which are suffered by the Railways. We want to know whether these losses are suffered in the interests of the economy of South Africa as a whole or whether they are the result of deliberate Railways management policy. It is a simple issue. Either the Railways are being run at a loss because the management is deliberately planning for a loss—which we do not accept and do not believe—or they are doing it in the interests of South Africa. Our argument is a simple one. If it is in the interests of South Africa as a whole that uneconomic tariffs should be charged, then South Africa as a whole should pay. It is as simple as that. The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, shrugged it off and said: “Do you expect the Consolidated Revenue Fund to subsidize 70% of the traffic?” Of course, it is only 20% of the income, and not 70%. It is 70% of the tonnage, but it represents only a small portion of the income. Less than 20% of the volume, the tonnage, brings in some 80% of the income, plus the Airways and the Harbours. So it is quite a false picture which is presented when the Minister throws up his arms in horror and says: “Do you expect me to subsidize 70% of the Railways traffic?” What we want to know is this: Is he carrying traffic at uneconomic tariffs in the interests of the Railways or in the interests of South Africa? When we have established that, then we can talk with reason and with logic about how you deal with that uneconomic traffic. But when you do not know why it is being carried uneconomically you cannot debate it and you cannot argue it. That, Mr. Chairman, is something on which the hon. the Minister owes this Committee an explanation.

I want to refer to two other matters which were raised in the Second Reading debate and to which we have had no reply. I raised the question of the subsidies on township and resettlement area lines and I asked the hon. the Minister whether these had been withdrawn or reduced. According to statements published in the Press, they were withdrawn. The Minister said by way of interjection that they had been reduced. I asked the hon. the Minister to give us the full picture, to give us the full explanation as to why and to what extent subsidization on township lines had been reduced, the effect it had had and the reason for the increase in the fares which are paid by what I call the captive customers of the Railways, the captive passengers who have to travel whether they want to do so or not; they have no option, they have no choice. I pointed to the dangers of this and I asked the hon. the Minister to explain the position and to give the reasons for the change and the subsequent increase in fares. To that he did not reply at all. Sir, I leave it there to give him an opportunity to do so.

The other matter which he ignored was my reference to forced overtime and the disciplinary action taken if people do not work overtime which they are required to work. The hon. the Minister has in the past said that it is not the policy of the Railways to discipline people if they are not prepared to work overtime …

No, I did not say that.

Sir, I will qualify it. He said that in certain cases it was essential that they should do so and he quoted train-drivers and so on. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the position is today and whether he accepts that people are still disciplined, still fined and punished for refusing to work overtime.

Why is it that I do not get that complaint?

Mr. Chairman, I do not know why hon. members on that side of the House do not get these objections, because I want to deal with quite a few more. But, firstly, I want to deal with the attack launched on me by the hon. the Minister, by the Deputy Minister yesterday and by the hon. member for Uitenhage, all three of whom quoted one sentence from my speech and tried to make out that I had launched an attack on a large majority of railwaymen. The hon. the Deputy Minister called it “die grootste gros van die Spoor-wegwerkers”, and he charged me with launching an attack on them for dishonesty. But, Sir, they deliberately did not read out the sentence preceding the one that they quoted. I said yesterday, and it stands on record: “Die Adjunk-minister verdraai wat ek gesê het.” I want to put on record what I said. I said on Monday—

Quite right.

I emphasize this, because what I then said follows on it; I said—

I emphasized that this happened only to certain members who were victims of a certain system, and now the hon. the Minister wants me to be his “Boss”; he wants me to be the snooper to go round and take the bread and butter out of the mouths of railwaymen by reporting them …

Nonsense!

… so that they will have to live on R160 and R180 per month; so that their children will have to go to school without shoes; so that they will have to eat bread without butter because they cannot survive, they cannot live and they cannot feed their children on the basic salaries which they are paid, and therefore they have to work overtime to be able to exist. The hon. the Minister challenged me to come and name them so that they could take action against them and take the bread out of the mouths of their children. Sir, I refuse to be his stooge. If he knows anything about the Railways, he will know, as anybody concerned with the Railways knows, that this does happen in certain insolated instances. I have had complaints from railwaymen themselves about this very thing. They say so quite openly. I am not going to be a stooge to the Minister; I am not going to be his spy. What I am trying to do is not to have people punished for what they are forced to do. I am trying to avoid the need for them having to do something which is against their very nature, which revolts against their own consciences, something of which they are ashamed and do not want to do but to which they are forced. What we want to do is to prevent people being forced to take action of which they are ashamed, to prevent people being forced to do things which they do not want to do, by paying to them a wage upon which they can live. The hon. the Minister has admitted this afternoon that he is not satisfied with the wages paid, but he says because he has no money, he cannot pay more. Then he cannot blame us when we criticize him for paying people a wage upon which they cannot exist. I wonder when the Minister last moved about among the lower-paid ranks, went to their homes, as we do, talked to their wives as we do, saw their children and the problems they have as we see them. When we fight for them here we are not going to have politics made by having what we say turned against us for cheap political capital. The Minister can make all the capital he likes. He can take it out of context and quote it, as the hon. member for Uitenhage said he would do.

That is not true.

He said he would take this and fight an election on it; he said he would take it to his constituency and other hon. members said “hear, hear!” [Time expired.]

You lie!

Order! The hon. member for Uitenhage must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it.

I am afraid I must reply to the hon. member. The hon. member can explain as much as he likes. He can read the whole of his speech. It makes no difference to what he actually said. He accused certain Railwaymen. I did not say a large number; I said he accused a certain number of Railwaymen of deliberately delaying their work so that they could work overtime. In other words, he said they were defrauding the Administration.

You say it does not happen?

What does not happen?

You say it does not happen?

I am replying to the hon. member. I am saying what the hon. member said. Why does he try to run away from it now? Apparently the hon. member did not think when he was speaking.

You say this does not happen?

I do not know about it. I have never gone snooping around among the staff to find out whether they deliberately do that or not. That is why I said I would give instructions to the General Manager to go into that matter. I do not manage the Railways. I do not go from one goods shed to the other to see what these people are doing and whether they are doing their job or not. How can the hon. member expect that? But the hon. member makes the accusation. He says there are certain members of the staff who, instead of their doing their work in the time allotted to them, deliberately delay the work so that they could work overtime.

I said they were forced to do it.

Whether that is the reason makes no difference.

It makes a difference.

Whether they are forced to do so because of low wages makes no difference to the accusation.

I think it is scandalous that people should be forced by circumstance to do it.

In other words, I must accept that if a man is hungry he can legitimately steal? Is that the hon. member’s standpoint?

I think it is scandalous that a man should be forced to steal to live.

I think it is scandalous that anyone should steal, whether he is forced to or not. The hon. member may have a different sense of morality from mine. If he thinks a man may steal if he is forced to steal, or defraud the Administration, I cannot argue with him at all, if that is his sense of morality.

I think he should not be forced.

The hon. member made that accusation, and the accusation stands. And whatever explanation he gives now, whether the man is forced to do so because he receives low wages or not, no man is entitled to defraud the Railways by delaying his work so that he can work overtime, whatever the reason. That is the position.

Then the hon. member said I did not reply in regard to the reduction in the subsidization. The interdepartmental committee recommended that the fares to those resettlement areas must gradually be increased to bring them into line with the rest of the third-class fares. Those fares are lower than the rest of the third-class fares. By increasing the fares the subsidy the Treasury has to pay is reduced. That is what happened in this particular case. The subsidy has been reduced although with the higher wages being paid now, I doubt whether there will be any deduction at all in the subsidy, because the cost is so much higher.

The hon. member said that disciplinary action was taken when a man refused to work overtime. That is quite right. They are not allowed to refuse to work overtime. They have to work overtime. It is part of their job. I have said that before. I am not speaking about excessive overtime. The running staff are entitled to relief after twelve hours. That is provided for in the regulations, but they have to work overtime and if they refuse, disciplinary action is taken.

*The hon. member for Yeoville again returned to this 70%. He did not listen to my speech; he did not want to listen or he could not understand. I dealt with that matter in detail. I explained why I could not accept that 70% of the traffic carried at a loss, should be subsidized. I pointed out that where I had been instructed by the Cabinet to establish certain facilities, then they must pay, as for example, on these lines. I want to repeat to the hon. member what I said in my Second Reading speech. I said this, and for heaven’s sake please listen carefully—

Everyone does it.

†And the reason for that is this. If the traffic cannot bear a higher rail rate, it is transported at a lower rate; it is transported below cost, but there is an advantage in for the Railways in doing that. I said it brought in revenue.

*All the millions of tons of mealies which we transported to the harbours were transported below cost, but it nevertheless brought in an immense sum in revenue for the Railways. I said, “It brings in revenue”.

It brought about tremendous cost.

Yes, but it also brings revenue. I continued—

In other words, it is very clear. Surely it is elementary that if a train has to run from Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg empty, it is much better to have goods on it from which one derives revenue, even if it is below cost. Or would they rather have the trains running empty? That is the sort of silly argument advanced by the hon. member. He goes into raptures because of his own eloquence and then he does not know what he is saying. I said this was so with any Railway—

It is done throughout the world, not only in South Africa. When it is in the interests of the Railways to obtain that traffic and the revenue, when one can use all one’s equipment and put one’s people to work, even if one has to transport the goods at a loss, for what reason will one refuse to do so? Why must the Treasury subsidize it? This was never done in the past and the Railways has been in existence since 1910. It was not even done under Mr. Sturrock.

Is that the only unprofitable traffic, what do you use to fill the empty trucks?

No, there is lots of unprofitable traffic, like livestock. That is why we increased the tariff on livestock slightly now. The Schumann Commission recommended that passenger fares should be increased to such an extent that it covers cost. What would be the effect on the passengers if you increase passenger fares by 200% to balance my Budget? You cannot do things like that. And it was never done in the past. The United Party was in power for nine years and the Minister of Transport never even thought of asking subsidies from the Central Government.

He did not need to.

He did need it. He had lots of deficits.

Do you not think there is a case for a commission to investigate?

What are they to investigate? The Schumann Commission investigated all the tariffs. Has the hon. member read that report and does he know what the recommendation in this regard was? They did not recommend that the Consolidated Revenue Fund was to subsidize the Railways. Their recommendation to me was to increase the tariffs so as to enable me to cover the costs. What would the effect of that be on our economy if we did increase the tariffs?

But do you not think that the time has come to appoint a commission, that it will be in the country’s interest to appoint such a commission?

Why must there be a commission?

I am merely asking. If you do not agree, say so.

There have already been a few commissions. Some years ago for instance, there was the Granett Commission which reported even before the hon. member became a member of this House. That commission investigated all the tariffs. There was also the Schumann Commission which investigated the tariffs. There was also the Marais Commission which investigated the question of the coordination of traffic.

I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Has the time not come to appoint a commission, as I suggested earlier on in this debate, not only to investigate the tariffs of the Railways as such but to see what link is required between the Treasury, the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the Railways so as to ensure that the Railways will not suffer losses in the interest of the country which ought to be borne by the Consolidated Revenue Fund?

But I have just explained why this cannot be done. Why is a commission to tell me that? Section 106 is very clear.

Section 106 is too limited.

Of course section 106 is limited, but I am now giving the reasons. All railway systems in the world transport certain goods at a loss. They all do so in order to obtain revenue, to use their equipment, to keep their employees working, etc. Surely one cannot allow some of one’s employees being idle because one is not prepared to transport certain goods as one will have to do so at a loss. The hon. member has not given the matter sufficient attention.

No, the Minister is avoiding the problem.

The hon. member has not considered the matter in depth. That is his trouble. His eloquence runs away with him altogether. For example, he says, “Why does the Minister not plan the replenishment of the Rates Equalisation Fund?” I have never heard anything as silly. I can very easily make provision in the Budget for R10 million to be paid into the Rates Equalization Fund this year as part of the expenditure. At the end of the year. I shall have a deficit of R10 million as a result of that, and then I shall have to take that R10 million from the Rates Equalization Fund to cover the deficit. Surely it is silly to set about things in this way. Since 1910 it has always been the practice to supplement the Rates Equalization Fund from surpluses and it shall continue to be the practice in future. However, one cannot plan for something like this. The hon. members are possessed by the word “planning” and most of the time they do not know what it means.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to a lot of replies to Second Reading debates on Railway Budgets by the hon. the Minister. I must say that when I listened to the hon. the Minister today, it became clear to me that he was lacking in fire and enthusiasm. One felt that one was listening to the speech of a tired man. The hon. the Minister told us about negotiations with the unions and he informed us of the reactions of the unions. The hon. the Minister admitted that everything they got would probably be absorbed by the high and spiralling cost of living. We tried to put forward a proposal which would avoid these sudden jumps in salary increases by linking the cost of living with the wage on a point basis. This is at present being done in the industrial world. The hon. the Minister when Minister of Labour knew that this was being done. We advised the hon. the Minister to try to follow the same practice which would save the lengthy process of negotiations. The hon. the Minister is at the moment compelled by legislation to accept the commissions’ findings when the staff associations and the unions declare a dispute which is referred to them.

The hon. the Minister of Transport indicated that the railwaymen had had various increases in their salaries since 1970. We accept that. However, it has taken quite a number of years to complete the negotiations and the result is that we are faced with this unsatisfactory position in the country today. We are in an inflationary period and we have to admit that anything which is given to the workers is going to be of no effect. As soon as the staff become aware of this, the hon. the Minister will once again be approached for further increases. He has practically said: Well, boys, you have got it, but it is not going to help you. Therefore, they will come back to him.

I think the one great disappointment we have had is the reaction of the Government side. We noticed that the hon. the Minister recognized that because in the course of his reply he did not reply to a single member on his side of the House. They never offered anything constructive. In their constituencies all the railwaymen are apparently satisfied and therefore they had nothing constructive to offer this House. Up to now in the Committee Stage we have not heard anything from them. When you think that we in this House are giving the Government permission it seems a strange state of affairs to spend R1 686 574 000 and yet we have this lack of enthusiasm on the Government side. It spreads from the Minister downwards. One would think that one would get a little bit more enthusiasm from the Government and that they would take a more serious view of the position. I would not say that the hon. the Minister skimped his reply, but I made representations to him about the catering for Bantu passenger services and he did not reply to that. He will probably do it later. There were several other matters, half of which he did not reply to. I have some other items I would like to bring to his attention now.

When Mr. Bloomberg, the then hon. member for South Peninsula was in this House, he pleaded for escalators to be fitted at the Cape Town railway station. From the Brown Book we notice that we have got to the final stage of the construction of the Cape Town railway station. I think that it is probably one of the finest stations of its size. We are spending the last vote of R12 000 on this station this year. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in his planning for any additions to this station, to give consideration to the fitting of escalators to assist the Coloureds in their section of the station. It is very difficult for them to get up and down. We have them in other stations, for example in, Johannesburg, and I think that they should be fitted here too.

We do not even have a station.

Well, I think the hon. member should state his own case.

I want to get back to a hardy annual. As an hon. member from the Western Cape, although, as the hon. the Minister probably does not know, I was born and bred a Transvaler, but am a resident of the Western Cape by adoption, I would like to make a plea for something to be done to modernize our line from Cape Town to the Transvaal. On the Brown Book we find year after year—I think that the printers do not even have to worry about resetting the type—the heading “Regrading and deviations”. I want to refer to the Hex River tunnel. Again we find that very little is being voted for this scheme. We have had excuses over the years such as: “Well, things are not good enough—we have to cut down and this is one of the items we have to put off, because we do not have the money.” We hear these excuses year after year. There is a limit to what one can put up with. Here in the Western Cape we do not exactly suffer from an inadequate service, but from a service that could be improved considerably by modernizing the line from Cape Town to the north where the markets are. The markets are there and the population is there; we are situated at the tail-end of South Africa. Therefore we should do everything to cut down mileage and modernize this line. The Hex River tunnel is the one scheme that can improve the position. I want to go a little bit further. If you go back into the history of the research on this particular line, there was once the suggestion of building tunnels through Du Toit’s Kloof. I believe a tunnel is going to be built through Du Toit’s Kloof for road traffic. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not have a look at that to see whether a rail tunnel cannot be added to that. If my memory serves me correctly—I was connected with transport during the war—I remember that there were surveys taken for this rail tunnel though the Du Toit’s Kloof mountains. As a matter of fact the roads department took over the survey from the Railways. In this way we can cut down considerably on the mileage to the north. We cannot just treat this as a joke and wave it away year after year. It is up to the Minister to say whether he has decided to abandon the Hex River tunnel or not so that we will know where we are going. But to put it on the Brown Book year after year and do nothing about it, or virtually nothing, is not good enough. If one looks at the Brown Book estimates one sees that he is spending something like R9 million if not more on the Touws River centralized traffic control. In total this project amounts to something like R24 million. We are spending all that money on a centralized traffic control which will probably go through the Hex River and one wonders if the hon. the Minister is really serious about building these tunnels. But one feels that the Minister is not really serious about spending all this money on centralized traffic control in the Hex River area as we have it today and one wonders if he just puts this item in the Brown Book to please us down here in the Western Cape. I am going to ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to this job and to get on with it. It is very necessary; costs are rising. The cost went up by something like R15 million and I suppose that today it would cost us in the neighbourhood of R25 million to R30 million. Costs are going up every day. This scheme has been kicked around by the Government for the last 25 years, since it has come into power, and I think it is time something was done about it. It is something the Western Cape requires. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first paragraph of Chapter I of this excellent report of the South African Railways we read this sentence:.

This side of the House gratefully says “hear, hear” to this statement of the General Manager. Hon. members on that side of the House apparently lest sight of that injunction when they came along with their attack on this Budget. Their attacks were concentrated on two particular points: Firstly the deficit and the subsequent rate adjustments, and then, secondly, the salary of the railwayman. This side of the House dealt skilfully with arguments that came from that side. If one may now put it in the simplest of language, the South African Railways have become involved in, financial problems as a result of the fact that they have unselfishly served the South African economy. Had it not been for the fact that the South African Railways has been unselfish in the action it has taken in the economic sphere, this deficit, which we have encountered in the Budget this year, could have been converted into a surplus. Our thanks to the South African Railways Administration for this service unselfishly performed for South Africa. I think that if hon. members on that side of the House had, in word and deed, as unselfishly served the South African economy, these problems in the economic sphere would also have been solved more quickly. The hon. member for Yeoville is unfortunately not in the House, but this year we have again had his favourite scare story which he used in the Railway’s Additional Appropriation Debate, i.e. that the Railways is bankrupt. At that stage the hon. the Minister of Finance rightly pointed out, by way of an interjection, that it is not a case of bankruptcy, merely of non-liquidity. But as was the case last year, after devaluation, the hon. member for Yeoville again gave no thought to the damage which that term “bankruptcy” could do not only to South Africa, but also to the South African Railways. At the moment we are saddled with a staff shortage in the South African Railways. Would some of our young men be desirous of entering the service of a bankrupt organization or a bankrupt institution? Yesterday the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the morale of the Railwaymen is so low, lower than it has ever been. That is not true. If one were dealing with a group that has a low morale, one would not obtain high productivity, as is the case at present in the South African Railways. However, suppose it were true, bankruptcy stories, like those of the hon. member for Yeoville, would definitely not help to increase that so-called low morale again. We remember the explanation the hon. member for Yeoville gave last year for this bankruptcy story of his. He said he had consulted the Oxford Dictionary and that his description was, after all, not as humiliating as the meaning we attach to it in general terminology would imply. It would be difficult to convince me that the hon. member for Yeoville always moves on that high intellectual plane, but if this is the case, it is very clear to me that that is specifically why that side of the House has lost contact with the electorate and with the railwayman; hence the disjointed attack they made this year on the department and on the Minister.

We thank the South African Railways for its unselfish service to South Africa. The railway official has become the victim of international economic circumstances over which no one in particular has any control and which the majority of the countries of the world are guilty for, possibly South Africa as well. But the fact that the railwayman waited a long time before insisting upon an increase, means that we can with confidence convey our thanks to the railwayman for the way he has served the South African economy in the past few years.

With the increased salaries, we had increased rate adjustments. I think it is very unfair of the hon. member for East London City to have asked here yesterday that the farmer should compensate for the losses which the Railways suffers. The impression was created by that hon. member that the rates on agricultural products are such at present that the resultant profit obtained by the Railways should cover the loss. He said—

The hon. member conveniently neglected to mention the cost cover. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister happened to refer to that. Let us just take another look at this aspect he mentioned. He mentioned that rates were increased by 53,8% for fresh fruit, 57,4% for vegetables, 59,2% for eggs, 50,6% for lucern and for roughage. If we look at the cost cover before and after the rate increases, we find that in respect of fresh fruit the cost cover before the increase was 41%: It is 62% at present. In other words, the gap has only been narrowed by 21 %. When we look at fresh vegetables, it was 27%; the cost cover is 42% at present. When we look at eggs, the cost cover was 45%; it is now only 80%. As far as lucern is concerned, the cost cover was 36%; it is now 54%. As far as hay and roughage is concerned, it was 29 %; today the cost cover is a mere 43%. This indicates to us that the rates before the increase were very fair and that there is as yet no question of profit in the Railways. We on this side of the House are also farmers who have the interests of agriculture at heart. We also ask the Minister to take another look at these rates if conditions improve. But we are also realistic enough to realize that the South African Railways also carried many other industries and that it is only right that other industries do not so much carry South African Railways now, as just help to relieve the burden.

Do your farmers agree with you?

I should like to come to quite a different matter. We have, with appreciation, taken cognizance of the safety research projects concerning the human factor in industrial irregularities and accidents. We have taken note of the comprehensive study, made in this connection at Germiston, of the physical, psychological and sociological results of overtime work on drivers. We are also grateful that the Administration was aware its duty after an accident took place last year, and that the Administration also very quickly issued a memorandum pointing out the disciplinary measures to officials and requesting that all vigilance procedures be further increased and that new ones be introduced. It is a gratifying step in the right direction that our engine-drivers will in future, with the approval of the Hade union, also undergo regular tests, as in the case of our pilots. I want to ask in all humility that the psychologists and sociologists of the department play an even greater and more important role in the investigations of accidents. Investigations must be carried out in the minutest detail into the mental and psychological states of our officials in those cases where accidents are accompanied by loss of life. The investigations must be followed up strictly in regard to the colleagues and families of the deceased I believe it well be possible to eliminated depressive effects by these means. However, what is even more important is that the Administration can play a particularly sympathetic role in the care of the next-of-kin of an official who has died. In fact, one only realizes the depression of such a family when one deals with this one’s self as happened to me in my constituency during the past recess. That is when one realizes that the department can do a tremendous amount, and must do everything in its power, to again bring mental and psychological stability back into those Railway homes. It is the duty of each of us to offer assistance to those who find themselves in those circumstances. We as people very easily forget the grief of others. Although it may perhaps sound unrealistic, I nevertheless want to ask whether it is not possible to establish an after-care division in the Railways. These officials could regularly, and for a long time after the accident has taken place, be of assistance to the survivors of such a train accident. As I have said, it may perhaps sound unrealistic, but I know that the Railways has very frequently ventured into new fields in the past. I also believe that this is a field which the South African Railways can venture into, thereby setting an example to other undertakings in South Africa. This Psychological and mental help to victims is a service which South African Railways can furnish out of gratitude to those who give their best to the South African Railways.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister commenced this afternoon by saying how very tolerant he had been towards me. Then he started off by attacking me in quite a big way. I want to show the Minister that my shoulders are broad. I can take this. Then he went on to say quite a bit more. This made me wonder whether the hon. the Minister is in this world and of it or otherwise. Until such time as this hon. Minister comes out of his Rip van Winkle sleep and arranges for more consultation between the Administration and the staff, I will continue to attack the Administration in the interests of the staff. I can assure the hon. the Minister that I have the support of the staff. I can assure the hon. the Minister that I have the support of many thousands of railwaymen. This has been proved this week since I delivered my speech on Monday. I had intended this afternoon asking for a special favour for my constituency, but in view of what I said and in view of what I am going to say, I know I am wasting my time. I am going to give him more reason to come back and attack me again. But I think I am justified in saying what I intend saying. It is simply that financially the Railway Administration find themselves in a lot of trouble, serious trouble. I have a suggestion how to overcome that, and that is namely to stop using the Railways as a place of sheltered employment for Government supporters. This is all I can say. I also want to add the rider that this is the consensus of opinion amongst railwaymen. I am now referring to what I have just said about sheltered employment. It appears to be common knowledge. In view of what I have said, and knowing that I am not going to get what I asked for, I think I will resume my seat.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must not blame me if I do not follow him up in what he said. I shall simply leave him to the Minister. On behalf of this side of the House, and those of us who represent Port Elizabeth, I should just like to express our joy and our thanks to the Minister for the clarity he gave in connection with the St. Croix project. [Interjections.] The hon. member, who is sitting there at the back laughing, is being silly; we all know that. We do not have to pay any attention to him. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are very glad that he has said that St. Croix is not going to be used as an alternative for the Saldanha Bay scheme, but, in fact, as supplementary to that scheme. This will happen when the present ore quay has been utilized to the full, and subject to certain conditions. I want to repeat that we are very glad that we have today obtained clarity from the Minister in connection with this matter. I want to say this afternoon that neither Saldanha Bay nor Port Elizabeth must think that an ore quay will bring manna from heaven, because this is how it is frequently presented. Today we have an ore quay in Port Elizabeth, and we know what the consequences are. There is an infernal amount of agitation going on about the fact that that ore quay should be shifted because it causes atmospheric pollution. This will also happen in Saldanha Bay. I want to say that the location of the enrichment or refining process is actually of importance here. We know that an ore quay is not labour-intensive. An ore quay will not immediately bring about an economic boom for Saldanha Bay or for Port Elizabeth. This is going to depend upon where the refinement of that ore is going to take place in the future. We on this side of the House are glad that the hon. the Minister this afternoon gave clarification about when St. Croix is going to be developed and subject to what conditions this development can take place. Our problem in Port Elizabeth today is dust. There is agitation in this connection. I have here a cutting in which the chairman of the Ratepayers’ Association is urging the City Council to ask for a court interdict about this. It then goes further and states—

We surely know, Sir, that it is not the Railways’ duty to clean iron ore. It is their duty to transport it. The Railways is not responsible for the dust there is in Port Elizabeth today. I think the biggest pollution problem that exists is not caused by that dust, but by the thousands of motor vehicles that move up and down the coast at Humewood in the evenings. This causes a great deal of pollution. We know that the C.S.I.R. is at present determining how serious the pollution is and what methods must be used to combat that pollution. We shall therefore have to wait until the report about that is published by the C.S.I.R.

Sir, this brings me to a speech which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made in this House on 14th March last year. I quote what he said (Hansard, Vol. 38, col. 3259)—

He was speaking about St. Croix here. Then he continues—

I should now like to ask the hon. member whether he has so short a memory. He knows that my colleague from Algoa, and also our colleagues on the opposite side of the House who represent Port Elizabeth, held discussions on various occasions with the then mayor, the late Mr. Rademeyer. Subsequently we held discussions with Mr. Ellis, who succeeded him as mayor. Thereafter we also held discussions with Mr. Ruben. We acted as a unit. We made propaganda for the fact that the St. Croix scheme should be developed, and now the hon. member says in this speech that I did not raise my voice. It is not I who did not raise my voice, it is that hon. member who, in truth, has so short a memory that he cannot remember it. I now want to ask the hon. member: Where does his integrity come in if he knows that we strove together to obtain this scheme? We repeatedly also held discussions with the relevant Ministers, inter alia, Minister Schoeman. We were then given the assurance that the Cabinet would investigate all the facts and particulars. After they had investigated the matter, they would decide what was in the best interests of the Republic. We accepted the position as such. We said we would reconcile ourselves to that result. Then the hon. member went further. We were all advocating the development at St. Croix, but what did the hon. member say then? I quote from a newspaper report in this connection—

This appeared in the Eastern Province Herald after the Saldanha Bay scheme had been approved. Now the hon. member accuses the Cabinet of the fact that a Broederbond decision was taken. Sir, that hon. member sees every cross-tie in the railway line as a Broederbonder; he sees every locomotive travelling on that railway line as a Broederbond general. It is probably because he is sitting so close to an Ossewabrandwag general. The hon. member says I have not yet raised my voice as far as the development of that project is concerned. Will that hon. member ever gain the sympathetic ear of the Cabinet if he accuses them of the fact that a Broederbond decision was taken? Does the hon. member want to tell me that the Cabinet did not decide on merit?

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member does not remember too well. When he qualified to be elected, there were 12 000 voters in his constituency. There are now only 7 000 of them. Five thousand of his voters have disappeared. And now, Sir, 5 000 of the remaining 7 000 are Broederbonders. Then he wants me to lend him some voters for the next election. I shall do so, but they will all be Broederbonders as well!

Sir, I now want to turn my attention to my Minister. I want to ask him to bear in mind that tremendous new development is going to take place as a result of the Orange-Fish-Sundays River schemes. This is going to place tremendous demands on the midland railway. We want to ask the Minister to bear this in mind, particularly when we have in mind the tremendous contribution this could make to the production of agricultural products, particularly citrus. Millions of boxes of citrus will have to be transported, and so too lucerne, wool, milk and many other types of grain. We shall have to make provision for this. It would be a very good thing, too, if we could also think of what the hon. member mentioned there, i.e. a new station building. The existing station building is, in any case, one of the oldest station buildings. We are not asking only for renovations to that building; we are advocating a new station building. But if this cannot be given at the moment, I want to suggest that the Minister and the responsible department of the Railways should begin looking out for a suitable site where the future railway station can be built, because as I see Port Elizabeth, I do not think we can erect a modern railway station on that small site. In my constituency there is a suitable site to which I want to refer the Minister. We have the showgrounds in Port Elizabeth. Those showgrounds are so centrally situated that they could serve the whole of Port Elizabeth. The buildings there are primitive and dilapidated old places that will have to be renovated in the course of time. I think the time has come for the Railways to give some thought to obtaining that land. There is a great deal of land available elsewhere that can be used for show-grounds. I refer to Markman and to Welsh Estate near the abattoirs and near the new market that is being built; there are also railway facilities. My plea is that those showgrounds should now be obtained while we perhaps have the opportunity to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by asking the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North whether he is a member of the Broederbond.

What does that have to do with you?

Are you one?

He will never become one … [Interjections.]

The Broederbond exerted its influence and prescribed a sports policy for us. When the Saldanha scheme was approved, in spite of the fact that the cost could apparently amount to R1 000 million and more, it appeared as if that decision also came from the Broederbond. But if my hon. friend objects to this so much, I shall say nothing further now about the Broederbond. I just want to tell him that this is the first time that he has in public—in any case very definitely the first time in this House—given his approval to the St. Croix project being proceeded with. But, Sir, I shall leave him at that.

†Sir, I too would like to convey my felicitations to the hon. the Minister on his statement in his Budget speech that the St. Croix scheme should not be seen as an alternative but as complementary to the Sishen-Saldanha project. The hon. the Minister went on to say that should the maximum capacity of the Port Elizabeth harbour be reached, then attention should be given to the St. Croix scheme. This statement has opened a new vista for the Eastern Cape in general and for the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage complex in particular. I can foresee that this project could be the catalyst for many other industries which would transform the economy of that area. The Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage complex would then no longer be the sick man of the South African economy, but could grow into a robust young giant, greatly contributing to the national economy and our prosperity. Sir, in the Business Times of 11.3.1973 it was stated—

The tonnage mentioned in this article is, of course, in addition to existing exports. The hon. the Minister also stressed in his Budget speech that private exporters would not be able to utilize the Sishen-Saldanha line but would continue to use the Sishen-Port Elizabeth line and ship via Algoa Bay.

The capital investment of the S.A. Railways in the Sishen-Port Elizabeth line is something like R128 million at present. The Administration is also presently investing additional millions of rand in this line to modernize it and to increase its capacity. To ensure a return on this investment, it is absolutely essential that the revenue be increased, and the revenue, as far as I can see, can only be increased by transporting greater volumes of ore. This increased tonnage of ore could not possibly be shipped via the existing installation in the harbour at Port Elizabeth. Although the capacity of the Port Elizabeth installation is rated to be 6,3 million tons per annum, I doubt whether prevailing circumstances would allow a greater tonnage than about five million tons per annum to be shipped from Port Elizabeth. Larger volumes of ore therefore can only be exported from Algoa Bay if a new and modern deep-sea terminal, such as is envisaged at St. Croix, is proceeded with. That would mean that our ore would be shipped in giant carriers, which would of course mean a vast saving in freight charges, and that would make South Africa more competitive in the international ore trade. I feel confident, Sir, that the sponsors of the St. Croix scheme would be able to meet the conditions enunciated by the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate. To bring the St. Croix scheme to completion would take approximately two and a half to three years. I would therefore plead with the hon. the Minister and his Administration that when a formal approach is made to them by the sponsors of the St. Croix scheme to proceed with this project, he and his Administration give every assistance and encouragement to them so that this project is not unnecessarily delayed.

*There are two further matters which I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. The first is the pollution which is being caused in Port Elizabeth by the ore-dust. The hon. the Minister is very sympathetic towards the municipality and the inhabitants of Port Elizabeth as far as this problem is concerned, and he has already given an undertaking to put countermeasures into operation in an effort to combat this. I should like to emphasize that the most effective and the cheapest measures in the long run would be to move the ore quay from the harbour to St. Croix.

The second problem is the fuel farm which is situated in the harbour area of Port Elizabeth. You know, Sir, this is near the centre of the city and it borders on residential areas. The extension of this complex, so I have been informed, has already been considered, but the available space is very limited. In modem town planning of course, fuel farms are constructed far beyond the city limits, as here in Cape Town. The fuel farm complex in the Bay is something which constitutes a considerable degree of danger even in times of peace, to say nothing of emergencies. When the St. Croix scheme comes into operation it will of course be possible to move this fuel farm to the St. Croix area. After such a removal has occurred the Administration will again have space for the necessary extensions in the harbour. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we can, of course, understand why the hon. Opposition carries on like this about the railway worker.

What does your station look like?

If we think of the losses they have suffered during the past week amongst the students, it is clear that they must at least get votes somewhere for the next election. There was a time when the hon. Opposition was intent on trying to break the Government via the railway worker, by continually trying to place the Railways in a poor light. However, we were always the ones who defended the railway worker on every platform and at every spot, not only as a worker, but also as a person. At the time, the Railways and its workers were experiencing difficult times. These people had to do their work under very difficult circumstances. It was as a result of the National Party’s efforts that the railway worker’s back could not be broken by the Opposition. There was a time when there was a shortage of labour on the Railways and at the time the railwayman not only remained loyal to his employer, but also to the work he had to do. At the time it was the National Party who knew the worker through and through. Over the years this Government has been good to the railwayman. We do not only know the railwayman at election time when we want his vote. That is the only time the Opposition knows him.

Today I want to put a few questions to the Opposition. Do they still remember the days when there was tremendous development in the Republic of South Africa, and as a result a tremendous shortage on the Railways? Then there were delays in the loading, off-loading and delivery of goods, but then the railwayman, as he also does at present, worked day and night and exerted all his strength to carry out the necessary work. In those days the railwayman carried out his task because he knew his responsibility to his country, his job and the Administration. In those days the United Party did not have a good word for the railwayman. In those days—it did not always happen only in the House—the Opposition accused the Minister of making use on the Railways of people of the poorest quality in the country. Today, however, the United Party is singing another ditty. [Interjections.]

In this country over the years the workers’ salary and pension benefits have never been looked after as well as this Government looks after them at this time. I have known the railway worker for some considerable time now, and I can well remember the conditions in which they lived in the days of United Party rule. We only have to think of the kind of houses in which they lived at the time, and what their pension benefits were like, and compare this with today’s circumstances. At the time the people who were working temporarily at a place, and who had to be housed in temporary quarters, lived in shanties that corrugated iron and canvas structures that could not offer shelter against the cold, the heat the sun or the elements. Today these people, who are working temporarily at a certain place, live in caravans that are comparable to luxury hotels. It is not only important officials such as managers who have such accommodation, even the humblest workers live in such caravans. Any railwayman who is worth his salt owes the Government a debt of gratitude for what the Government has done for him over the years and will also do for him in the future. The Minister knows his workers; he treats them like people and he is proud of them. I just want to say that the hon. the Minister knows the railway worker at all times and he will also share with them the future that lies ahead.

I want to express a few ideas about another matter, i.e. the Saldanha-Sishen project. We are grateful for the advent of the Cabinet announcement that this project will be built.

But you cannot use it.

If it depended upon the Opposition, we would not even have had one, let alone the use of one. We are of course disappointed that this project only makes provision for a single purpose line, but we acknowledge that this project was investigated and announced solely according to economic considerations. As far as that is concerned I and all of us will defend it, and we can do so as well. The inhabitants of this region, the Northern Cape, also feared that this could happen, and at the time I myself also made representations to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Transport. The latter put it to us clearly that he hoped it would be a dual purpose railway line. But I was also told that if it appeared, after the announcement, that it would be a single purpose railway line, it would be our task to make further representations for a dual purpose line. That is what we were told. Because this was said to us at the time. I now want to make this request. This matter affects a large portion of our country and our population. It is not only an ideal of ours; it is really a need that we have. Throughout the years we have lodged pleas for this vast area, and we were brought strongly under the impression that it would be a general railway service line and, if not, we were told we could make such representations. That impression created, amongst our people, great hopes and expectations for the future, but unfortunately we have been deprived of these. Cognisance has only been taken of the export of iron ore, but I believe that our side of the matter also has merit, and therefore I should like to state it here this afternoon. That part is rich in iron ore, copper, tin and asbestos. As we know, there are today eight varieties of minerals that can be mined in that region. As my hon. colleague from the Namaqualand constituency put it, there is a copper ridge from Prieska with a belt of minerals right through to Okiep. This development can bring great benefit to this part of our country. I want to advocate that we can make good use of the mining of these minerals in future to make the development of this railway line a multipurpose one. Neither was the agricultural region in which we live, and the potential of the various agricultural products it furnishes, taken into consideration. We have wool, livestock, wheat, maize, salt, cotton and lucerne which we produce millions of tons of. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in the past months of drought we have not had the necessary transport with which to convey fodder and all these products to the north and to the west. As the hon. the Minister knows, on 17th February there were 405 000 tons of lucerne there that we could not transport because, in this area of 117 square miles, there is only one single railway line and no transport to the north and to the west. These distances mean that if we want to go round De Aar to Postmasburg, which is 190 kilometres from us, we must make a trip of 870 kilometres. If we want to go 190 kilometres to Van Wyksvlei and Carnarvon we must make a trip of 715 kilometres. For these reasons I think it is desirable for us to have here a multi-purpose line to also help us in this area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say a few words about the Island of the Cross which is, as we all know, the breeding ground of the famous jackass penguin. I know this is one matter that worries the hon. the Minister, because when St. Croix is developed, we do not know what to do with these penguins. [Interjections.] I am tempted to use the word “jackass” for my colleague, but I will not do so. I am happy to be able to assure the hon. the Minister that leading ecologists we have in Port Elizabeth have made a very thorough investigation of this problem. I think that if these people together with the Minister and his Administration put their heads together, they will find a way of securing the future of these penguins when the days for the island to be developed arrive.

There seems to be a little problem as to the correct pronunciation of the name of this island. I believe people who understand French always say St. Croix but I am prepared to settle with the hon. the Minister and call it St. “Croy” (as in “boy”). If the hon. the Minister agrees, I will call it St. “Crux” (as in flux), because that is going to be the crux of my speech. I suppose that if one had to study Hansard no island could claim to have its name so frequently mentioned in the very records of this House as this little island in Algoa Bay. I think that is only right because no island is going to play a greater part in the future development of the economy of this country than this little block of rock in Algoa Bay. Even at this late stage I want to extend to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North a very warm welcome to the team propagating the St. Croix project. I say to him: Better late than never; you are most welcome.

I believe it must be in the interests of the country that the facilities which the Minister has available in Algoa Bay at present are used to their full capacity. The Minister has said that when that day comes we will have to look towards St. Croix. I want to ask him to see to it that those facilities are in fact used to their full capacity. I believe that the Minister himself can play a very great role in achieving this objective. The hon. the Minister in his speech made it quite clear that the private exporters of ore must use the Minister’s railway lines. It appears logical to me, therefore, that if this is the case, the Minister should give the five big concerns, which are involved with the export of ore, an opportunity of meeting him. I believe that if such a meeting could be arranged and a round table conference could be held with the people who are involved in the export of ore, the Minister would find these gentlemen most co-operative. If such a conference could be convened, I think problems such as getting bigger contracts to utilize fully the present facilities at the present harbour, could be overcome with the Minister’s assistance. They could discuss the financial implications connected with the development of the St. Croix project in itself; they could discuss the financial implications of building the spare line, the implications of which are very considerable. I think that the Minister would find these people more than ready to co-operate in every respect. I think that he would also find them ready to meet the Minister’s problem, because the present ore-loading facilities cost the Railway Administration a great deal of money and are at the present time one of the real sources of profit in the whole ore exporting business as far as the Administration is concerned. I can quite see that the hon. the Minister does not readily want to give up those facilities. I think these people would be prepared to assist the Minister in respect of that problem of his. As I say, I believe he would find these people co-operative and I am quite sure that, with determination from both sides and a willingness to give and take, a satisfactory formula could be found whereby the present facilities could be used to the full in the shortest possible space of time. Then a formula can be evolved whereby the St. Croix project could well be tackled to the Administration’s satisfaction. I submit that this would be more than an act of faith; this would be a wise move in the economic interests of our country.

I do not want to pursue that subject any further. I believe that the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech went a very long way in clearing the mist away which have for so long befogged the issue with regard to St. Croix and Saldanha. I believe the issue is now clear and that the hon. the Minister has come clean. He has made, I believe, a sound proposition. I believe, too, that it is up to the private developers to play their part. I think that if they are prepared to do that, they will find we have a Minister who is prepared to play his part. I look forward with confidence to this project doing a great deal of good in the not too distant future. This project, which is going to mean so much to the Eastern Cape because of the other developments that will flow from it, is going to do a great deal of good not only to that area, but also to the economy of South Africa as a whole.

I want to leave that point; I do not know how much time I have left …

One minute.

I have one minute. I think I will leave it at that point then. I have two other matters I wish to discuss with the hon. Minister, so I hope that the hon. Whip will be kindly disposed and give me another opportunity later.

Mr. Chairman, on this memorable day I also want to enter the lists for St. Croix, but before I do so, I first want to ask the hon. the Minister to give very strong consideration to also instituting a suburban train service in Port Elizabeth. I know that suburban train services operate at big losses, but since the Government compensates the Railways, in the case of other big cities, for the losses it incurs, I am of the opinion that Port Elizabeth can also lay claim to such assistance. Port Elizabeth is the fifth largest city in the Republic of South Africa, and I think it is to the great inconvenience of the inhabitants of that city, Whites and non-Whites, that there is no suburban train service whatsoever. The expansion is chiefly in two directions, i.e. in the northern direction where the non-White expansion is taking place, and in the western direction where the White expansion is taking place, in the Algoa constituency. I want to lodge a very serious plea with the hon. the Minister and his department to begin considering that matter even now, particularly as far as the non-Whites are concerned. They have to make use of bus transport at great inconvenience. There is, of course, also a tremendous increase in numbers, and the residential areas are far from the city. The bus company is really doing its best to transport those people, but I myself have seen how long queues of these people are still standing there at 8 and 9 p.m., sometimes in the cold and the rain. In the White western suburbs it is the same. Great freeways have to be built in the city centre at tremendous cost. I think that a railway line could be built there to greater advantage. Indeed, freeways always entail parking problems.

I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister very heartily for the sober and realistic statements he made in connection with the St. Croix matter. We now know that as far as the Saldanha-Sishen project is concerned, a monopoly has been created solely for the export of Iscor ore. The private exporters’ ore will still have to be exported through the Port Elizabeth harbour. In addition, with the jumbo trains, which are a great mechanical achievement, the South African Railways can now furnish 10 million tons of ore per year in Port Elizabeth. But the present harbour can, however, only export 6,3 million tons when it is working to optimum capacity. This means that about 4 million tons of ore, which can now be furnished there, cannot be exported even if contracts were available. That is the portion which the harbour will not be able to handle. The present ore quay does not have storage facilities for so much ore. There is, of course, also the question of dust pollution, which my colleagues have already spoken about. The biggest problem facing that harbour is the lack of capacity. The foremost and most damning restriction is the fact that the harbour cannot handle ships greater than 50 000 tons. Even the 50 000 ton ships can only leave the harbour at high tide. This also entails delays. The average size that can normally be handled is about 40 000 tons.

This limitation, which the ore harbour is saddled with, has an extremely detrimental effect on South Africa’s ore exporters, because it prohibits them from making use of the beneficial shipping rates which the modern large ore cargo ships offer ore exporters of other countries. Present day shipping authorities regard ships of 100 000 tons as the minimum size for the economic shipment of ore. The seriousness of this problem can clearly be illustrated by an example. I shall compare the recently established rate from Brazil to Japan with the rate from Port Elizabeth to Japan. From Tubarao in Brazil, which is 11 509 sea miles from Yokohama, the freightage works out at 5,70 dollars per ton when it is transported by a 135 000 ton ore ship. From Port Elizabeth, it is only 7 950 sea miles from Yokohama, the rate with an ore ship of 40 000 tons is 8,85 dollars per ton. The South African ore exporters must therefore pay about 3 dollars per ton more for a distance which is 4 000 miles shorter. If the ore could also be transported from Port Elizabeth in a 135 000 tonner, the rate would be less than 5 dollars per ton. Then our ore would be highly competitive and greatly in demand. In the case of Western European ore markets, the freightage from Tubarao to Rotterdam in a 100 000 tonner is about 5 dollars per ton, while from Port Elizabeth to Rotterdam in a 40 000 tonner it is about 8 dollars per ton. Here we also find ourselves in a disadvantageous position again. It is very clear that as a result of high freightage and smaller ships we shall be pushed out of the highly competitive ore market altogether, long before Saldanha can export ore. It is disturbing to notice, from figures furnished by the Systems Manager of the Eastern Cape, that the 1972 iron ore exports decreased by 22% as against those of 1971, and that manganese ore exports decreased by 4% in the same year. In total our ore exports in 1972 therefore decreased by 13,6% as against those of 1971. These figures may quite possibly be the writing on the wall for South African ore exports, because they will simply be pushed out of the market as the result of non-competitive shipping rates. Although it is common practice today to transport ore in 100 000 and 135 000 ton ships at cheaper rates, the ships of tomorrow, which are at present under construction, are giants of 150 000 and 175 000 tons. The smaller ore ships are therefore being pushed out of the market altogether. When one therefore bears in mind the detrimental position of the South African ore exporters, since they must pay quite a bit more over shorter distances than their Brazilian opponents have to pay over longer distances, the following question arises: Is the fact that our ore exports decreased considerably during the past year, not ascribable to the fact that we do not make use of the larger ore ships? And if this is so, will the private ore exporter succeed in obtaining the orders so as to use Port Elizabeth harbour’s maximum capacity for ore exports? In the light of this I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all humility whether he will not consider, even at this stage, giving a final decision in this connection, if the private ore exporters jointly and with a great sense of responsibility come to him and give him the necessary guarantees.

In conclusion I very appositely want to state that I am not speaking on behalf of any interest group. I am not speaking on behalf of people who will benefit from the development of St. Croix. I should actually say I am advocating the development of St. Croix in spite of the fact that I know that certain people will perhaps benefit. I think it will be in the interests of the Eastern Cape, and I believe it will be in the interests of the entire Republic, and that is why I am making this plea today. I also want to say, in conjunction with my colleague from Port Elizabeth North, that I am not one of the people who think that an ore harbour, and even an ore harbour at St Croix, will bring such wonderful benefits, except that it will bring a deep sea harbour in which large ships will be able to berth. I doubt whether many other industries will emerge from this. I even want to say, with much regret, that the people who see such great visions in respect of Saldanha, and who think the new city will spring up there, are perhaps being over-optimistic. Ore exports bring endless disadvantages, and we in Port Elizabeth have learnt to know those disadvantages. Our beautiful beaches, our best residential areas, our city centre, are polluted by this clinging, fatty, red dust that covers everything. I foresee that the poor people of Saldanha, instead of getting a beautiful new city, are going to be faced with the problem of pollution. But we do not want to make them pessimistic, because this will, of course, bring about development along the west coast. [Time expired.]

Sir, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Algoa. He has probably learned quite a great deal from this side of the House in the last half an hour, and it is interesting to notice the change in his thinking in regard to St. Croix. I am sure that he has also learned a lesson—and I am sure the hon. the Minister has—from the hon. member for Walmer, who has made a most practical suggestion as to how the matter can be dealt with without much waste of time.

I want to come back to the reply of the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for Yeoville with regard to those employees of the Railway Service who live very much below the breadline. I refer to the 58 000 employees of the Railways with whose position I dealt yesterday. In his reply to the Second Reading debate today, the hon. the Minister did not deign to reply to me. I want to stress the fact once again that if you are going to give those employees who are living below the breadline at least a reasonable breadline wage, it does not necessarily follow that you have to increase wages right from the bottom to the very top. All we are asking for these people is a reasonable breadline wage. If everybody is earning a reasonable living wage, then it it quite reasonable to increase wages all round on a percentage basis, because then at least the man at the bottom of the wage rung will not be suffering. But my plea was in respect of those workers earning less than a living wage. If you give those people reasonable living wage it does not necessarily mean that the entire salary structure of the Railway Service must be upgraded. Sir, if I were running a business where half my staff were living below the breadline, I would be ashamed to face the public with my balance sheet. The Minister has made the point that in addition to the basic wages of the workers, they also work overtime and receive other fringe benefits such as housing, etc. But, Sir, I could draw his attention to the complaints of many railwaymen, of whom at least 300 families live in the constituency of Jeppes. The whole of Kazerne, which is virtually the lifeblood or the heart of the whole of the transport system of the Transvaal, falls in the Jeppes constituency, and one is constantly in touch with Railway employees. I want to quote what was said to me in his home, where I met him, by a man who has worked in the Railway Service for 18 years as a checker. He is earning a total of R213 per month. This is what he said to me just after the increase of R60 million. He received an increase of only R15 per month; many had received much less. He said that it was perfectly clear that the only way in which an ordinary Railway worker can exist today is to work long hours of overtime. He finds it necessary to work from 3 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day, seven days a week, in order to be able to come out, and then he adds this pertinent statement—

This was a couple of years ago when the Railways showed a surplus. Sir, this allegation is constantly repeated by workers who earn these very low wages. I believe that all that is needed is a normal business approach to the pleas which have been made in respect of all those workers in receipt of wages which are below the breadline. Every worker should be paid what is called the effective minimum wage level. He must be able to support his family reasonably; he must be able to provide the reasonable amenities required by them, and he must be able to save a little bit for a rainy day. After all, the hon. the Minister knows how high medical expenses are; he knows what the cost of clothing and food is. How can a man with a wife and two or three children live on a wage of less than R200 per month? Sir, I do not think we need even deal with those who earn R235 per month because there was a clear statement from the Minister last year to the effect that half his staff had to live on that low wage. Sir, I think the importance of this matter cannot be over-emphasized, and I think a clear reply from the hon. the Minister is needed. I do not think that the worker wants the hon. the Minister’s sympathy. We do not say that the hon. the Minister is unsympathetic. Of course he is. The hon. the Minister says that I was born with a golden spoon in my mouth. The hon. the Minister was born with a golden spoon in his mouth. He carries a gold pass. At the moment I only have the silver spoon. The hon. the Minister knows how the poor man has to live and he also knows how people at the other end of the scale live. But our plea is in respect of those people who are obliged to work seven days a week for literally 15 to 16 hours per day in order to be able to make ends meet. I think this is a severe imposition on any worker. It is not good enough simply to answer that it would cost a fortune to raise the wages of these people to a reasonable level. I submit that the hon. the Minister has every justification for placing his lower-paid workers on a living wage, without in any way affecting those in the higher wage brackets. There is no reason why even an unskilled worker who has a family and who has to provide the manpower for the future of this country should be required to live below the breadline on the ground that if his wages are increased, it would necessitate a raising of the wage structure throughout the whole of the Railway Service, right up to the post of the General Manager. I do not think that that is a sound reason and I do not think that the hon. the Minister has given us any good reason for his failure to give relief to these people, apart from expressing his sympathy.

The other matter that I want to raise is also one to which the hon. the Minister did not give me a reply in his reply to the Second Reading debate. In raising this matter I am quite prepared to run the risk of the sarcasm which the hon. the Minister sometimes employs, perhaps quite effectively, in dealing with some of the issues raised here. The hon. the Minister, as I pointed out, budgeted in 1969 for a shortfall of R49 million. After taking into account surpluses in other divisions of transport, his shortfall was about R5 million. I think he actually finished with a deficit of R7 million. Then in the year 1970 he finished with a surplus of R27 million; for the year 1971 he finished with a deficit of R11 million, and thereafter a deficit of R42 million, and now a deficit of R45 million. I say, Sir, that the hon. the Minister should have planned for those five or six years, despite his difficulties. When you run a business, then you have to plan. We know what the problems are, and the Minister knows the problems of the Railways better than most people in this country. I certainly would not try to teach the hon. the Minister his business. He knows it better than I will ever know it, but I do say that he cannot depart from ordinary business principles, and one of those business principles is that you have to plan ahead. Surely it does not matter even if the hon. the Minister has to approach the Treasury for funds. I do not think that the Minister has given a reasonable excuse for not raising money from the Treasury to meet some of the problems which face him. I say that there must be planning well ahead. Even today we should be planning for the next 10 years. As far as the infrastructure is concerned, we should plan 10 years ahead. We should plan 10 years ahead with regard to the development of the coastline of South Africa. Take the question of the St. Croix project, to which the hon. the Minister has now virtually given his blessing. It took almost three years for a decision to be reached in this matter. If the decision had not been delayed, we would now be exporting under contract a number of millions of tons of iron ore to the East and to other countries in the world. If there is proper planning. Sir, we should not experience these valley periods which seem to fall on us as a disastrous surprise. If there is proper planning, it should be possible to straighten out these valleys, and I say that that can be done if a certain amount of courage is displayed in our planning. The Administration can only work effectively if direction is given to it by the Minister. [Time expired.]

Sir, it is amazing that that little difference which exists between the responsibility of the Opposition and the responsibility of the Government could lead to the Opposition always being free to plead for all kinds of things, which they will not be called upon to account for. One member of the Opposition asks for a cost of living allowance, the other asks for a special allowance, and the next asks for a reduction of the rates. Of course, one can expect this kind of thing from a chronic Opposition, and it is for that reason that they will remain a chronic Opposition.

Sir, there are a few matters touching the Kliprivier constituency which I want to raise here today.

Why do you not thank the Minister for your 220 vote majority.

In Ladysmith much has been done over the past few years to provide railway officials with housing, and there is no doubt that the railway officials are grateful for the large number of houses which have been built there in recent years. But it is also a fact that there is one specific area in Ladysmith where there are no railway houses, but houses which belong to the municipality of Ladysmith and are leased to the Railways, and which are used every time, in one election after another, as a political football by the Opposition.

Have you been to Pretoriusdorp?

I am talking about this very same Pretoriusdorp. It is that area which has acquired the Afrikaans nickname of “Rooiverdriet”. Those houses, which were built in the time of the United Party, to standards which were common under the U.P. régime, leave much to be desired. Some of those houses are still in use today, but as a transitional stage for occupation by railway officials without any accommodation. There are many deficiencies in those houses and I want to plead for those houses be done away with as soon as possible and that alternative housing be provided because it does not promote good relations if there is one specific area which is always misused as a political football. I want to plead for more to be done to provide railway housing in the Ladysmith area. I want to motivate this by saying that there is such a housing shortage in Ladysmith at present that exploitation by private owners is taking place, to such an extent that houses which are already more than 50 years old and which are in a dilapidated condition, are being rented to private individuals for R100 to R150 per month, houses which do not even come near to being worth that. This has resulted in railway officials who are unable to obtain railway housing in Ladysmith, being shamefully exploited. There is simply no alternative housing available. I am aware that much is being done. I also appreciate the viewpoint of the Railways Administration that where railway houses are provided, those houses should not be situated in one spot, but should be scattered among private houses. It is one of the most important psychological aspects of the situation of houses, that officials of one group, such as the Railways, should not all be accommodated in one spot. I am grateful that it is the policy of the Railways to take into account that the new houses which are being provided are scattered among the other houses. But I would still like to make an appeal for additional houses to be supplied precisely because Ladysmith is an area which, as a border industry area, is going to experience rapid development and where this enormous exploitation cannot be afforded, particularly of railway officials, people who cannot afford to be exploited.

Much has been said by the Opposition about people who are earning a basic wage of less than R200 per month, but what they do not take into account is that, as was also mentioned by the Minister, 70% of the railway officials are being provided with railway housing. This is a tremendous benefit for the railway officials. It is only the remaining 30%, and they are not all in the lower income groups, who suffer because they cannot all obtain railway housing in areas where there is a housing shortage, such as Ladysmith.

There is another matter which I want to raise briefly. I am really sorry the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Port Natal are not present. I was really amazed at the level of irresponsibility to which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana sank. I did not expect that of him. When I heard him speak, it was the face of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, but the voice of the hon. member for Port Natal, because that was the kind of bitterness one normally gets from the hon. member for Port Natal. I am not accustomed to that kind of bitterness from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

One of the things which has already been much discussed in this House occurs in my constituency. I refer to the narrow gauge railway lines which we still have. In my case it is the line which links Weenen to the main line. Weenen is one of the more important vegetable producing areas. As a vegetable producing area it is extremely important for Weenen that the vegetables can be delivered to the market quickly. If however, there is a short narrow gauge junction, this always and inevitably causes an unnecessary delay and also additional costs in railing vegetables from the producing area to the markets. I therefore want to plead for consideration to be given to the widening of this railway line as soon as possible. If it is not practical to widen the present railway line, then I think that there is justification for an investigation into the possibility of following another route, namely the route from Weenen to Chievely station. If this alternative route could be followed, the present route would be shortened by at least eight miles, or by one third. I am convinced that it would be of considerable advantage to the area to eliminate delay and to render better service to an extremely important vegetable-producing area in Klip River. In this way the farmers will not only enjoy the benefit of lower rates from the Railways, but the public will also benefit from it because it will be possible to deliver vegetables more quickly to the market, which will usually be Durban, and in a fresher condition.

I want to return to the hon. member for Port Natal. The day before yesterday he referred to the fact that during my previous period of office I only spoke about railway matters on one occasion, while Umhlatuzana is a railway constituency.

Is that not true?

That hon. member also used this argument at the time of the by-election in Klip River, but what he omitted to say, however, is that the irony of the democratic system in this House is that while the Opposition has 47 representatives as against the National Party’s 118, opportunities to speak are still allocated on a 1: 1 basis. By rights the Opposition should only be allowed three speeches for every seven speeches on the Government side. There would then be a fair division of speeches. If the Opposition is prepared to advocate that their opportunities to speak should be reduced so that these are allocated on a pro rata basis, taking into account their representation in this House, then they can present that kind of argument. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I found it interesting to listen to the hon. member for Klip River speaking about responsibility and accountability. He has, of course, learnt his lesson, for when he went to render an account to the railway people of Umhlatuzana, he had rather a hard time.

He only won by the skin of his teeth in Klip River too.

I would like to address a few remarks to the hon. the Minister concerning his unsympathetic attitude towards the men who serve in our Defence Force. It almost seems to me as if he still does not like soldiers. [Interjections.] We all know that every year far more than 20 000 of our young people from all corners of our country are brought together to receive their military training at various centres. These people, we, know, make very heavy sacrifices for the sake of the security of South Africa. Not only must they undergo training for approximately a year, but the career of every one of them is held up for a full year. If we think about this, we realize what they sacrifice for our country. We also know that they are paid very little during their training.

Until the end of last year they had the privilege of a concession of about 30% on the usual tariff, if they wanted to return to their homes during their training. Today the hon. the Minister told us that goods are being transported at a lower rate for very good reasons. If that is supposedly such a sound principle, I want to ask him why soldiers cannot be conveyed at a lower rate. It is a very good thing for these men to get away from the training camps over weekends, because it is very difficult to keep them busy then. It is good for their morale to get away to their homes when they are not on duty. We all know that they are free every weekend from Friday afternoon to Monday morning. We know that they made considerable use of the Railways’ concession facilities. Last weekend I was in Pretoria, in the Voortrekkerhoogte area. On Friday afternoon I saw that the road was packed with boys trying to hitchhike.

That was also the case in Jan Smuts’ time.

That is something we should be completely opposed to; that is something that is completely wrong. This year it is much worse than it was last year, because these people cannot afford to pay the full price of a train journey. I want to address a very earnest request to the hon. the Minister to reintroduce these concessions. Earlier in the session in reply to a question put by me, the hon. the Minister told us that there were no instances in which the trains had been overloaded or where there had been too many people on the trains and that there were no instances where special train services had had to be introduced in order to convey these people. Now that people are not making use of the trains, the Railways has lost much of its income.

I really think that it costs the Railways nothing to convey these people. The trains run and the places are there. However it means a great deal to the people in the Defence Force. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the matter. It would cost the Railways nothing and would mean a great deal to the Defence Force.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for North Rand will excuse me if I do not react to what he said. He has addressed his ideas to the hon. the Minister and therefore I leave it at that. This Budget has indicated to us that this Government is the true friend and the only friend of the railwayman. The railwayman also knows by this time that the National Party looks after his interests; that is being very clearly reflected in this Budget. The railway staff also know that it is only the National Party which can be trusted with their interests and therefore they will, as they have done in the past, vote for the National Party again in the future. What is the attitude of the United Party? Instead of respect and appreciation, ugly insinuations are made to so-called malpractices in respect of overtime. We are forced to sit here and see and hear how the workers are played off against the heads of the various departments, as we heard here yesterday and again today. We were also forced to hear how the authority of the disciplinary system which plays a very important role in the Railways, was being undermined. Only this afternoon we had to experience this coarse, scandalous and irresponsible conduct when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to the Railways as “a place of sheltered employment for Government supporters”. I say that this is coarse, irresponsible and scandalous conduct, an insult to every railwayman.

To say that a railwayman is a Nationalist?

Not because he is a Nationalist, but because railwaymen were referred to as allegedly doing sheltered employment. It is a pity that hon. members can act so irresponsibly. The Railways employs nearly 230 000 workers, and in such a large organization good relations are extremely necessary. The U.P. is merely trying to score debating points to obtain a little political gain for themselves. The National Party do not concern themselves with empty boasts and vain promises. It is a party of deeds, a party of courage, and a workers’ party. We have here a Minister who knows his work, who is in contact with his people and who is highly regarded by each one of them.

I want to dwell on one of the most important aspects of this Budget for a while, because little reference has been made to it. This is the positive measures taken to effect productivity and efficiency in the Railways. The example set by the South African Railways is an example which people in the private sector would do well to follow. By means of an economizing and by increasing productivity as a result of maintaining efficiency in all spheres and utilizing modern technology, mechanization and modem working methods and eliminating time-consuming and obsolete methods, the Railways has effected a substantial increase in productivity. The hon. the Minister has already pointed out in his Budget speech that the total tonnage of revenue-producing goods traffic conveyed by rail, increased by 4,7%, and that it did so even though the staff has decreased by 2% since March 1972. There has also been an increase of 8,3% in respect of low-rate traffic. That is truly no mean achievement.

There is also a second aspect that I want to stress, namely that the management has also, by means of the committees for greater productivity and efficiency which it established, achieved excellent results. Up to the end of 1972 improved methods and procedures had already achieved a saving of R19 million for the Railways. Another aspect with which the Railways also achieved great success, was the establishment of a so-called auxiliary service. These people render a very valuable service; not only are they indispensable, but in this way they supply the manpower deficiency. In addition I should just like to refer to the improved conditions of service which up to now have virtually gone unnoticed. I want to make special mention here of the concession made in respect of leave accruing to an employee on his death. I think that it is a very great improvement that the full leave will now be paid to dependants or to the estate.

Nor can we omit to express our gratitude for the concessions which have been made in respect of our pensioners. Various people have already told me that this increase is acknowledged with deep gratitude. Most important of all is of course the salary increase which has been granted to our people on the Railways. Everywhere I went this was referred to with nothing but deep gratitude.

In the next few minutes I want to deal with the matters which concern my constituency as such. This brings me to the Airways. Every South African may be justly proud of our Airways, internal as well as external. The service we render is of a very high standard and we have a very good name both here and abroad. What is a pity, however, is that there are still some of our people who make use of other airlines for their overseas journeys instead of the South African Airways. That is a phenomenon I really cannot explain. The reasons for that are not clear to me. I want to point out further that on our internal passenger flights the traffic has increased by 11,4% and the Freight per ton-kilometre by 17,5%. On our regional services there has been an increase of 25,8% in the passenger traffic and 29,9% in the freight ton-kilometre.

We are proud of Jan Smuts Airport, which is the beautiful gateway to our beautiful country, South Africa. This airport and the staff working there, make an indelible impression on those who enter or leave the country there. The building there has been planned with the convenience of travellers in mind and compares very favourably with the best and the most modern airports in the world. Jan Smuts Airport was opened to international traffic in 1953. At that juncture there were only 200 000 passengers, half of whom were international passengers, about 9 000 aircraft movements and approximately 3 000 tons of air freight. Since then the growth has been phenomenal. Aircraft movements have already reached the 250 000 mark. The number of international passengers has grown to 750 000, an increase of 16%. Jan Smuts Airport handled 96% of all the international air transport in the year 1971-’72, 38% of the total internal traffic and 67% of the air freight. If one takes all this into account, one has great respect for the staff of the airport. This airport which has only been in use for a few months, had to operate under very difficult circumstances in the past. Today one can scarcely believe that they were in fact able to handle the volume of passengers and freight which they had to handle in the old building. For that reason every one of us has the greatest respect for the work done by the staff of the Jan Smuts Airport under those exceptionally difficult circumstances. There are still a few things which will have to be improved. We are very grateful for the extensive parking facilities which have been made available there. We also realize that the traffic system has not yet been completed and that the access roads to Jan Smuts Airport are one of our greatest worries, but we also know that it is a matter which will be dealt with quickly and it is expected that by the next Budget great progress will have been made on these aspects. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Kempton Park must forgive me if I do not react to what he has said. I want to raise a few other matters with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister of Transport has had so many bric-à-bracs thrown at him during this week, and I believe deservedly, that I think he will be quite pleased to hear that I intend throwing a bouquet! During the last Railway Budget Debate I raised the question of the urgent necessity for an efficient rail link between Pretoria and Mabopane. I stressed the fact that because of the failure of the Railways to build a direct line between Mabopane and Pretoria …

Why are you so concerned about that?

… 50 000 non-Whites had to be transported daily between their places of work and their homes under conditions that can only be described as appalling. Needless to say, I was very pleased indeed to read in the report that the relevant interdepartmental committee recommended that three new electrified lines be built as part of a R70 million project. I want to say quite sincerely that I believe that this decision was a very timely one and a very wise one. This is especially so when one knows that it is predicted that some 100 000 non-Whites will have to be transported between Pretoria and the ever-growing Tswana city, 32 kilometers to the north. I want to congratulate the department in particular for paying attention to this very serious problem and for acting so quickly on it.

But that was not as a result of your representations.

I told the hon. member for Koedoespoort during the last debate that he should have raised this matter, but instead I raised it. I want to feel that I have played a small part in getting the department to apply their knowledge and technique to this particular problem. In the light of the urgency of this particular problem one wonders why out of a total of approximately R44½ million which has been placed on the Estimates the department is going to spend only R1¾ million during this coming year. If this is going to be the rate of spending it is quite obviously going to take many years before we see any real improvement in this particular area. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister when he replies to this debate to tell us when he feels this project will be more or less completed.

In the course of the hon. the Minister’s speech he made mention of the fact that there were today no less than 11 500 vacancies in certain key grades in the Railways. He told us too that in the bread-and-butter grades certain staff had to be trained to provide auxilliary services and that in fact 500 were providing such services. He told us too that at the moment about 500 women were doing jobs that have been traditionally done by men. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness whether he does not believe that because of the serious problems facing the Railways in regard to staff the time has not come when he should seriously consider training non-White footplate staff so that over a period of time they could man the total non-White commuter services in South Africa. I know that the South African Footplate Association are very much against this. I believe they are on record as saying that as far as they are concerned trains must and should only be driven by White Drivers. I believe that the hon. the Minister must ask himself quite seriously whether the reasons which they put forward are valid today. From time to time footplate staff have even to be flown to various centres to provide relief duties. There is no doubt that this problem is going to grow from year to year until we reach the stage where it will be a physical impossibility to provide White footplate staff to man all the non-White services. I believe that this Minister, who has always adopted a very realistic approach to the whole question of running the Railways, should use his influence to get the unions to change their particular viewpoint because of the existing circumstances. The report shows quite clearly that the number of non-White commuters is increasing each and every year. We hear so often in this House that Whites should be served where-ever possible by Whites, and I want to ask in all seriousness how we can morally oppose the thousands and thousands of non-White commuters when they believe—and they do believe this—that the time should come when they will be served by their own people. I know that many objections have been brought forward from time to time. As chairman of the Transport Committee in Johannesburg, I faced the same problem. When we had to get non-Whites to man non-White buses, the same arguments were used. But because we sat around a table with the unions and impressed upon them that this was inevitable, we finally found that the unions saw it our way, and I must say that ever since that day the non-White buses have been manned by non-Whites, and believe me, they have done the job very well. The question was even raised as to whether in fact the non-Whites could drive safely. After two years a survey was made and we found that, if anything, the record of the non-White drivers was equal to, and even better than that of the White drivers. I believe that all the outmoded reasons against this have fallen away. I believe that the hon. the Minister should start today, training responsible non-Whites so that eventually they can take over and man all the non-White commuter services in South Africa. I do not know what reply the hon. the Minister will give me, because if you look at the figures, it is only a question of time before this must be done. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he is going to wait until such time as we find complete disruption in our rail services before he acts. We know, too, that it is advisable to get non-Whites to man their own services. When we have had the odd accident, the reaction has always been, quite wrongly on the part of the Blacks, to blame the driver because he happens to be a White man. I want to say that under all circumstances I do not believe that there is a valid reason today why the non-White rail services should not be manned by non-Whites. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence again, as he has done in the past. We know that in many other spheres of the Railways services he has ignored the trade unions. He has done that with one object in mind, and that was so that the wheels of the Railways could turn and so that he could conduct a good service. I believe that if he uses his influence and sits down at a table with representatives of the trade unions, he will … [Time expired.]

The hon. member for De Aar referred to the Belmont level crossing. I may just tell him that a start will soon be made with the provision of flashlights at that level crossing. It is not that it is a very dangerous level crossing, for one has quite an unobstructed view on both sides. Nevertheless, a number of accidents have occurred—not so very many, but the last one again occurred at that spot—and we have now decided to put these lights up. Accidents still occur despite the lights, for people drive along pre-occupied with their thoughts and drive into a train. In any case this would mean an improvement as far as safety is concerned. The hon. member then referred to goods which were not being handled satisfactorily; there I agree with him. There are many breakages, etc., and the Management is taking the strictest possible action. Penalties are being imposed if it is proved that there was negligence in regard to the handling of goods. I am also concerned about the position, for thousands of rands have to be paid out in claims as a result of these breakages.

The hon. member for Bethlehem asked for a psychological examination to be made of railway servants involved in accidents. It would be a good thing if one were able to do this in every case, and to a certain extent it is in fact being done by the welfare officers. Frequently it does happen that there are in fact difficulties at home, and that there is some psychological reason or other for the person concerned not doing what he should have done.

†Sir, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said that the Railways are a case for sheltered employment of Government supporters. In a certain sense he is right, except that it is not sheltered employment. Sheltered employment is usually for people who are not physically fit. I think all railwaymen do a fairly good job of work; I think he will agree with me.

I do agree.

Well, then it is not sheltered employment. But I also agree with him that the majority of the railwaymen are Government supporters. That has been proved over and over again in all elections. The hon. member is therefore quite right in saying that the majority of the railway workers are Government supporters; there I have no quarrel with him at all.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North asked me to bear in mind the tremendous development which is taking place in Port Elizabeth, and to give attention to the construction of a new station building. This will come one day. I, of course, have a great deal of sympathy for Port Elizabeth.

Hear, hear!

Yes, I am chancellor of the University of Port Elizabeth and I therefore have many friends there.

You are in good company.

When ever I am able to help Port Elizabeth, I shall always do so, but at present there is unfortunately no money at all to construct a new station building there. The other problem is that the number of passengers on our main line trains are diminishing and not increasing. If there were many more passengers, the construction of a new station building would perhaps become an urgent matter, but the number of passengers is constantly diminishing. Hon. members know what is happening in America. There they are not even repairing their stations any more, and they have private railway systems there. They simply withdraw the passenger train, while we are still obliged to keep our trains in operation, even though they are half-empty. But one day there will be a new station building; the hon. member must simply have enough patience.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central again discussed the St. Croix project. I just want to say that I think that if the hon. members for Port Elizabeth are under the impression that when this project is constructed it is going to bring about a tremendous industrial expansion in Port Elizabeth, they are quite wrong. Just as the present quay has not brought about any industrial expansion, so the St. Croix project will not do so either, for it will simply be an ore loading site. Instead of the ore being off-loaded in the harbour, as is the case at present, it will be off-loaded on the coast and conveyed from there by conveyor belt to St. Croix. As far as Port Elizabeth itself is concerned, this will bring in no additional revenue and it will result in no industrial expansion. We must be realistic about this matter.

Will the Iscor plan not help Saldanha either?

No, not at all. It is a single purpose line. There will only be a quay for the exports of ore. As I said in my Budget Speech, when the Government of the day decides that other carriers may also make use of that line, and if branch lines have to be constructed, for example from places where ore is being exploited in the North West to this line, then the line will have to be handed over to the Railways, which will then operate it as a public line for all conveyors. But now I am talking about the years which lie ahead; I shall no longer be here when that decision is taken, nor will that hon. member be here.

Do not be so sure about that; I am tough.

Yes, the hon. member is younger than I am. He may just be still alive by then, but I do not know whether I will still be here then.

†The hon. member for Walmer said I must meet the producers. I am quite willing to meet the producers. But it is no use their coming only to talk to me; they must bring evidence. If they do that, I will be prepared to listen to them. But hon. members must remember that St. Croix is an island which does not fall under my jurisdiction. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Agricultural Credit. It does not fall under my jurisdiction. If they want to come and talk to me they are welcome but I do not like people to waste my time. They must come with evidence and say that they have those contracts, that they can definitely get them for the export of additional ore. I may say that up to now I have never seen one of them about this project. No-one has approached me. All I have heard about the project is from that hon. member and by reading the newspapers.

*The hon. member for Algoa asked for rail provision to be made for the Bantu in the Bantu areas. This is a very serious problem and I agree with him. There is an inter-departmental committee which has to report on that matter. This is another one of those projects which will cost a great deal of money. The Mobapani railway line cost R70 million. I agree that there is a real need for transportation for those Bantu. I have already dealt with this previously under the Transport Vote and said that the bus transportation service was completely inadequate, except if the municipality also contributed its share. But this is something which will of course have to come when a suitable opportunity arrives.

†Then there is the hon. member for Jeppes. Sir, if I only had a magic wand I would wave it and every railwayman would receive at least R500 a month.

Give them R300 to start with.

If I only had the irresponsibility of the Opposition I could say: “Do not worry about the expenditure. Give as much as you can and do not worry about where you get the money from.” But would it really be in the interest of our economy if I continually increase rates and tariffs? It puts up the whole of the cost structure, as happened now again. I have had numerous complaints from the farmers and from industry and commerce in regard to these increases in tariffs. The public suffers as well on account of the consequent increase in the cost of living.

Does the Minister not agree with the principle that a man must have at least a living wage?

It all depends on what the definition of a “living wage” is. It all depends on the man’s living standards. My standard and that of the hon. member is quite different from that of the unskilled railway worker. He should know that. His standard of living is quite different from that of a railworker. The hon. member must agree that there must be such a thing as job evaluation. You must pay according to the value of the job

But there must be a minimum.

Even that will not help. What is the minimum going to be? You have Black workers, Coloured workers, you have Indian workers and you have White workers. Must there be a uniform minimum wage for all? In other words, there must be discrimination between the different race groups.

It depends on their standards.

Yes, but what is the standard? Another thing the hon. member must also take into consideration is, that almost 70% of the workers have the benefit of cheap housing. Does the hon. member realize that if a house, for which the rent on the Railways is R24 a month, was owned privately the rent would be about R100 a month? You cannot build a decent house today the way we build houses. Many of them have three bedrooms with all the facilities. We let it for R24 now, after the increase, a rental which is absolutely ridiculous. Those benefits they also get and that must be taken into consideration. Most of the White railworkers live in railway houses for which they only pay a few rand a month. About 40 000 Bantu are departmentally housed. One must take into consideration all the other benefits they get. Does the hon. member realize that the railwaymen have the best sick fund in the whole of South Africa?

They do not think so.

I think so, and I can prove it. Do hon. members realize that for the few rand a month they pay …

But they cannot choose their own doctors.

Of course not, but it is the best sick fund there is. It is controlled by the staff themselves. If any of the workers have any complaints about the sick fund, they should complain to their own people who control that sick fund. Do hon. members know that?

Are you bragging about that?

Of course I’m bragging. I have the right to brag. I say again, it is the best sick fund in the whole of South Africa. Show me another sick fund where they get free medicine and free doctors and free hospitalization and free specialists, all for a few rand a month. There is nothing comparable anywhere.

For how much?

For a few rand a month; it all depends on the wage. I say it is the best scheme in the whole of South Africa.

But what about the Mines Benefit Society?

Their benefits are not as good as those of Railways Sick Fund. If the hon. member knows about these things and goes into the matter, he will see that there is really no comparison. The amount of the contributions paid by the railwayman and the benefits he receives bear no comparison. The mines have a medical aid society and not a sick fund.

But I referred to the Mines Benefit Society.

I was thinking about the mines’ benefits too.

It boils down to the same thing. They only have to make a monthly payment for their medical benefits.

But I maintain that they do not get the same benefits. I challenge the hon. member to make a comparison between that benefit fund and the Railways Sick Fund. There is really no comparison.

I shall go into the matter.

I say that Railwaymen get these benefits in addition to their wages. However, if the money is there, I shall give it to the railwaymen. The Railways do not belong to me and if I had the money I would give it to them. On the other hand, I have a responsibility to the general public as well as the railwaymen. I cannot increase wages indiscriminately merely because I feel sorry for them and then make the public as a whole and the railwaymen themselves pay for the increases. They get an increase on the one hand, but on the other hand the cost-of-living increases.

The hon. member says that I must plan. But we are always planning. If the hon. member will have a look at the Brown Book, he will realize that all that is contained therein is planning. He should know that we plan five or ten years ahead. There are many of these projects which will take ten or more years to complete. Of course, the Railways plan and they plan much better than most private industries do. The hon. member talks about planning, but at the moment private industry has a spare capacity of 25%. What has been going on with their planning? Of course we plan, but I cannot plan for revenue, because I am entirely dependent upon the people who make use of the railways. I cannot tell them, let alone compel them to make use of the railways in so far as the transport of their goods is concerned. I have to wait for them. However, the planning in regard to the Railways is proved if we have a look at the Brown Book which contains about 1 000 items.

*The hon. member for Klip River discussed the housing of the railway workers in his constituency and he referred to Pretoruisdorp and the houses which belong to the Ladysmith municipality, but which we rent. It is actually the responsibility of the municipality to see it that those houses are kept in a decent condition. That municipality is a U.P. municipality. Therefore he will just have to negotiate with them.

No! [Interjections.]

Is the city council of Ladysmith a Nationalist council?

But the mayor is a Nationalist.

But I am referring to the council. I did not know that the Ladysmith municipality was a Nationalist municipality. That is news to me. Even if they are a Nationalist municipality, the hon. member should still negotiate with them. [Interjections.] I must point out that in the Budget this year R5,3 million is being appropriated for departmental housing, and R6,8 for the house ownership scheme. What proportion of that amount will be spent on Ladysmith I cannot say at the moment.

As far as the widening of the narrow gauge railway line is concerned, I must point out that what the hon. members plea actually amounted to was the construction of a brand new railway line. One cannot widen a narrow gauge railway line. However, there is no justification for doing so at the moment. It is going to cost millions of rands which amount at the moment has to be spent on far more important, more necessary and more urgent work.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for North Rand, I am not unsympathetic towards the national servicemen; we still give them a concession if they travel in groups of ten or more. They may then travel at the single rate plus 20%. That is a considerable concession.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke about the shortage of staff and suggested that I train non-Whites as footplate staff. I have gone very far indeed in employing non-Whites in positions formerly occupied by Whites, but I must hasten slowly. So far I have had the support and the co-operation of all my trade unions. I think it would be wrong if I were to do something whereby I would antagonize them. They are assisting me. We have a special committee on which the trade unions and the management are represented. They go into these matters, but I cannot risk any dislocation of my service as a result of a strike or a go-slow strike should I force non-Whites on to them when they are not prepared to accept them. As I have said, it is a question of hastening slowly but more and more non-Whites are being employed by the Railways in positions formerly occupied by Whites. That procedure is going to continue in future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister made reference to the superlative excellence of the Blue Train and I think in all fairness to both sides of the House it is only right that we too should pay tribute not only to the excellence of this service itself but to those who serve on the train. It is a fact that wherever one goes and wherever you meet tourists, diplomats and South Africans who have used the Blue Train, you find nothing but praise for it. This is a pointer to the comment I want to make now. The hon. the Minister just a few moments ago said that we had to realize that he was entirely in the hands of the people who made use of the Railways. His final comment was that he could not compel people to make use of the Railways. The hon. the Minister has budgeted for a loss of some R45 million this year and in his comments on the declining passenger patronage given by commuters, he indicated that the use of first-class suburban services was declining as well as his main line services. On the other hand, the second and third-class usage was increasing. I feel that the time has come when the hon. the Minister must realize that we are all modernizing our concepts. His own department, the Airways, has brought about a concept of speed, comfort and luxury in long-distance travel. Within the cities we see a modernization of shopping complexes and shopping centres, and people are becoming used to better and better services. Against that one must face the fact that the Railways as such offer a somewhat dreary public image as far as the normal passenger train service and the main line passenger services are concerned. This image extends too to the building complexes and the uniforms of the staff. Generally it is not a service that will win people back to it. I believe that the approach which we must make must be a new approach to the marketing of the service, to public relations and to ever improving efficiency. I want to deal particularly with the trend that is developing overseas where, as hon. members know, there is an increasing realization that the essential reason why Railways have failed in relation to other forms of public transport, is that the speed and journey distances no longer relate in any proportionate sense to the journey distance and speed of the motor-car, of public transport and of the aeroplane. But in those countries where Government departments are making efforts to improve the efficiency performance of their suburban railway systems and intercity systems, there has been a direct increase in the number of passengers using those services.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned I had indicated that the success of the Blue Train, for which we all have the highest praise, could give a lead to the hon. the Minister not to accept the Press description of him as being one of the tired old men in the Ministry who is allowing the Railways slowly to die on its feet against the competition experienced from road motor transport and the Airways. I was pleading for a new transport strategy, a new approach to our passenger and inter-city services, a modernization of our train services and an investigation into the progress being made in Britain, in other countries of Europe, America and in Japan into high speed and advanced passenger trains. The speeds on the existing infrastructures in Europe at the moment have led in Britain to a return to the Railways. I quote the Financial Times of 8th November, 1972, where it is stated—

British Railways estimate that 25% of the increase has been won from air lines, 15% from the roads, leaving a lusty 60% of entirely new traffic. We are desperately facing the strangulation of our cities by the fact that we are using too many motor-cars. We have improved our highways; why not improve our railway system as well? Why not have a fresh approach to suburban peak hour traffic? We have been able to sell oranges in Britain by using attractive South African ladies as sales promotors; why not have passenger trains with corridors that would take the tired businessmen home and bring them back afresh, sell newspapers on those trains, have bar services, sell fresh orange juice, fresh appletizer, and what have you. There might be a little bit of bottom pinching; but what goes for Italy goes for this country too. On this basis there is no reason why we should not woo back to the Railways the passengers they have lost to the roads. That would also help the cities and we have to face up to it that neither the roads nor the cities will be in a position to continue to accept the passenger car transport that is daily pouring into the cities as they are now. This is a fresh idea. The Railways are our greatest undertaking; so there should be a modernization of public relations and the selling aspect. There is no reason whatsoever why we should sit year after year and listen to this dreary story of a loss being suffered by the South African Railways.

Mr. Chairman, I shall leave the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens in the hands of the hon. the Minister. I would like to return to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Unfortunately he is not here at present. I want to tell him that he has now claimed for himself the honour of having worked on the matter of the Mabopane-Pretoria railway, but we on the National Party Council of Pretoria have been working on this matter for a long time and the hon. member for Wonderboom and I not only tried to bring about the construction of the railway line, we were also active on other levels in Pretoria in regard to the conveyance of these Bantu to their work. The only contribution which he did perhaps make, was that when he began to talk about it, he made us fear that the venture would fail. That was after he had heard that we were already considering the matter.

It is with deep gratitude and appreciation that we take cognizance of everything which is being done by the South African Railways in the Hercules constituency, particularly as far as the railway line between Pretoria and the North is concerned, and as far as the Pretoria/Magaliesburg section is concerned. Tremendous improvements have been effected to those stations, for which we are very grateful.

However, we have another problem in Hercules which is very near to our hearts and which causes us deep concern. It is a problem which has become a real one to us. It concerns the safety of our children. The history of the fly-over bridge on the Pretoria /Magaliesburg section is a very long one. It dates from the forties when a decision was taken to close some of the level crossings. As far back as 28th September, 1950, it was decided that there should be a fly-over bridge over Hendrik Street. From that time onwards representations have been made by individuals and others that that fly-over should not be built over Hendrik Street, but without any success. There is a large number of streets which could be opened up and over which this fly-over could be built. The Railways have stated time and again that there would be no difference in the building costs. The reasons which have been put forward over the years as to why the fly-over should not be built in Hendrik Street, are in the first instance that that street is a short through road, only three-quarters of a mile long, linking Ven der Hoff Road and Moot Street. Therefore there is no question that it would serve as a direct link between the southern part, in other words the Daspoortrant area, and the northern Magaliesburg area. A second reason is that there are more suitable sites for level crossings which would serve as a direct link between the southern and the northern areas. In addition, the Hermanstad Primary School is situated in Hendrik Street; the building itself is 40 ft. away from the traffic. We have made constant objections to this. We have said that this will hinder the school in its educational task; not only will this be the case, but will also constitute a serious threat to the safety of the children of that school, 66% of whose pupils live on the feeder area of the western side. Sixty-six per cent of those scholars must therefore cross that street twice a day and then we are not even including extramural activities. We also predicted that the situation would not remain static. The scholar population on the western side will grow and those scholars will all have to cross Hendrik Street. In the east the number will diminish because industrial zoning is continually taking place in Hermanstad. That is precisely what has happened. At present there is a big project which is to be built directly opposite the school on the opposite side of Hendrik Street. If the fly-over bridge comes, the elevated street will run between the school and the 18-storey block of flats, which is going to cost R4 million. After 23 years we have given up the struggle. Now we come here with a very friendly request and ask the hon. the Minister and his department to consider what can be done in this connection. The City Council of Pretoria refuses to contribute 25% of the total cost of R6 000. That is what the construction of this pedestrian subway will cost, a subway which we would like to have, and which will run beneath the elevated road at pedestrian level parallel to the railway. If it is impossible for the Minister and his department to give this matter their favourable consideration, I shall go so far as to ask whether we, as voters of Hercules, cannot be allowed to guarantee or pay in 25% of that cost, R1 500, in order to enable this pedestrian subway to be built in the cause of the safety of our children. I may just mention that even my predecessor, Mr. B. J. van der Walt, at present Administrator of South-West Africa, in his time already, made written representations in connection with this matter. I cannot over-emphasize the seriousness of this matter. On the contrary; I could talk about it for a very long time. I have here with me a file containing the correspondence carried on over the past few years concerning this matter which is a very real one for inhabitants of Hercules. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the reference of the hon. member who has just spoken to a two-year delay in settling a matter between a Nationalist local authority and a Nationalist Government is of course typical and I do not intend wasting more time on the matter.

I would like to welcome here tonight in our midst the hon. the Minister of Tourism who is taking a quiet private lesson from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport. If the hon. the Minister of Tourism would like to take another lesson I would like to add it. The last time I had the pleasure of publicly confronting the hon. the Minister of Tourism he, as a Minister in the Cabinet, implied directly and so clearly that it was irrefutable, at an election meeting in support of the hon. member for Klip River a day or two before the election, that the Cabinet had decided that when they received the report of the Hiemstra Commission on wages they would accept that report and there would be an increase in salaries. It was so clear that at question time I challenged the hon. the Minister and asked him whether it was normal Cabinet procedure that a judicial commission’s report which had not yet been published, should be given a peep-show preview by a Minister in order to try and save the 220 votes by which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana slipped in in a seat which his party had previously held by 1 400 votes. I am therefore glad that the hon. the Minister of Tourism is present here tonight to hear a Railway debate which has dealt in his absence with that increase in Railway salaries and wages which he so brilliantly forecast just in time for the Klip River election.

I was also pleased to see the hon. member for Bloemfontein District here and, earlier, also the hon. member for Smith-field. We have over the three days of this debate seen member after member on that side of the House stand up and speak in this debate. Member after member spoke until we taunted the hon. member for Klip River to speak. Having spoken once about a railway line but never about railway workers in his four years of representation of Umhlatuzana, this afternoon he had the courage to stand up and actually say something in the interests of railway employees. This is the first time in the whole of the three days debate that any member on that side of the House has had one word to say, yes, one plea on behalf of the people whom they represent who work on the Railways. The hon. member for Klip River did it only after repeated taunts from this side of the House. And when he got up what did he do? He complained against the housing set-up in Pretoriusdorp—a set-up controlled by a Nationalist local authority under a Nationalist mayor. The hon. the Minister was kind enough to give us the credit for being in charge. But I can advise the hon. the Minister that he was wrong. His criticism was correct; his attack was correct; his casting of blame was correct. His only mistake was that it is a Nationalist-controlled local authority and not a United Party-controlled local authority. We thank the hon. the Minister for helping us.

But. Mr. Chairman, not only in this House do the hon. members not stand up and speak, but outside they also do not stand up and speak. I have here a report regarding the withdrawal of a train service from Melorani to Bloemfontein. Do you know what this report contains. Sir? I do not have the time to deal with it in detail, but it says that a meeting was called to discuss the withdrawal of this line. I quote from the report (translation)—

*Then the local inhabitants drew up a petition which was signed by 260 people within a few days. The petition was then presented to Mr. Pienaar, the secretary of the Nationalist Party, with the request that it should be presented to these members of Parliament.

Where was the meeting held?

Oh, there he is! Sir. I refer to this report again. Then the two hon. members of Parliament called a meeting. You must understand, Sir, that we are dealing here with a group of people who are not wealthy, and with a large number of schoolchildren. The hon. member for Bloemfontein District and his colleague from Smithfield then called a meeting, and a committee was appointed, consisting of four railway officials and three members of the public. But do you know what happened, Sir? I quote (translation)—

Then the report goes on to say (translation)—

†This, Mr. Chairman, is typical of the attitude of the hon. members on that side of the House. I want to place on record that in this debate not only have they failed the railway employees who voted for or against them, the people whom they represent, by throughout this debate failing to raise the issues and the problems which are of concern to those people whom they represent: they have also failed the general public. For example this railway service was withdrawn, and neither the hon. member for Bloemfontein District nor the absent member for Smithfield, who showed his face for a fleeting moment after supper and then disappeared, have spoken on this matter. The hon. member for Bloemfontein District has spoken in this debate, but he said not a word about the withdrawal of a service affecting 150 schoolchildren plus plot-holders and all the others concerned. This, Mr. Chairman, is an indication of the interest which Government members who claim to enjoy the vote of the railway worker, show in the problems of the railway worker, and therefore, although the hon. the Minister said this afternoon that the railway worker supports the Government, the fact that in the general election there was a majority of 1 400 votes cast for the Nationalist Party in Klip River and that that hon. member, who was chucked out of Umhlatuzana for failing to represent the railway worker, only scraped in by a measly 220, indicates a loss of faith on the part of the railway worker of South Africa in not only the representatives who represent them here but in the Minister and the Government who are responsible for their welfare.

Sir, I do not have time to deal with this. If I had, I would tell the hon. the Minister about a harbour craft that his department designed in Durban and which, because they did not complain within the guaranteed period of a year, cost them a fortune, a fortune in air tickets, in engineers’ expenses, because the craft was wrongly designed—and then the hon. the Minister talked of planning this afternoon! [Time expired.]

Sir, I am not going to respond to the attacks made by the hon. member for Durban Point on the Minister of Tourism and other hon. members. I think that they are man enough to fight it out with him themselves. I want to make use of the few minutes at my disposal to inform the hon. the Minister of some of the local requirements of my constituency. The first one is the conversion and development plan for the Zeerust station and station area which has already been approved. The works plan has been drawn up to be completed in three stages by 31st March. 1975. It is a pleasure to be able to state here that the first stage has already been completed or is in the process of completion. But knowing that heavy demands are made on the available funds and manpower of the Administration for undertakings of a similar nature, I am afraid that there may be a delay and that the work may be interrupted and for that reason I wish to ask the Minister that there should be no disruption so that these very necessary extensions to the station may be completed by the projected date.

Secondly, I would just like to emphasize once more the urgency of the fly-over road-bridge over the railway at Klip Street on the south-west side of Zeerust station. I have already discussed this matter with the Minister personally, and shall not dwell on it any further.

Sir, in the third place I just want to express a word of gratitude to the Minister for the elimination of the second dangerous level crossing in Kloof Street in Zeerust. This means that, with the one at Koster, two very dangerous crossings in my constituency have now been eliminated. But in thanking the hon. the Minister and the Administration, I should like, in the same breath, to draw their attention to the two very dangerous open level crossings within the municipal area of Swartruggens, one in the centre of the town and the other one just outside the town.

Sir, now I come to the attacks made by the Opposition in this debate. I must say that the poor, very watered-down attacks on this Budget show very clear signs of a desperate attempt to detract attention from the problems, the crisis and the dilemma in which they find themselves. In my 15 years in this House, Sir, I have never yet seen the Opposition in such a pitiable and unenviable position. This exceeds by far the crisis they experienced at the time of the breaking away of the Progressives about 10 or 12 years ago. Their political desert has become drier, hotter and more lonely, because most of their good old friends, their traditional friends, in the English Press have now deserted them. Instead of continually giving them the words of comfort and encouragement they need so badly, with a glass of cold water for their politically thirsty souls, that Press has now come along with a cup filled with vinegar mingled with gall to aggravate their political thirst in the comfortless desert.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members not to converse so loudly. I find it very difficult to hear the hon. member.

But, Sir, that is not all. The soft fur of their little pet, Nusas, which they clutched so affectionately to their bosoms has suddenly changed into stinging nettles. In fact they have changed into sharp porcupine quills, and the wounds inflicted by them are very clearly noticeable among the members of the leader corps of the United Party. In addition one notices that the unmistakable signs of inner tension and discord have left their visible trace. To disguise this is impossible, as you will see, Sir, if you only look at the faces of hon. members opposite. It reminds me of the story I heard years ago from an old man in Marico who told a story about a troup of ravenous baboons who came across a large pot of boiling soup. In his eagerness to get at it, the leader fell into the pot, and while the soup was burning him he shouted to the other baboons gathered around him, “Keep cool fellows, keep cool.” This little story is a fine illustration of the present dilemma in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition finds himself. Sir, viewed against the background of the extremely difficult economic conditions our country and the world have experienced during the past year and more, and viewed also against the background of other factors over which the hon. the Minister and his department had no control but which nevertheless had no small effect on the financing and maintenance of our transport system, I must congratulate the hon. the Minister—and the Opposition ought to agree with me—on the brilliant manner in which he and his staff have kept the wheels of our transport system rolling and the aircraft of our Airways in the air. A sustained achievement such as this could only have been attained through the highest level of co-operation and co-ordination, of improved techniques and effective machinery, through a high level of purposefulness and devotion on the part of a contented and activated staff. Sir, higher productivity is not only determined by more intensive and effective mechanization and automation; it is determined by the sense of responsibility of the human material which forms part of the business or industry. More simply put: The success of any business undertaking is determined by the extent to which its staff, from the highest down to the most junior official, associate themselves with the business or industry concerned and the extent to which the staff become part of the business and devoted to it as if it were theirs. I think the success the hon. the Minister has achieved as Minister of Transport through the years, is attributable to this very fact, viz. that he succeeded, in the first place, in fostering love, loyalty and devotion on the part of his staff. It has resulted in increased productivity which, in turn, has enabled this largest single industry in South Africa to be able to stand on its own feet, without any financial support from the Treasury and to be able to manage its own affairs and to keep the wheels rolling. That is what the hon. the Minister can hold up as an example to many other industries in South Africa and for which he has earned for himself the gratitude of this House and the country as a whole.

Sir, the hon. member for Marico began by dealing with a matter relating to his constituency. Of course, he has every right to mention that in this House, and for that reason I am not going to react to what he said in that respect. What one does feel at this stage is that the hon. member for Marico tried here in a reprehensible way to suck political poison from a matter from which there was no poison to be sucked. He tried to suck poison from something which was a mere fabrication of the Nationalist Party and its allies. What he did was to criticize the United Party, the members on this side of the House, for supposedly trying to distract attention from the problems within our own party by criticizing the Railways. But I want to ask the hon. member for Marico, with all due respect, whether he has been bereft of his senses? How can he come here and level a charge like that?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. But I want to say this to the hon. member. Does he expect us to touch upon something other than railway matters here? Is it not our duty to discuss the Railways and the people working on the Railways here, particularly if hon. members on the opposite side are not prepared to do so? That is what we are here for. We are not here to give them a political platform. We are here to represent the people who voted for us. No amount of poison-sucking on that side of the House will cause us to forgo that important duty which we have. We will do our duty by the people whom we represent in this House, and if we think there are matters which should be raised, and if hon. members opposite are too laggardly to do it, then we will do it. Not only do we represent the people who voted for us, but we are also prepared to speak on behalf of the people who did not vote for us, for we know that they need our voices in this House more than anyone else, for what a lot of flatterers we have on that side of the House! They are afraid to help their own people when things go wrong and their own party is not prepared to say anything. The people write as many letters to them as they write to us, but they are not prepared to speak for those people in this House; therefore we speak up for them here. In addition I want to tell the hon. member that there is no crisis in the United Party.

Order! The hon. member must return to Railway matters.

With all due respect, Sir, the hon. member for Marico said there was a crisis in the United Party and I think you must allow me to reply to that. I want to tell the hon. member that this so-called crisis in the United Party is no crisis at all. The United Party stands firmly behind its leaders. There are certain people who thought they could use the United Party as a shield, but they were wrong. We will not allow ourselves to be used by anyone.

Order, order! I want to warn the hon. member that when I have called him to order, he must obey. I am asking the hon. member to return to the subject under discussion; if not, he must resume his seat.

The matter I actually wanted to raise, is this. Sir, owing to the uproar I cannot hear myself, and I do not know how you can hear me. Before I was side-tracked by the hon. member for Marico, there was another matter which I wanted to raise with the hon. the Minister in all sincerity. The hon. the Minister and I are neighbours as far as constituencies are concerned, very good neighbours. He does not stand in my constituency and I do not stand in his. But we have a joint problem, and that problem is the railway line which also forms the dividing line between our constituencies. The aspect I want to mention to the hon. the Minister is that various complaints have come in from all quarters about the condition of the railway line which runs through that area. These complaints do not refer to the technical condition of the line as such, but to the fact that the entire area fenced off on either side of the railway lines is in a deplorable condition. Sir, you must bear in mind now that that railway line passes through a residential area, through a large portion of my constituency and also through the constituency of the hon. the Minister. It is a residential area where the people pay good money for their houses, and although they do not have a very good view there as far as scenic attractions are concerned, they nevertheless want as neat and decent a view as possible. Now what is the condition of that railway line? In the first place it is fenced off, for the most part, with old, rusty barbed-wire. In the second place the wild grass is growing to a considerable height there. There are snakes as well, as the hon. member says. There are wild peach trees and all kinds of other things which people threw away there and which are growing wild. Previously some of the sleepers were replaced; the old sleepers were removed and those are lying there, and other poles as well. Sir, it is a mess. I know it will be a tremendous expense to clean up that part of the railway line neatly and properly, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I do not think it is necessary for a railway line which runs through a residential area to be an eyesore and contribute further to bringing down the land prices there. One can do very little about the noise there, but I do think that a railway line need not be an eyesore. In regard to the appearance of the railway line I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider making the same arrangement with the local municipality as the provincial administration makes in regard to provincial roads, i.e. to make an arrangement to the effect that the municipality will see to it that the place has an attractive appearance. I even envisage the possibility of that long grass and trees being removed there so that it may have even more of a park atmosphere and will at least look like something, and so that instead of being an eyesore it may become a good part of the constituency and of the town. I think this would be in the interests of our entire town. I realize the hon. the Minister cannot incur this expense for he does not have the people to undertake such a task, but I do believe that he will be able to do so in cooperation with the municipality, just as the provincial council keeps the provincial roads running through that area attractive.

May I ask a question?

No. As the hon. the Minister knows this same municipality controls both our constituencies. I believe that it would be possible for that municipality to clean up the area surrounding that railway line on some basis or other instead of its being the eyesore it is at present. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would please give this matter his attention.

Mr. Chairman, if a person wants to learn how to be stroppy, he has the best example in the hon. member for Florida. I think his actions and his conduct were absolutely disgraceful. [Interjections.] I do not think that what he did was to the credit of this House at all. He is the pip-squeak who speaks …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. member refer to the hon. member for Florida as a “pip-squeak”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must refer to the hon. member for Florida as, “The hon. member for Florida”.

But I did refer to him in that way. I may add that there are some members here who refer to him as “powder puff”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member cannot continue in that vein.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it, if that was your ruling. The hon. member said that the hon. member for Marico wanted to suck political poison this evening. However, I want to say that if you know a U.P. man as I know one—what a lot of political parasites you have sitting there! [Interjections.]

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

I shall withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. May I say then that they are political wolves? They scavenge the rubbish dumps, where they pick up the crumbs to see what advantage they can gain. I want to say that if there were ever a lot of double-talkers, then we have them on that side of the House. In a sanctimonious manner the hon. member for Yeoville alleged …

Order! The hon. member must now return to railway matters.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Yeoville advocated the payment of a pensionable allowance to the low-paid workers on the Railways. However, he knows as well as I do that they have never been interested in the White worker. [Interjections.] He knows as well as I do that they have criticized every salary increase which has been granted to the railwayman. When an increase was given to the Railways staff in 1970 they held up the by-election in Langlaagte as having been the reason for that increase. When should the hon. the Minister have granted that increase? Should he have waited until after the by-election, or should he have given it three months before the general election? He could easily have done so. I wonder how many of those hon. members would have been here in that case. However, the National Party has never bought a vote. [Interjections.] Even when the recent increases were granted, the Opposition was dissatisfied, and now quite suddenly they are concerned about the low-paid labourers in the Railways. However, the work of the same people whom the Opposition are supposedly so concerned about now must be given to the Bantu. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said this evening that the Minister should do away with sheltered White labourers. He said that they should be done away with. Who are “they”? Are they not White labourers? Do you know what the hon. member for Yeoville said last year during the Railway Budget debate? I read in Hansard that he said that they—i.e. the Railways—were over-protecting the White worker, not individually, but the White worker was being over-protected in that an attempt was being made to maintain an unrealistic ratio between Whites and non-Whites in the labour force of the South African Railways. Now I am asking who those people are whom he was referring to who are being over-protected. Surely they are those unskilled labourers whom the hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to this evening and whom it is necessary to get rid of. [Interjections.]

Order! I now want to make a final appeal to hon. members. If hon. members continue with these constant interjections and the audible private conversations, I shall take steps against them. This is the last warning now!

Mr. Chairman, I do not blame them, for if the medicine is bitter it is not pleasant to swallow. That is what they are now doing. They do not want to swallow their medicine.

Order! The hon. member must proceed with his speech.

Now I want to challenge that U.P. crowd opposite. A by-election is being held in Umhlatuzana. Let them now …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to refer to the cream of the House as “that U.P. crowd”? [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Let the hon. members go and tell the people of Umhlatuzana that this Government is overprotecting the White workers on the Railways. Let them go and tell those people that they are being over-protected and that they are being paid more money than they really deserve. Let them go and tell those people that if the United Party ever comes into power—which is impossible, for I do not think that anything like that could happen in South Africa—the White worker will not be afforded any protection and that he will work side by side with the Bantu. I challenge them to say what the hon. member for Durban Point said, namely that they are people who are earning overtime payments in a dishonest way. Let them go and say that in Umhlatuzana! I can understand the hon. member for Yeoville coming here with his double talk. Hon. members know that when he was here last year, he was still in the Harry Schwarz camp. Then he joined Harry Schwarz in stating with contempt that my forebears, the forebears of the Afrikaner, walked around clad in skins. It is that hon. member who did that, but now that he and Harry Schwarz are no longer on such good terms he, the hon. member for Yeoville, the former leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, is crawling back to the worker whom he knows to be the Afrikaner. Now he is trying to win back the favour of the deep platteland. We know that the hon. member is hard at work organizing matters so that he can win back his leadership in the Transvaal.

Order! The hon. member must really return to the matter of railway lines now.

Mr. Chairman, that is so, but are you aware that that hon. member for Yeoville is a shadow Minister of Transport. Do you know how hard at work he is organizing matters in order to return here as leader again?

As befits a good M.P. I also want to put in my plea for my constituency, Boksburg, this evening. I want to ask for a rail link between the Bantu residential area of Vosloosrust and Boksburg. At the moment that transportation is being provided by the Putco bus service. In that Bantu residential area there are more than 40 000 inhabitants, and almost 400 buses are required daily to convey those Bantu. It is not necessary for me to elaborate on the danger which those 400 buses constitute daily on the roads and streets of Boksburg, but sometimes when one is dealing with so many buses, it happens that some of them become defective and that many of the workers are consequently unable to get to work on time. It has happened in the past that this has led to riots. Previous representations were made to the hon. the Minister, and it was then said that if the traffic amounted to 20 000 persons per single trip, it would be considered. I want to inform the hon. the Minister now that we have just about reached that figure. By the time such a railway line has been completed—and I am going to assume now that he, as a good Minister who does not easily say no, is going to say to me tonight: “Yes, we are going to allocate that railway line”—considerably more than 20 000 of those Bantu will be conveyed in a single journey.

Mr.

Chairman, I do not want to respond at any length this evening to the speech made by the hon. member for Boksburg. We are very well acquainted with the history of Boksburg, especially after the last few elections. The hon. member said here this evening that he stood for the continued protection of the Whites in his constituency. But who is the M.P.C. in his own constituency tonight? It is a United Party supporter called Issy Kramer. [Interjections.] What he told us here tonight is a different story altogether from what his voters in Boksburg think.

Order! The hon. member must return to railway matters now.

Now I want to come back to the Railway Budget. It has taken that hon. member only ten minutes to derail himself from the Budget. What I actually want to speak about tonight is something which I and many of my colleagues regard as a very serious matter. It is unfortunate that such a serious matter should be discussed after speeches such as we have just had. The hon. the Minister replied to our speeches in the Second Reading debate this afternoon, and quite frankly I was very disappointed with his replies, especially to some of the best speeches made in the Second Reading debate. As far as I am concerned, he simply tried to brush aside my speech and accused me of exaggerating. He only mentioned one figure this afternoon in reply to my speech yesterday, where I mentioned umpteen figures and statistics. He only mentioned one figure this afternoon and that was his own figure, which I am prepared to challenge here tonight, but I defy any man in this Assembly to challenge me on one of the figures I gave this House yesterday afternoon. I stand by what I said yesterday and it was no overstatement, make no mistake about it. The hon. the Minister mentioned a figure of what the railage is for an ox between Grootfontein in South-West Africa and Cape Town, and he quoted a figure of something like R4-50. I challenge that figure of the hon. the Minister … [Interjection.]

Extra?

Yes, the 60% increase. I am sorry if the House did not understand me. It is the 60% increase on the railage. I quoted another figure yesterday of a 60% increase from Molteno to the abattoirs in Cape Town, a much shorter distance. My figure was R5-49.

Cattle or sheep?

An ox. I was disappointed that the hon. the Minister did not try to contradict or repudiate any of the figures I gave yesterday, because I am prepared to travel on the S.A. Railways to any point in the Republic with the figures I gave yesterday, but I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that with the figures he gave this afternoon he would not be able to travel further than Bellville.

I want to mention another matter which I regard as very serious indeed. It may seem a trivial matter to some hon. members, but to us on this side it is a very serious matter indeed. I refer to the treatment of livestock, of pedigreed animals, which were recently railed from all over the Republic of South Africa to the annual Goodwood Show. I want to mention farmers’ names because they asked me to mention them by name in this honourable House. The hon. the Minister can check with these gentlemen. I mention one particular farmer, one of the best farmers in South Africa, a man by the name of Mr. Stanley Pope of Marshmore Estate, Molteno. This gentleman railed 22 pedigreed, highlybred Red Poll cattle, to the Goodwood Show a few weeks ago. He was assured by the officials in Molteno that the cattle would go not by express mail, but that it would take the minimum time to reach the Goodwood Showgrounds. The cattle left there on a Monday and, after being shunted around all over the place, they reached Goodwood Showgrounds on the Friday.

Fly-shunting!

Now I want to come to the serious part of this matter. First of all, these cattle were railed under the new tariff rate, i.e. after the 60% rise. There is no rebate for agricultural show cattle at all. This has gone; it disappeared under this Government. Mr. Pope paid R271-22 single fare for 22 cattle.

No wonder meat is so expensive.

Then he had to pay for their return journey which used to be free. The return journey to deliver his cattle back to Molteno would cost R542-42. The delay came about as follows: The cattle were shunted around—I want to be fair, there are many junctions between Molteno and Cape Town. The cattle had to pass Stormberg to get to Burgers-dorp. From there they came back to Stormberg and were shunted off to Rosmead, from Rosmead to Noupoort, from Noupoort to De Aar. In De Aar the trucks with the cattle were sandwhiched between coal trucks and all the trucks together were fly-shunted into the coal yards at De Aar. Mr. Pope had four Bantu men attending to his 22 cattle in the trucks. The cattle were tied inside to the trucks, as is normally done with pedigreed animals, and they were being watered in the trucks. There was no need for them to be off-loaded to be watered. These cattle were fly-shunted into the coal yards at De Aar with the result that all the ropes by which they were tied, broke; the native attendants were flung about the cattle trucks; the cattle were falling all over the place; water was flying everywhere and lucern bales and everything else were falling on to the animals and attendants. The cattle were in fact panic-stricken. I do not know if many hon. members know how a beast behaves when it starts panicking. [Interjections.] Nevertheless the cattle stood over in De Aar for a long period. From there they were taken to Beaufort West where they waited again. When they arrived at Touws River, we have the story all over again. They were again fly-shunted. I saw the cattle when they arrived at Goodwood. They made a sad picture. I saw unfortunate, well-bred, pedigreed animals worth thousands of rand, battling to walk.

Oh, the animals were scraggy.

Oh, keep quiet; you know nothing in any case! I saw these poor unfortunate animals being helped out of the trucks with huge bruises on their limbs. I only wish the hon. the Minister could have seen what the four Bantu attendants looked like! They had bruises like horns coming out of their heads as well.

I want to give the hon. the Minister another gentleman’s name from whom I received complaints. I want to mention the Quinn brothers from Bishop’s Glen, Bloemfontein. Their cattle were treated in the same way. Now I want to come to the point. I realize that railwaymen are responsible people. They are human beings as I am. This sort of thing is not done in tentionally. How is a railway shunter to know what is inside the cattle-truck? It could have been anything. This is a hardy annual and the hon. the Minister knows it. When it comes to thoroughbred horses we get the same story in this House very often. I would suggest that trucks carrying pedigree animals, not all livestock …

All livestock.

That is a rather tall order at this stage. Let us rather start with all pedigree animals which have to be transported to shows. It must be borne in mind that the Provincial Administrations are subsidizing our agricultural societies. It is costing them a lot of boodle to keep our agricultural societies going. I would suggest that every truck carrying pedigree animals bears a sticker of a minimum diameter of one metre with the inscription, “Pedigree animals—handle with great care”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we know the hon. member for East London North to be a good farmer, and I think any person who has a love for animals would agree with him that animals in transit on trains ought to receive only the best treatment. However, the hon. member will concede at once that thousands of head of stud cattle are being safely conveyed to agricultural shows and back again. There may be exceptions, and I believe the hon. the Minister is sorry about that. Consequently the hon. the Minister will be able to furnish him with a reply.

But the hon. member did not tell us why he was so satisfied with the speeches made on his side of the House. I am referring to the speech made by the hon. member for Florida, who again is not in his bench. That hon. member made a real mud-slinging speech. The hon. member should tell us, before the end of this debate, what a powder puff wild peach looks like.

I should like to congratulate the General Manager and his staff on this very attractive and synoptical annual report. In particular I found pages 44 and 51 instructive. Here certain statistics are furnished on accidents of all kinds which occur on the Railways and the claims which stem from them. In view of the mass of traffic which the Railways handles and the many thousands of passengers, this exceptionally low accident rate redounds greatly to the credit of the Administration and its staff. Seen against the vast size of the Railways turnover, the payment of R4½ million in claims during the past financial year is a minimal amount. This represents an increase of 0,05% when compared with the previous financial year. However, there is one specific matter which I should like to address directly to the sympathetic ear of the hon. the Minister. I want to refer to the problems with which motor vehicle owners have to cope when their motor vehicles are involved in train derailments, and are sometimes completely destroyed and have to be written off. Recently we had another occurrence like this. With the increase in the number of tourists and the attendant increasing number of motor vehicles which are being conveyed by rail, something like this could happen again. An accident is an accident, and a derailment is a derailment. Once the derailment has occurred and the wrecked motor vehicles are lying next to the railway line, it is the unfortunate baby of the Administration and of the unfortunate owners of those vehicles. Now, I want to confine myself only to the situation where motor vehicles are damaged to such an extent that they are written off completely and are useless to the owners. From an inquiry addressed to the Claims Division of the Railways, Sir, it appeared that no fixed norm existed for the consideration of claims arising out of such cases. It is to a large extent left to the discretion of the Administration. I was authoritatively informed by the Administration that no fixed formula existed. Nowhere is a norm laid down for the determination of damages to these wrecked motor vehicles. The valuation is done by a Railway assessor who honestly does his best and this valuation is accepted unconditionally by the Railways Administration, and the owner is then paid out. However, it appears that the most important yardstick of the Railways assessor is the so-called “booklet” of the motor trade, that booklet which indicates the so-called market value of used motor vehicles. To this so-called market value the assessor may perhaps add a few rand on the basis of his own judgment after he has seen the wreck and has tried to sum up the general condition. But, Sir, everyone knows that when a motor vehicle is traded in to a dealer, in 90% of the cases there is something wrong with that motor vehicle and its owner no longer wants it. In this sort of case—and I want to emphasize this—these motor vehicles are not vehicles which are on the market. They are usually well-cared-for motor vehicles that are able to give their owners many years of service, otherwise they would not have been on that train for consignment to a particular destination. A year or two ago our hon. Minister of Finance asked us, when we felt like buying a new motor vehicle, rather to drive around in the old one for another year or two. Now the owner who loses his motor vehicle in this way is being penalized, for then the lower market value is paid to him on the basis of this “booklet” of the second-hand motor vehicle trade. According to the so-called market value, compensation is paid for that motor vehicle at an absolute ridiculous price. That market value is determined on the basis of the booklet of the secondhand motor trade. All who have anything to do with this matter cling stubbornly to that norm. For large sedans which were lost in this way in such train derailments an amount is paid out which is not even the value of a new Volkswagen Beetle. We know that motor vehicles which are conveyed on goods trains are conveyed at owners’ risk. We know that the Railways do their best to bring these motor vehicles safely to their destinations, and we as members of the public are very grateful for that. But, Sir, the fact remains that those unfortunate owners of motor vehicles which were irreparably destroyed in train derailments, suffer very heavy financial setbacks, sometimes up to R1 000 and more.

Now the matter of transit insurance comes into the picture. I want to tell you, Sir, that this transit insurance issued by motor insurance companies is worth very little to such an owner of a motor vehicle which is written off in this way. The insurer again uses this “booklet” of the second-hand motor trade, and it amounts to the same thing; the motorist again gets very little out of it. I think the principle which the Minister could perhaps consider is not to pay persons out according to the so-called market value in such cases, but according to the actual replacement value of that motor vehicle. I think this is a very fair request.

In all humility I want to submit for the consideration of the hon. the Minister that the merits of this entire matter be investigated for the sake of fairness and justice. For the sake of the man who has looked after his motor vehicle properly and has utilized it to the maximum economically-speaking, for the sake of the young couple who have just bought their first motor vehicle and are perhaps still paying it off, when it is lost in a train accident. For the sake of those people I make an earnest appeal for a new formula to be found to ensure that justice is done, for despite all the glib talk of officials, the system of compensation on the basis of the market value of that booklet is unfair, just as it is unfair when an insurance company deals with the claim and uses the same standard of that booklet. It makes transit motor insurance a farce.

Sir, I would say that the Railways ought not to accept any motor vehicle for consignment before the insurance company has issued a certificate on the replacement value of the motor vehicle, and before the insurance company and the owner have reached an agreement on that replacement value. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member who has just resumed his seat will excuse me if I do not follow up on what he said because I have a few other minor matters I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister.

†I want to support very wholeheartedly the speech made by the hon. member for East London North. He raised problems affecting farmers who wish to exhibit stock on our agricultural shows throughout the Republic. He raised certain specific points, but I should like to ask the hon. Minister whether he will not give serious consideration to the question of making it easier for the farmers to get their stock to the shows. We have said in this debate that it may well be the responsibility of the Treasury to help in this matter. But I want to warn that unless we can do something really effective to make it easier for farmers to get their livestock to the shows, we are going to kill the agricultural shows in South Africa. Nobody will agree with me more than the hon. the Minister that it will be a sad and sorry day when this takes place, because in the circumstances in which we live the opportunity which the great mass of our population has of making contact with the animals that are so important in our daily lives, is becoming smaller and smaller.

I just want to quote one example. The cost of tickets for sending four attendants in charge of cattle from the point my hon. colleague quoted, namely Molteno, to the Cape, was R77. Those stock attendants were in the truck with the cattle. They could have caused no extra cost to the Administration and yet that amount had to be paid. In addition to the tickets, the farmer who sent that stock had to pay for the fodder on the truck to feed those cattle en route. I realize the hon. the Minister’s problem, but I think this is something that deserves the attention not only of the hon. the Minister, but of the Cabinet itself, to decide how the Government can assist the farmers to get their livestock to the shows, which I believe serve an important and essential service in our society.

I want to raise another point that affects my area, Port Elizabeth. In the debate last year I referred the hon. the Minister to the question of Port Elizabeth being included in the itinerary of the summer train tours. This matter was referred to in a letter which I received from the hon. the Minister’s department, and these tours are called the Summer Train Tours. I am pleading that Port Elizabeth be included in the itinerary of the summer train tours. I was delighted when I received a letter from the hon. the Minister’s Administration to say that the claim of Port Elizabeth to be included in these tours was being favourably considered. Mr. Chairman, I raise this matter again not because I want the hon. the Minister to tell me that we will be included in the tours in 1973. All I am asking is that the Minister should give me some assurance that in the not too distant future Port Elizabeth’s claim will be favourably considered. As the hon. the Minister knows, we have at King’s Beach a railway siding right alongside what is probably the finest beach in the whole of South Africa—King’s Beach. I believe it equals any beach in the Cape Peninsula, and it is equal to the famous beaches in Durban. That railway siding is right alongside that particular beach. I believe that this is an ideal spot to have this train parked for a day or two to give the tourists an opportunity to use those amenities. Sir, I am the first one to admit that in the Port Elizabeth area we have not anything like the scenic beauty of the Cape to attract tourists, but we have many other features that are being built up in that area. If the train were to stay over in the Port Elizabeth area for a day or two, tourists could go by South African Railway bus on a tour through the Karoo, and on such a tour they would see all sorts of magnificent things which are unique to that area. There is the Addo Park with its magnificent herds of elephants. I am sure that this will ring a bell with the Minister.

There is the Quagga Park in the Cradock area; there is the famous Reinet House in the town of Graaff-Reinet, and on that particular route from Port Elizabeth through Cradock/Graaff-Reinet and back to Port Elizabeth, there is magnificent Karoo scenery unsurpassed anywhere in South Africa. In addition to that, Sir, if the Minister agrees that these holiday trains can stay over at King’s Beach, there is the additional advantage that the passengers—and I believe that these tourist trains are becoming very popular—could also dovetail in with the Apple Express route. I know that the Apple Express has a very sympathetic place in the Minister’s heart. Last year I spoke to him about dolling up the Apple Express and painting it green and gold—the United Party colours—so that everybody would get on to the bandwagon, and, instead of putting on a diesel locomotive, retaining the good old steam locomotive. This would be a tourist attraction second to none. As the hon. the Minister knows, this Apple Express goes through some of the most magnificent scenery in the whole of the Republic. I believe that if it could be arranged for these holiday trains to stay over at King’s Beach, tourists would have the opportunity of this magnificent tour through what is going to become an area of unparalleled beauty in the Republic. I was happily advised the other day by the Minister of Water Affairs that at the end of 1974 the Orange/Fish Tunnel will be completed and that the life-giving waters of the Orange River will flow down not only the Fish River Valley but also the Sundays River Valley.

Thanks to the National Party.

Yes, but it is a United Party scheme. If the United Party had remained in power, this scheme would already have been in operation. The delay was caused by the Nationalist Party.

† Anyway, Sir, in spite of the Nationalist Party, this scheme is coming to fruition at last, and 1974 will see the life-giving waters of the Orange River flowing down these valleys. I do not know if the hon. the Minister has been to the Nile valley and seen what water can do to transform a desert. Exactly the same thing is going to happen in these two fertile valleys. There will be a magnificent transformation. Tourists on these trains will have the opportunity of seeing this magnificent spectacle. They will have the opportunity of seeing the dolphins at Port Elizabeth, the tropical house which an enlightened United Party municipality has just established in Port Elizabeth and which is something unique in South Africa, and the only really attractive snake park in the whole of the Republic. These are the things the tourists will be able to see if the hon. the Minister will cooperate with me and let this train stay in Port Elizabeth for a day or two. The hon. the Minister, I know has a sympathetic spot for Port Elizabeth because he is the chancellor of our university. I am glad to have the hon. the Minister as the chancellor of a university in my constituency. He is a man of discretion and he chose well. He chose a constituency which has a good Member of Parliament! [Time expired.]

Sir, after hearing the hon. members for East London North and Walmer, it set me thinking. What I find strange is that this is the first year in which they have come along with a complaint of this kind. If this had also been the case in the past, hon. members should have come with those complaints a long time ago so that the hon. the Minister and his department could see to the transport of those animals. But now, after all these years, this is the first time they are talking about it and I therefore feel that they have shamefully neglected their duty by not giving such important matters their attention and bringing them directly to the attention of the officials or the hon. the Minister. This seems to me to be the same kind of thing as in the case of the hon. member for South Coast, who spoke about a year or so ago about the dangerous condition of the railway line on the South Coast. These members apparently waited specially. It does not matter what could have happened in the meantime to people and animals, whether that railway line held those so-called dangers. They only came subsequently and lodged their so-called complaints, only in order to get the attention of a lot of newspapers and without paying any attention to the dangerous conditions which supposedly applied there. The other matters were in connection with the hon. member’s constituency itself and therefore I leave the matter there.

We have heard a great hue and cry being raised in this House about big mistakes and many things which are wrong, according to the Opposition, so then I began to look back into the past a little to see how matters looked when they sat on this side of the House and were therefore obliged to act in a far more responsible way. I looked at the debates in this hon. House since 1944 on the Railway Budget. The Minister of Transport at that time was the late Mr. Sturrock. It is unfortunate that one should have to go back so many years to get the Opposition in a position where they could not but speak responsibly and count their words before making statements here. In 1944 there was, of course, a very good Opposition, and I want to whisper into the ear of this Opposition that if they are a good Opposition, they also have a chance to come and sit on this side of the House. But they have been in the political desert for so many years …

What has that to do with it?

I am making a comparison, a very suitable and practical comparison. But in any case, if hon. members opposite learn their lesson well and do their best, at least they will perhaps have a chance to come and sit here one day. I want to quote from the Railway Budget debate of that year, when Mr. Sturrock said (Hansard, Vol. 47, col. 2073)—

Of course the Opposition of that time were busy shooting Germans and praying for the Russians and therefore did not give their attention to having rolling stock and engine power available. I continue—

Here we have a Minister who is confessing. He says that there is not enough material, but he does not drop a hint and it is still a secret when he will reach to that growing ambition of his of letting the Railways collect a million pounds a week in the form of passenger services. For me this is a gem—

Since the hon. the Minister spoke of records above—in other words, he compared one record with another—I also read this in the same way. He states, in addition—

What are you quoting from?

But you were not listening; after all, he did say it.

I am quoting from Hansard, Vol. 47 of 1944, col. 2073—

That makes me think of that classic sentence of the hon. member for Durban North: “It is what it is.” In this instance it is not what it is, or it is what it is not, but in any event it is something along those obscure lines. Here, now, is a piece of sharp observation—

Imagine, Mr. Chairman: The red light means danger. Thus, of course, one learns when one sits in the Opposition, and the present Opposition will possibly also learn about this.

What did Dr. Philips say?

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must not conjure up spectres.

I read further—

What year was that?

The Minister then continued—

The hon. members of the Opposition remain unchanged—they have learnt nothing and have also forgotten nothing. Now, after 30 years, they are still exactly as they were at that time when they sat on this side of the House. I leave it at that. [Interjections.] I am pleased that the hon. member for Yeoville is pleased, because if I am not on his track, then Harry is on his track.

Come back to 1973.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister very much. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. Opposition may well learn gratitude too. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the planning which has been completed and the expansion envisaged for the Bantu area in Pretoria North. It has occurred at a very convenient time, and according to the hon. member’s speech it is very urgent. We all see it in that light. I just want to mention one matter in that connection and that relates to Golf station which is situated a few yards from the Pretoria West High School. I relate this to one of the branch lines which will go to Belle Ombre. Notwithstanding the great virtues ascribed to Black people by the hon. Opposition, it would be very desirable if the establishment of adequate facilities at Golf station were ensured, specifically because it is situated so close to one of our high schools in Pretoria West.

The Railways has done much work in Pretoria West for which we are thankful. I have in mind, for example, the tar surface in front of the railway houses in Carl Street. Lights have also been provided. I also have in mind the work done at a coal storage shed there and which reduced dust.

Can the hon. member not talk more distinctly?

Perhaps the hon. member for Umlazi’s ears are not doing as well as his mouth. If he were to close his mouth and open his ears, he would be able to hear much better. In the ’fifties the railway line running through Pretoria West from Iscor to the north was lifted to improve the gradient. This railway line is used by the iron ore trains. The work involved here has brought great relief and we are all thankful for it. As a result of the fact that the railway line was lifted, the view from houses in four blocks has been completely obstructed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister for Pretoria West …

The hon. member.

The hon. member for Pretoria West started to draw a comparison with what happened in 1944. I am not concerned about what happened in 1944, for I was too small at the time. Whether Mr. Sturrock was a good or a bad Minister, is immaterial today. Whether he was good or bad, we can never have him back. Hon. members should judge the position as it is today; they should see whether the hon. the Minister can be compared with the future Minister on this side.

Hear, hear!

Hon. members should also compare the Deputy Minister on that side with the future Deputy Minister on this side. In doing so they will find that there is no comparison.

When is he crossing over so that he may perhaps become a Minister?

If the hon. the Minister of “Sports” also wants to make a little “sports”, we can also compare him with the future Minister of Sports and Recreation on this side. [Interjections.] After all, he is the hon. Minister who changes his policy every time. After all, he is now going to have multi-racial sport in this country.

Order! The hon. member should just take care not to mix sport and Railways.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, but then you should tell the hon. the Minister of “Sport-making” that he, too, should confine himself to the debate.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Pretoria West. I want to make it clear to him that it does not befit this House to try to disparage former Ministers. At that time we were involved in a war. I think the fact that Mr. Sturrock was able to keep the wheels turning, was a big feather in his cap. I want to repeat by saying that whether he was good or bad has nothing to do with this debate. Any person who wants to go back to the Anglo-Boer War or to 1944 is mentally unhinged. But I want to come back to a very important matter.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. member suggest that any hon. member who says something of that nature—and then he did so with reference to the hon. member for Pretoria West—is mentally unhinged?

Order! As I understood the hon. member, he did not say that. Did the hon. member say that?

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I did say it and I shall withdraw it.

I want to come back to very important matters, because we have an important duty in this House. I do not think we should occupy ourselves with absurdities in this House. I want to come back to the important speeches made by the hon. members for Walmer and East London City. The hon. member for East London City, in particular, raised important matters when he spoke of how the increase in the Railway tariffs was affecting the farming community.

Are there farms in East London City?

I mean East London North. He did not only mention this in the last speech he made, but it was nevertheless never replied to. I want to come back to the speech made by the hon. member in the course of the Second Reading debate. At that stage the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister had the opportunity to reply to him. I concede that they did not have the opportunity to reply to the speech he made at the Committee Stage. The hon. member for East London North made an important speech in this House.

Say now what you have to say.

I shall tell the hon. member what he said. The hon. member for De Aar represents a farming community, and I want to place on record the ridiculousness and levity the hon. member displayed here.

Oh, please don’t be touchy.

I am not touchy. I find it a pity that the hon. member adopted the attitude he did when he sat there joking while the hon. member for East London North pointed out how these tariffs were affecting the farming community. The hon. member for East London North mentioned that railway rates had been increased on livestock, on meat, i.e. on food, and not by 5%, but by no less than 60%. [Interjection.] Those hon. members may laugh about it. To them it is a big joke when the tariffs on the foodstuffs of the people of South Africa are increased by 60%. The hon. member for East London North mentioned that the railage on mealies had been increased by 36,64%, and that on vegetables, i.e. food, by no less than 57,4%. On mealie meal, the staple food of the non-White population of South Africa, the increase was no less than 36,4%. We saw what happened in Durban, where these people could not subsist and had to go on strike. In respect of butter the increase was 31,7%, on cheese 31,7% and on eggs 59,2%. Cleaning fees on the Railways increased by 33%. The hon. the Deputy Minister had an opportunity to reply, and what was the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply? The hon. the Deputy Minister said here that the Railways were running at a loss, but under this Government every business will run at a loss. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister said this was only a minor part of the cost of food in South Africa. Is it? Have hon. members ever thought what the effect of railway tariffs is on the foodstuffs of the people of South Africa? If railway tariffs are increased by 60%, does it not mean an increase of 60% to the man in the street? The wholesaler may add 50%, the retailer another 50%, and once all these various increases have snowballed, this increase of R100 million will no longer be an increase of R100 million, but an increase of no less than R1 000 million. That is what this hon. Minister costs the people of South Africa. I want to put it to hon. members that if any private undertaking were to increase its prices overnight by 60%, what would they say? They would say it is mentally unhinged. But here the Minister comes along and increases tariffs by 60%, and they say it is simply nothing, a trifle. They try to imply that it is simply nothing. And then the hon. the Minister came along this afternoon and said that it was not the railway tariffs which were forcing up the cost of living to such an extent, but that dealers had already increased their prices in December whereas railway tariffs were only increased in January. But when we devalued, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said he would keep an eye on price increases.

He revalued.

The hon. member for “De Wetsdorp” is being clever again. But just what did the Minister’s colleague do? Is he still keeping an eye on the position? Why then does he not do something about it? After all, the cost of living has risen to a very high level in South Africa. Does the hon. the Minister not realize that he has to do here with an increase in the price of food? If one increases the price of food, the man in the street cannot subsist. The railwayman cannot subsist, and if the railwayman cannot subsist he has to ask for an increase in salary. The hon. the Minister told us here this afternoon that this increase would only last for two years and that he would then have to increase tariffs again. If one increases the price of food the wage-earner will have to ask for higher wages, and if one grants higher wages one will have to increase tariffs again. Then one has this perpetual circle of higher wages and higher tariffs in a continuous spiral of high cost of living. This will continue for many years to come, for as long as this Government remains in power. For where does the problem lie? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite have tried to indicate the problems they have with the Railways. It seems to me, however, the problem they have is more probably Wynberg. I should like to refer hon. members to section 103 of the Constitution which deals with the Railways. It reads as follows—

This is the basis of the policy of the South African Railways as a whole. This evening I want to make the straightforward statement that this hon. Minister and his officials have succeeded, over the long period of National Party rule in executing not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law in this respect. I challenge the United Party opposite to bring balanced statements to prove the contrary. Throughout the length and breadth of South Africa we have evidence of the fact that the Railways have acted in the spirit of the law.

Hon. members opposite will pardon me if I do not reply to them, for there is a very important matter which I want to discuss this evening. I think I would be failing in my duty as a farmer if I were to remain silent this evening on the major achievements of the South African Railways in respect of the export of our surplus mealies the past year. As early as 25th February, 1972, the Railways approved the Mealie Board’s export program of 273 shiploads of mealies. This comprised 3,4 million tons of mealies and 195 000 tons of grain sorghum, 36,88 million bags of mealies and 2,14 million bags of grain sorghum—a total of more than 39 million bags. This export program was subsequently stepped up to 283 shiploads. The Railways themselves indicated that they would be able to step up this program to more than 300 shiploads. We had the largest measure of co-operation from the Mealie Board which enabled the Railways to transport this big crop, which earned foreign exchange for South Africa and which was being stored at high cost, to our harbours in the shortest possible time. The crop which had to be exported this year, made the demand on the Railways of having to increase its capacity for the export of mealies by more than 100%. That is not such an easy task because, as we know the agricultural industry in South Africa, we do not have that normal growth rate in mealie crops which enables the Railways to equip themselves systematically to handle those quantities. We have the phenomenon of abnormal years. Then the Railways simply have to set to work and transport those enormous consignments. We also have to contend with other problems. This export operation went off smoothly but we had problems with regard to the ships which did not always arrive at the harbours in good time. In this way the situation eventually developed where at the end of September, we had a backlog of 69 000 tons of mealies. This backlog was made up by the Railways and made up to such an extent that by the end of October there was a backlog of 8 647 tons only. As far as shipping was concerned, however, there still was a backlog of 40 000 tons. That caused problems for the Railways in that there was a break in the flow of mealies to the coast. These problems made us realize that when we are unable to keep up the normal flow to the coast in a year in which there is a big crop, breaks occur which cost the Railways money. In the second place it also showed us that the capacity of our harbours for storing mealies in such a year is inadequate. Let us now consider the conditions on the world market. There is a big demand for fodder grains used in the production of red meat. In addition there is a heavy demand for animal proteins and since we have the potential to produce big crops in the interior, we probably need not fear that we shall not be able to produce 100 or 120 million bags of mealies in the future. But then we are faced with the problem that the capacity for the storage of grain at our harbours is not adequate. For that reason I want to make a very strong plea to the hon. the Minister and our officials who are charged with this matter, seeing that the Mealie Board is prepared to co-operate with the Railways as regards the financial and construction aspects and seeing that there apparently are not objections in principle on the part of the Railways to co-operation with the Mealie Board, that we should plan the silo at Richards Bay, which, originally was to be completed in 1976 and now apparently only in 1980, as soon as possible. I want to plead for the elimination of the bottleneck which exists at our harbours. This step would be to the benefit of South Africa since we are now in the process of exploiting the market for mealies in the eastern regions. That harbour will be capable of accommodating big ships. The harbour is also situated in an area in which we have a large quantity of mealies to export. Taking everything into account, I am of the opinion, that it is very important for us to give this matter priority, not only in order to dispose of our surplusses in the future, but also to establish the necessary market for the South African farmer. It would also bring relief to the Railways. The hon. the Minister may possibly tell us in his reply what the possibilities are with regard to the expansion of the Railways for handling big crops in the future. There are many of our people who feel that a year in which the crops fail, such as this year, might possibly thwart the Railways’ normal expansion programme. Then it may happen that we shall not be able to handle any subsequent big crop with ease. In my opinion it is important that we should get a clear reply from the Minister in this connection.

Then I just want to mention that we have had the problem of veld fires in my constituency because it is a grassy region. The Minister and his department have helped us by replacing steam locomotives by diesel locomotives. Our farmers are very grateful for that. Our grass is no longer being destroyed by fire and as a result the Railways need no longer pay out large amounts in compensation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to certain points raised, in the words of the hon. member for Durban Point, by the cream of this House. They object very strongly to being called “sappe”.

The hon. member for Gardens said that the railways should be modernized, and he referred to the modernization of suburban services and other passenger services in Britain and Japan. I must point out, however, that the conditions in those countries are quite different to the conditions in South Africa. Britain has a wide gauge of 4 ft. 8½ in., which enables those trains to run at a very much higher speed than our trains can run on a 3 ft. 6 in, gauge. In Japan they built the new line from Osaka to Tokyo also in a 4 ft. 8½ in, gauge, and that is the fastest train in the world. But, of course, with our 3 ft. 6 in, gauge we are limited as far as speed is concerned. We cannot hope to parallel the conditions that you find in Japan and Britain. Otherwise we are trying to give the public the best possible service that we can, both in respect of suburban and main line passenger services. As the hon. member knows, we are using a new type of coach, the sliding-door type of coach, on the suburban services. We have eliminated the jerking of trains in the Cape Peninsula as far as it is humanly possible to do so, and on the whole the rains run on time. I think the recent figures that I received in respect of suburban trains showed that over 90% of them were running up to schedule. We are doing what we can to serve the public to the best of our ability.

What about a third line?

I suppose that will come eventually, because I do agree that the roads are becoming so congested with motor-cars that you can hardly move in the mornings. That is the position even on roads like Rhodes Drive, where you have four traffic lanes. There is only one solution to that problem and that is to prevent all motor-cars from coming to the centre of the city. People would then have to make use of the public transport, and when that is done then, of course, a third line would have to be built to increase the carrying capacity of the suburban lines.

Is that being planned for any particular year?

Not at the moment.

*The hon. member for Hercules referred to a pedestrian subway which should be built. I understand that the pedestrian subway is actually the responsibility of the municipality, but the municipality is not prepared to build that pedestrian subway. However, I shall ask the Management to go into the matter once again.

The hon. member for Prieska spoke about the Saldanha line this afternoon. In my Budget speech I announced that this would be a single-purpose line, exclusively for the conveyance of the products of Iscor, i.e. ores, and, when the steel factory is built, for semi-processed steel products. When the time arrives for that line to link up with South African railway lines, if the Government of the day should find this necessary, or for having other lines lined up with this line for new ore exploitation, then it will have to be a public line which will be run by the Railways and which will become the property of the Railways. But until such time as that happens one day, it will be a single-purpose railway line exclusively for the use of Iscor. That was the decision of the Cabinet and so it will remain.

You are not interested in a railway service for that area.

Is the Opposition not interested in it?

The Government.

What does the hon. member mean? Surely the Saldanha line is being built now. At the moment there is no other development.

It is a single-purpose line.

That is what I am saying, but at the moment there is no other development.

But the Railways are not interested in it?

No, I am not interested in it at all if it is a single-purpose line.

That is all I want to know.

I announced that in my Railway speech already; it is therefore nothing new.

But are you not interested in it?

I have no interest in it. I have handed it over to Iscor; it is their responsibility. They will finance and build and run the line.

I am referring to the area.

No, I am referring to the railway line. I am not concerned with the area at the moment. As I have said, that railway line is being built for a specific purpose. It will run through an area in which there is no other traffic at the moment, but when development takes place there, when copper and other mineral deposits are exploited in the North-Western Cape, then those rail facilities will have to be provided. When that happens, and the rail facilities are provided, it can either link up with the Saldanha railway line or it can be an extension of the Bitterfontein line, but then the Bitterfontein line will have to be reinforced. When that happens I shall no longer be here, but the Government of the day will have to take that decision. But it will have to be a public line for the use of all railway transporters, because one cannot allow a private transport system to compete with the State transport system. That is very obvious.

I am very glad that you have cleared it up.

I am very glad that the hon. member understands it.

†The hon. member for Durban Point spoke about certain harbour craft and said repairs cost a fortune and pointed out that those repairs were done before the guarantee period of those craft had lapsed. He raised this matter also when the Additional Appropriation Bill was before the House. I have here a draft letter that I was going to post to him tomorrow in regard to that matter. You see, Sir, we are very punctilious in replying when hon. members raise matters. We always extend them that courtesy.

I will give you full marks for that.

I know. I will read the letter to the hon. member. This explains the whole matter—

Is the hon. member satisfied now?

I will come back to it next year.

The hon. member is very persistent. He always comes back. And he is so welcome to come back again. I hope I am still here next year when he comes back. I hope to be here. But we are all human and I can die before that time. [Interjections.]

I am not talking about that.

Oh, you mean that you may then be on this side of the House? Sir, I admit of course that miracles do happen but I do not think a miracle will happen in this case. I do not think, as a matter of fact, that in our lifetime the hon. members opposite will take these seats over here.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the defects which arose were as the result of the design laid down by the Administration for that craft?

No, it was not as a result of the design. There was something wrong with the turbines of those craft; we did not design the turbines.

They are not strong enough, are they?

No, they are strong enough but they had other defects. Well, I suppose the hon. member is a seaman and knows all about these things. He is also an engineer and therefore knows how turbines work.

May I also ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not that the engines are underpowered and therefore they overheat, and that that led to the trouble?

There were other defects. But of course the hon. member has technical knowledge which I do not have. Perhaps he is quite right. I will have the matter investigated.

*The hon. member for Marico spoke about two very dangerous level crossings in Zeerust.

No, in Swartruggens.

I do not know anything about those crossings, but as the hon. member knows, crossings are normally eliminated only after the standing committee has made a recommendation in that regard. I do not know how high these two crossings have been placed on the list of priorities. However, I have a report which I can give the hon. member for his perusal. This report was tabled as well. If he looks at the report, he will be able to determine what position these two crossings occupy on the list of priorities.

The hon. member for Florida was really very lively tonight. [Interjections.] After a while I started taking fright and wanted to hide behind my bench. He was terribly aggressive. I did not know him to be like that.

He is one of the Young Turks.

But surely that is the way the U.P. people are.

Are the U.P. people like that? I am glad he set an example to his colleagues, for the debate was very dull and flat; the hon. members no longer have any fighting spirit. [Interjections.] Yes, I quite agree that they have nothing to fight about. The hon. member had something to say about our respective constituencies when he referred to the area between the boundary fences of the railway line. He said the grass there was very long and that it looked very unsightly. He said something had to be done about it. Of course, the municipality has no authority over Railway property; they can only see to the appearance of the adjoining areas. I shall ask the Management to go into the position, and if it looks as bad there as the hon. member says it does, they will have to do something about clearing it up.

The hon. member for Boksburg said that a railway line had to be constructed between the Vosloosrus residential area and Boksburg since as many as 20 000 Bantu had to be provided with transport. As soon as the inter-departmental committee makes a recommendation to the effect that such a railway line should be built, and the Treasury is prepared to provide the necessary capital, that railway line will be built. Until very recently there was a very effective bus service which, however, is not quite satisfactory at the moment. However, before it will be possible to build that line, it will inevitably be necessary to wait for the necessary recommendation to be made and the capital to be made available.

†The hon. member for East London North challenged the figures I gave him in connection with the increase in the transport rate for cattle. He then gave some other figures. I went into the figures which he gave me and I found that he was not quite correct. When only a single head of cattle is transported, the figures which he supplied are more or less correct. However, when a minimum of seven head of cattle, as laid down in the regulations, are transported in one truck, his figures are not correct. If such cattle are transported from Molteno to Maitland, the increase is from R4-85 to R7-77, but if only one head of cattle is so transported, the tariff is much higher.

Does this apply when there are less than seven head of cattle?

Yes, when there are less than seven head, the tariff becomes higher.

The hon. member also spoke about the treatment of pedigree cattle. I think the occurrence he mentioned is most regrettable. There is a very strict regulation that cattle trucks must not be fly-shunted and any shunter or railway servant who fly-shunts trucks with cattle is guilty of a disciplinary infringement and is very severely punished. Nobody is allowed to fly-shunt trucks with cattle.

Will these people be punished?

If it is true and they are responsible for that, they certainly will be punished. It is a pity that the hon. member did not write to me to give me the particulars, because then I could have had the matter investigated.

It only happened last week.

Even so, he could have written last week instead of raising the matter here; that is no excuse. As I say, it is most regrettable that it should have happened at all. I have every sympathy with the farmer who consigned his cattle to a show and had his cattle treated in that manner. I would still like the hon. member to give the full particulars in writing to me of both the consignments of cattle that have been mentioned tonight. I will have the matter thoroughly investigated, and if there is any proof that any railway servant was negligent he will be severely dealt with.

How can you prove it?

Will the farmer be compensated if somebody is found guilty?

Usually farmers are compensated, unless it is sent at owner’s risk. Where it is valuable pedigree cattle, they have to insure the cattle, because only a nominal amount is paid out for the death of or the injury to cattle.

How do you prove it? It is the herdboy’s word against the Railway Administration.

If we say, “How can you prove that any crime has been committed,” nobody will ever come before the courts. Surely, that is not the type of question to ask. Of course an inquiry is instituted to find out whether fly-shunting took place in that particular yard. There is not only one servant concerned; there are quite a large number of servants in that particular yard who are dealing with these matters. Of course the necessary information will be obtained, and if the proof is there that anyone was negligent, he will be punished.

*The hon. member for Pretoria District spoke about the valuation of motor-cars damaged as a result of a railway accident. One cannot really lay down a norm as to how they are to be valued, for every motor-car differs from the others. There are various makes of cars, with different ages, different mileages and different prices when they were new. Therefore, each of them has to be dealt with individually and on its own merits. It is valued to the best of the ability of the official charged with that task. As regards that particular accident to which the hon. member referred, my information is that all the other persons whose cars had been damaged, were quite satisfied with the compensation they received. He said no motor-car was to be transported unless an insurance certificate for the replacement value of the motor-car was issued by the insurance company. There are large numbers of cars which are transported and which have not been insured. Therefore one cannot lay down as a rule that every motor-car must have from the insurance company concerned a certificate stating what its replacement value is. I do not think the insurance companies are in a position to give such a certificate.

†The hon. member for Walmer said that it should be made easier for the farmers to get their livestock to shows. In other words, what he really meant was that there should be a lower tariff. My experience is that the farmers who send cattle to shows usually send valuable and pedigree cattle. Those cattle are very valuable. I have attended some of these sales at shows where young bulls and old bulls are sold for very high prices. I think that the tariff the farmer has to pay is not a deterrent from sending his cattle to a show. I do not think that we can give any relief.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister previously made the same point, but the point I would like to put to the hon. the Minister to consider is that it is very often that these farmers are young farmers and use these shows as exhibitions of their stock. They are the people who are concerned with this.

Even so, they only send valuable cattle and not scrub cattle to the show. They usually send their pedigree cattle to the show. The hon. member knows that these are very valuable and fetch very high prices when they are sold.

You gave them concessions in the past.

I know, but I withdrew the concessions because the Railways could not afford those concessions. We wanted the revenue. As I say, there is no section of the community that receives as much state assistance as the farmers. They are very lucky.

Touché!

That was what Brutus said to Caesar, or rather what Caesar said to Brutus? The hon. member also gave us a very interesting guide to what will be a very interesting tour when Port Elizabeth is included in the itinerary of the tourist train. This is a matter that can be considered, because I fully agree with the hon. member that there are very attractive tourist attractions in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth. I will ask the General Manager to go into the matter to see if Port Elizabeth can be included in the itinerary when a tourist train is run again.

*The hon. member for Pretoria West referred to Golf station and asked for sufficient facilities to be provided there. I shall ask the Management to go into that matter.

The hon. member for King William’s Town complained about the increase in railway tariffs and pointed out how the cost of living was rising. Not all foods are transported at a loss. Many foods that are transported, cover their costs; a profit is even made on some of them. However, his side of the House says that I should increase those tariffs even further, for they say I should pay the railwaymen higher salaries, and the only way to get that money is to increase tariffs. You cannot have it both ways. Where is the money to come from? Is it to fall from heaven like manna?

If the economy had not been curbed, but stimulated, the high-rated goods could have covered that.

I did not curb the economy. This was done by economic conditions which were to a very large extent beyond the control of the Government, as has already been explained here time and again. It was not a deliberate curb, and hon. members ought to know this.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Would the hon. the Minister deny that two years ago this House resounded with the voices of hon. members who said that the country was growing too rapidly and that the economy had to be curbed? These things were said by the hon. the Minister of Planning and every other Minister, even the Prime Minister. Surely it was a deliberate attempt …

Order! The hon. member should not make a speech now.

Two years ago, when the rates of inflation were particularly high, something had to be done to reduce that inflation; that is correct. That was done, but many other economic conditions which were beyond the control of the Government have developed since then. We are a country which is to a large extent dependent on what happens abroad. That is one of our difficulties. We are dependent on the importation of a large range of goods, particularly capital goods, and we have no control over the prices of such goods. In addition to that we had devaluation, which also gave the economy something of a set-back. It was expected that the growth would have been resumed last year, but the growth-rate did not come up to expectations. Now the economy will have to be stimulated again, and we hope that things will be much better this year. I hope to have a surplus this year, but the hon. member must appreciate that a wage increase of 15% costs R100 million. I shall most definitely not have a surplus of R100 million at the end of the year. In other words, if I have to increase wages again, there will have to be another increase in tariffs. That is inevitable. Then one would force up the cost of living again, and the entire public along with the railway man would suffer as a result.

The hon. member for Heilbron referred to the capacity at harbours, which was not adequate when there was a bumper maize crop. That is quite correct. Up to now we have handled the maize crop quite well this year. The only other place where a grain-elevator can be built is, as the hon. member quite rightly said, Richards Bay. Cape Town already has a grain-elevator; East London also has one; in Port Elizabeth there is no room for a grain-elevator; there is one in Durban. The only other place where a grain-elevator can therefore be built is at Richards Bay. I have already had discussions with the Mealie Board in this regard, and they have told me that they are quite prepared to finance the project. The hon. member can be sure that when the need arises, that graine-levator will be built in the light of the fact that the Mealie Board will finance it. The Railways will also have to create the necessary harbour facilities. For instance, a quay will have to be constructed so that the maize may be loaded when ships come in. This is something which will receive attention and which will happen in the future; that I can assure the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise the level of this debate from matters concerning the land, products grown on the land and transport that runs over the land, to transport that flies in the air. I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister one particular matter with regard to the South African Airways. I would like to place before the hon. the Minister a request that he gives very serious consideration to introducing concessions on internal air fares in respect of certain, limited categories of scholars. As he is aware, certain concessions are available at present for scholar travel on the Railways between scholars’ homes and their schools and back. These concessions are available to all scholars under the fairly high age limit of 16. I regard these concessions as being valuable although they have, of course, been considerably reduced recently. These concessions take care of the very great majority of scholars’ travelling needs as far as long-distance travel is concerned, as I regard rail travel as being eminently suitable for scholars to use for long-distance travel between their homes and their schools. The plea I would like to make to the hon. the Minister is to consider a very small minority of scholars who are obliged to use the Airways for health, medical, physical or similar reasons. In some cases, if they are not in a position to use the Airways, they are unable to travel from their homes to their schools and must forfeit the type of education available to them. At present there is no scholar concession as such on the Airways, although there is of course the concession of reduced fares for children under the age of 12. In support of this plea, I would like to mention the case of children who suffer from a relatively low I.Q. These children are referred to as slow learners. They are not sufficiently mentally retarded to be taken into the institutions and schools that look after the mentally retarded and at the same time are not sufficiently bright and clever to be taken proper care of in normal schools.

They are mostly in special classes, in special schools.

Yes, they require a special type of education because they take, say, three hours to learn where a normal child needs two hours. It is also important for them to be at boarding establishments rather than at home because, if they have brothers and sisters, they tend to become frustrated by the faster pace that is being set by their brothers and sisters. That can lead to lasting damage to their characters. While there are quite a few schools that look after the really mentally retarded children in the country, schools which are well spread over the country so that long-distance travel is not involved as far as really mentally retarded children are concerned, there are only two schools in the country that are equipped to deal with these slow learners. One is in Johannesburg which deals mainly with Transvaal slow learners. The other is on the South Coast of Natal at Umzumbe which deals not only with Natal slow learners but takes in scholars from the rest of the country so that long distance travel to Umzumbe is involved.

Are you correct? Most of the schools have special classes for these retarded children.

No. That is not correct. These two schools are the only schools that deal with this particular problem of slow learners. They are private schools. The Government and provincial schools do not provide this type of education although the Department of Education in Natal and in the Transvaal subsidize these schools and naturally are very much in favour of this activity. Parents are required to pay fees at these schools. The result is that when long distance travel is involved particularly to Umzumbe, parents are involved not only in the payment of fees but also in travel expenses. Because of the nature of the child involved air travel is the obvious way for these children to be transported. It is not suitable for a somewhat retarded child to travel long distances, say from Cape Town to Durban, and then down to the South Coast of Natal, by train. Hence I raise the plea that concessions for this type of medically or physically handicapped children should be introduced by the S.A. Airways. I believe that the loss of revenue through providing a concession of this nature would be completely negligible. The advantage to the parents who receive the concessions on the other hand would be very considerable. If it is not possible to introduce a concession similar to that on the Railways, I would like to ask the Minister to consider treating scholars of this type as being under 12 years of age and entitled to the reduced under 12 years fare. These boys and girls may have bodies older than 12 years but they have minds under 12 years old. I would not suggest to the hon. the Minister that this concession should be confined to the type of disability that I have described, namely the slow learner. It should apply to all scholars who, because of a physical, mental or medical defect, are obliged to use air transport rather than rail transport. It would for instance, I think, apply to blind scholars coming from far distances to the Worcester School for the Blind. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.