Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday evening, I had promised to deal with the various subjects which had been raised here individually, as far as that was possible. It goes without saying that it will not be possible for me to deal with each of the subjects raised. Many subjects were raised which I will not be able to deal with on this occasion because we will quite possibly be able to take it further during the Committee Stage.

With the introduction of the Budget the Opposition made use of the opportunity to criticize the increased rates. I think it was a good opportunity to do this for political purposes, and they availed themselves of it to the full. What I found rather surprising was that these increased rates came as such a great shock to the hon. member for Durban Point, who was the main speaker, and also to many others, as well as to the newspapers outside. In reality, everyone knew that these increased rates would come. If one knows that something is going to happen and one still gets a fright when it does, then one is probably very lacking in courage, or else one is very easily frightened. If the hon. member for Durban Point maintains that he did not know these increased rates were coming, then he was very ignorant of the subject he wanted to discuss.

It was the magnitude of the increases which shocked me.

The hon. member says it was the magnitude of the increases. But the little calculation he could have made is a very simple one. If he had considered the figures and the other particulars which had been made available to him, he would have known that we had to obtain an additional revenue of approximately R150 million per annum. As far as this matter is concerned, I want to point out that only in respect of three important items, which I mentioned to the House when I introduced this debate, the expenditure will already be R150 million. The hon. member could therefore have made the little calculation himself to determine to what extent we would have had to increase our rates. But he preferred to try to make political gain out of this matter, and I am afraid that in the process some hon. members opposite made themselves appear a little ridiculous. What it amounted to in fact, if one were to judge from certain reports which appeared in the newspapers, as well as from certain letters which appeared, was that the Opposition did in fact make themselves a little ridiculous under these circumstances.

The expenditure is in fact there. I have already told hon. members, on a previous occasion, that by way of increased salaries alone there was an additional expenditure of R111 million. As a result of increased fuel prices, there was an additional expenditure of R35 million. The steel prices are also a common factor. We know that the prices have increased in the meantime. Steel is one of the commodities which the Railways has to use in large quantities. This, in itself, amounts to R150 million. As one would have expected in this House and also in the political sphere, there were no objections to increased salaries. No objections were made to these. On the contrary, the hon. member for Durban Point advocated here that we should pay even larger salaries. He also said that the pensions were not enough. In other words, as is typical of them, they are advocating increased expenditure here, but as an Opposition they do not also have the responsibility to tell me where the funds should come from to cover that expenditure. Last week the hon. member for Durban Point introduced his speech here, and very dramatically made certain allegations. Inter alia, he said the following—

Is it true or is it not true? What are the facts?

If the hon. member wants to make himself ridiculous now by making this kind of allegation, he must not expect me to help him out. So many kind favours I definitely will not do him. The evening after he had made that speech, we were engaged in private conversation, and I said to him: “Vausie, when you are discussing the debate next week and you criticize the rates further, just tell me where else I should have found the funds.” But he kept as quiet about that as he is now sitting there. During the Second Reading debate he remained as quiet as he is now. In all honesty and fairness I must say that there are two people who believed that these funds should have been found in a different way. They were the hon. member for Jeppe and the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Jeppe did not say it, but indicated it by implication. He quoted from Rapport what Dr. Van den Berg had written about this. Dr. Van den Berg’s theme was that the Exchequer should cover the deficits of the Railways.

For certain reasons.

If the hon. member believes in that, he said it very hesitantly and carefully. All he did was quote from Rapport. He did not tell me or the House that this was something in which he really believed—that we should fetch R150 million from Dr. Diederichs to supplement these deficits. He definitely did not say that. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that all rates should be made economic. That was his solution. He said that all rates should be economic rates and that we should make the rates which are not economic, economic ones. In that respect he also tried to give me an indication of where I should find the funds. How impractical that is in respect of those goods, which they themselves advocated should be low-rated goods for the sake of our general economy! The very next moment that hon. member was criticizing the fact that we were depriving the school children of their concessions. The school children should not pay the full rate for the services they receive, and he wants the concessions to remain; in other words, the services should be even less remunerative. How can one reconcile those two standpoints? On the one hand he says that the rates should be economic rates, and on the other he advocates that the concessions should be retained.

Sir, the first subject I should like to deal with is the question of concessions, because it was not only the hon. member for Orange Grove but also the hon. member for Durban Point and other hon. members who discussed this matter of the cancellation of concessions for schoolchildren. I want to say right at the outset, in general outline, that the concessions as they exist today, no longer serve their purpose in any way. Sir, do you know who the people are who make use of these concessions? They are the wealthy people, the well-to-do people, the people who still believe that their child should attend Grey College or King’s College, or whichever school it might be …

Or Jan Van Riebeeck.

The parent lives in Johannesburg and wishes to send his child to a school in Grahamstown or Bloemfontein. The child makes use of this concession at the beginning of the term because there is a great deal of baggage to take along, and then it might easily happen that the child flies home for three or four weekends during that term. Those are the circumstances under which these concessions have up to now been granted. The concessions which are granted on the Railways are of a dual nature, firstly those which are economically justified, such as out-of-season concessions when the trains are not very full and when we can afford, for the sake of more traffic on the Railways, to grant concessions so as to attract passengers; that is the economically justified concessions. The non-economically justified concession is the one to which I have just referred, viz. the concession granted to schoolchildren. Sir, this system of concessions for schoolchildren is something we inherited from before 1910; we inherited it with Union, but hon. members must realize that the circumstances in South Africa in those days were completely different to what they are today. There were no high schools in the remote areas, and apart from that the Railways were almost the only convenient form of transport for bringing the children to the schools, particularly if the parents lived in a remote area in the country and they wanted to send their children to a school in Cape Town or Paarl, for example. We must bear in mind that the position has in the meantime changed completely. Today, particularly over long distances, it is no longer the Railways so much which are used, but aircraft and buses. Sir, apart from that, it is a fact that our losses on our passenger traffic are increasing all the time, as hon. members are aware. As I said, the transport market has in the meantime changed completely, and you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the task of the Railways to render socio-economic services.

Hear, hear!

I hear the hon. member for Maitland saying “Hear, hear!”; apparently he agrees with me. It is not the task of the Railways to render socio-economic services. If such services are necessary —this is the accepted policy today—then the losses on such services have to be covered from another source, and this in fact what is already happening today in certain respects. Apart from that, Sir, it is also a fact that today the educational institutions establish the necessary facilities to help less well-to-do children, so that they may obtain travelling facilities to their schools if these are necessary and if these are justified, but not in cases where they are not justified. Before we introduced this change, Sir, an investigation was instituted by the department, and it was in fact found that very little use was being made of these school concessions. Over a period of twelve years approximately 10 000 concession tickets per annum were purchased for long-distance railway journeys. Hon. members must remember that one child does not purchase only one ticket per annum. The number of children making use of those facilities is very small. Of those approximately 10 000 tickets issued, it was calculated that approximately 2 700 of these were cases where the concession is not being withdrawn now, viz. in the case of children who have physical handicaps and the other cases which I mentioned here where the concession is not being withdrawn. As far as the suburban services, i.e. the commuter services, are concerned, it was established that during the same period only approximately 14 000 such tickets were issued every year. It is calculated that the withdrawal of this concession for an entire year will mean an additional income of only R120 000 for the Railways.

Why have you done it then?

Sir, I did it because in principle it is correct; because it is no longer justified under present circumstances and because the principle is correct. The Railways, as I said a moment ago, is not supposed to render socio-economic services, and therefore it is correct in principle that such unremunerative services should not be provided by the Railways. In addition I have been informed, pursuant to the telegram to which the hon. member for Jeppe referred here, that the number of third class tickets is minimal. I do not have the figure here because I did not have the time to go into this matter more deeply, but I was given the assurance that the number of third-class passengers making use of such concessions is minimal. Under the circumstances, Sir, I really do not think that a case can be made out for the objections which were raised here to the withdrawing of these concessions.

Mr. Speaker, the next subject I should like to deal with is that which was raised by the hon. member for Turffontein, who made a very good contribution to this debate.

Just like last year!

Towards the end of his speech he asked me what the standpoint of the Government is in respect of subsidization or assistance or contributions, or whatever one would like to call them. Sir, when one comes to subsidization of this nature, one is inclined to allow the subsidization to go astray a little. If a contribution is made from the Exchequer in respect of uneconomic services rendered by the Railways, then it is not a subsidy to the Railways; it is a subsidy to the persons or the body receiving those services, and for that reason I am rather cautious when I use the word “subsidy”. The hon. member asked me what the standpoint of the Government is in respect of subsidization from the Exchequer of such services which, as a result of circumstances, have to be rendered on an uneconomic basis. Sir, this is no foreign principle; in fact, it is already being applied in our country. You are aware that there is a system whereby Railway rebates are granted to further the establishment of industries in border areas. These Railway rebates are paid from the Exchequer; these are concessions made by the Treasury. As regards fares between the cities and the areas of establishment, which I shall discuss later, a contribution is also made from the Exchequer in so far as the services which are being rendered there are not remunerative because the fares are uneconomic. Sir, you will also recall that a year or two ago the Reynders Commission was especially appointed to further our exports. This Commission made all kinds of recommendations in regard to various methods of promoting our exports and in regard to the measure of assistance which ought to be given by the central Government. One of the recommendations was assistance in respect of railage to get the goods to the harbours and in that way be more competitive abroad. In other words, the principle which the hon. member really had in mind here, has already been applied in the past on a selective basis. But I think that in this case one should make it a prerequisite that the services which are rendered under such circumstances should be requested by someone, whether the central Government or private bodies, and then the question of whether such service merits a subsidy from the Exchequer can be considered. I must admit that I can of course go to the Minister of Finance myself and ask him to help the Railways because I would otherwise have to increase rates as we need funds to render such services as the country would like to have. But then I must, at the same time, admit that if I were to ask the Minister of Finance for anything on a general basis, I would prefer to ask for it in respect of an alleviation of the burden of interest. In any event an alleviation of the burden of interest will not be an innovation, for we have previously resolved through agreement that interest in respect of loans concluded prior to 1910 be written off and that no further interest need therefore be paid in respect of those loans. Sir, it is not altogether an innovation. If there has to be general alleviation, I should prefer to ask the Minister of Finance to write off a part of our burden of interest. But in this case I also had talks with the hon. the Minister of Finance and today, in reply to the question put to me by the hon. member for Turffontein, I just want to say that the Minister of Finance has given his consent, and it is in addition the policy of the Government, for the Government, where services are essential in the interests of the country and it is at the same time essential to charge rates for such services which are not economic and not remunerative to the Railways, and where it is desirable that such services should be continued and provided, to consider these on a selective basis, and then we shall probably be able to expand on the examples which I have already mentioned where a contribution is made from the Exchequer in order to make it possible to provide economic services.

Sir, I referred a moment ago to the burden of interest. This burden of interest was also referred to by various hon. members who participated in the debate, inter alia, by the hon. member for Maitland. The burden of interest of the Government is exceptionally high, although I do not think that it is of such magnitude that we need feel very concerned about it under the present circumstances, as long as it is not out of proportion to capital expenditure and revenue. In the case of the Railways there is certain capital expenditure which is essential, and which we have to incur from time to time and on which interest has to be paid. This expenditure must of course be aimed at meeting essential needs and making it possible to render the necessary services. It is also policy that uneconomic services which are introduced have to be guaranteed by someone, whether by the Government or by another body. I think our loan expenditure has increased very sharply over the past five years. In 1969-70 it was R150,7 million and this year it is already R387,9 million. It goes without saying that with such a tremendous increase in our loan fund expenditure, there must also be a very substantial increase in the burden of interest. Recently our burden of interest has remained substantially constant in proportion to our revenue, and precisely as a result of that I want to give the hon. member for Maitland a little reassurance regarding his concern over our burden of interest. In the past 15 years our burden of interest has fairly regularly remained in the vicinity of 12,9% to 14,8% of our revenue. This year it is 13,1% of our revenue. [Interjections.] No, the question is not whether it was an improvement or not. I am not boasting of an improvement, by no means; I am simply stating facts to the hon. member who displayed his concern over that matter here. There is nothing to boast about. I would have liked it to have been lower, but this is what it is at present for various reasons. But as I have said, the relationship between interest and revenue has remained fairly constant over the years. Because it has remained so constant, even though it is higher today than it was previously, this is not something one should be terribly concerned about. Provision does in fact exist for redemption of capital and an amount, previously paid as interest on pre-Union capital, is paid annually into our Redemption Account of the Sinking Fund Funds, which is then used for the redemption of our loan debts.

By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to furnish the hon. member who is interested in this with a few interesting figures. If we consider our capital investment, we see that in 1945, almost 30 years ago, our capital investment which was interest-bearing, amounted to R368,7 million. The non-interest bearing capital investment amounted to R60,5 million. These are the figures for 1945. Today our interest bearing capital investment is R3 227,8 million, and our non-interest bearing capital investment R473,5 million. Our total capital investment for the 1973-’74 financial year stands at approximately R3 701,4 million today. It is also interesting to see how the interest has increased over the years. This is of course a factor which plays a part in the amount which we have to pay out annually in the form of interest. I am referring not only to the loan debt, but also to the interest rate payable. In 1945 the interest rate was 3,2%. This year, in 1974, the interest rate is 5,94%, almost 6%. This, of course, made a big difference. Our revenue, as a percentage of total capital investment, was as follows: In 1945 it was 27,23%; this year, on 31 March 1974, it was 36,55%. Our revenue as a percentage of the capital investment has therefore increased over these years from 27,23% to 36,55%.

The hon. member for Durban Point made certain calculations to indicate how the general public outside would be affected by the rates increases. The hon. member made a little calculation and said that the increase of 12,7% would mean an amount of R171 million. He then said that the retailer had to receive something, that the wholesaler had to receive something …

Is that figure of R171 million correct?

No, it is not correct. I shall give the hon. member the figures in a moment. Just allow me to complete my sentence. The hon. member then calculated, referring to this amount which he mentioned, that the retailer had to receive something and the wholesaler had to receive something as a result of the additional costs of rail transportation. Eventually, he said, it would cost the country R400 million per annum. He then said that he did not agree with my calculation of i% at all. He proceeded to make further calculations to indicate how much this increase would cost every family in a year. I want to tell the hon. member that his calculations are completely incorrect.

Are his figures too low?

No, the figures are far too high. In the first place I could just inform the hon. member that we budgeted for an additional annual revenue. These increased rates mean an additional annual revenue of approximately R145 million. I said a moment ago that our additional expenditure in respect of the three items which I mentioned was approximately R150 million. We drew up the Budget in such a way that these rates increases would bring us within the region of R145 million. If the hon. member were to read my speech again, he would see that the 12,7% is in respect of the Railways; it is not in respect of the other services which are being rendered. Sir, I suspect the hon. member went and added up the revenue on Railways, the revenue on the Airways, and the revenue on the harbours and the pipeline. He added it all up and calculated his 12,7% on that. He found himself with an amount of R171 million. Sir, that is not correct. The hon. member should really come and ask me about these things before he speaks about them in the House. I shall now give the hon. member the break-down. The 12,7% to which I referred in my speech, applies only to the revenue on railways. The revenue increase on road transport is 15,3% …

Even higher!

Yes. On harbours it is only 5,5 %.

And all the ships …

I am now referring to an average figure. For some items the percentage is higher than the average. In respect of Airways, the percentage increase in revenue is 4,9% and in respect of the pipeline it is 5,6%. The total percentage increase in revenue on all services is therefore 10,9%.

Is that the average?

That is the average percentage for all the different services which are being rendered. When the hon. member makes a calculation he will agree with me that there is a tremendous conflict between his argument and that of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Yesterday I indicated briefly that the hon. member for Durban Point had argued incorrectly when he said that the full amount of R150 million, or whatever it may have been, would be passed on to the consumer.

You will find that to be the case if you work it out.

No, that is not true. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said yesterday, and I agree with him on that point, that the increased rates on livestock, for example, cannot under the present marketing system be passed on to the consumer. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me that this is in fact the case. It can happen by implication, or it can happen by mistake …

Never by mistake!

It can also happen by mistake. However, a determined effort to pass it on to them cannot be made.

It can work through to them.

How can it work through? The livestock goes to the market where it is auctioned and sold. The transport costs are then subtracted from the return on the livestock.

In this way you are killing the farmers.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was of course advancing a completely incorrect argument yesterday when he wanted to make the farmers bear all the increases on to the agricultural produce. That was hopelessly incorrect. The hon. member did not do his sums either. How can he argue that the farmers are being made to bear the increased rates on maize which is consumed internally? How can he argue that the increased rates on flour …

Who is ultimately going to pay for it?

The consumer is ultimately going to pay for it.

How can he pay for it if the floor price has been fixed? Is the hon. the Minister going to increase the price of maize then?

How can the hon. member say that the farmers should be made to bear the increased transport costs? Because the costs are, in the end, going to be paid at the point of destination, they will be passed on to the consumer. Sir, I must now try to convince both sides on that side of the House simultaneously, for they are stating conflicting view points. I must now try to sort out their conflicting arguments.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I am asking the hon. the Minister to explain to the House who is going to pay the railage on the 3,6 million tons of maize which are going to be exported.

If the hon. member had only listened, he would have heard that I referred specifically to the maize intended for domestic consumption.

That is only a small percentage.

No. Sitting over there is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I shall ask him. He says approximately half of our maize is exported. [Interjections.] The hon. members must give me a chance. Approximately half of our maize is exported and the other half is, under normal circumstances, for domestic consumption. From the nature of the case the increased rates will be paid on that half which is exported by the Maize Board. Eventually the farmer will have to pay for this. This is, however, not the case with that half of the production which is intended for domestic consumption.

Go and read what I said yesterday.

If that is what the hon. member said, I agree with him.

The hon. member for Durban Point alleged that the increase in respect of meat win also have to be passed on to the consumer, but that is not true. The fact of the matter is that many of these increased rates will not work through to the consumer. The hon. member for Durban Point will agree with me on this score. Take, for example, the additional revenue at ports as a result of the increased rates on exports, or whatever it may be. Many of these will not work through to the domestic consumer.

Where will they end up?

They may end up with the consumer in England or elsewhere in Europe.

In the case of imports?

No, in the case of exports. They will not have an effect internally. Consequently I just want to set the hon. member straight, for his calculations are hopelessly wrong. To settle the matter here, the hon. member will simply have to accept my calculation that it will make less than a half per cent difference to the cost of living.

We shall discuss this matter again next year.

Yes. …

Could you please repeat the figure in respect of the harbours?

The increase in revenue at the harbours is 5,5%. The average increase is in revenue on all the services 10,9%.

A great deal was said here about passenger losses. These losses are indeed very; substantial, and have recently, too, increased substantially. The hon. members for Maitland and Amanzimtoti and others referred to this. In 1970-71 the losses on main-line services were approximately R42,7 million, in 1971-72 R45,3 million and in 1972-73 R62,8 million. Hon. members must realize that the losses on the conveyance of passengers are determined by two factors in particular, viz. firstly, the fares and secondly, the way in which the public make use of the facilities of passenger train services, in other words, the utilization of our trains. Those two items play a very big part. The hon. member will also agree with me in respect of another matter. We had a tirade here from the hon. member for Simonstown. He mentioned figures here to indicate what the increase is going to be on the suburban train services in Cape Town. Of course, there is going to be an increase in rates.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member stated how much extra it was going to cost from Bellville to Cape Town, from Simonstown to Cape Town, etc. If there are losses, these can pre-eminently be made good by correcting those two problems which I mentioned. In other words, the fares could be increased or certain services could be eliminated if they are not being sufficiently utilized. Is that not correct?

We must find more people.

Yes, of course. If more people make use of the trains and the trains were full …

Greater utilization.

Yes, and if there were greater utilization, it would be favourable for us, but one cannot simply take people and put them on the trains. All one can do is to make the services as attractive as possible. I want the hon. gentlemen to consider this: It is no easy matter to balance our accounts in respect of passenger services because there is a certain resistance. The moment one increases the rates, there is a certain resistance on the part of the public and people make less use of the trains. On the other hand, if the rates are not increased, the revenue is not there and the revenue has to be supplemented …

Reduce the tariffs then.

The hon. member for Sea Point is saying now that I should reduce the tariffs because more people will then travel by train. If I were to reduce the tariffs sufficiently they would eventually be travelling free of charge. Then the trains would of course be full. That is what they want, but then the Railways would have no revenue.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to salaries and pensions. That matter has been dealt with by the hon. member for Parow, and I should just like to say a few words about it. Earlier this year we granted all railway officials salary increases which came into operation with effect from the July paymonth. These salary increases were based on the minimum increase of 12½% and were calculated on the period as from the beginning of last year, when they also received a salary increase, to 1 July, when the new scales came into operation. I just want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point to discuss with me for a moment this one matter, viz. that in exactly the same way as all the increased rates will not reach the consumer, so the full extent of the increase in the cost of living will never reach one particular individual. I wonder whether the hon. member understands this. Let us take the hon. member as an example now. Today the hon. member is a member of our medical scheme. In other words, any change in doctors’ fees or in the costs of hospitalization, will make no difference in respect of his medical costs, except perhaps at a subsequent stage. The hon. member is a member of this Parliament. As such he enjoys certain travelling facilities. He may use those travelling facilities whenever he travels in South Africa, and any increase in the rates is not going to cost him any more in fares. The hon. member, as a member of this Parliament, takes his meals in the small diningroom of Parliament.

In the dieting-room.

In the dieting-room, yes. He takes his meals there at a specific charge. Through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, the circumstances are such that that charge remains constant. The result is that there is very little or no effect on the price of food. As the examples which I have just mentioned indicate, there are certain cost increases which are not going to work through to the hon. member for Durban Point. Therefore one has to take this into account. If one gives one’s people an increase equal to the increase in the cost of living index, then an increase in the standard of living is in fact built into this because the full extent of the cost of living never works through to every individual consumer. This year we granted a minimum increase of 12½%. The increase in the cost of living was in fact more than that. That 12½% was, however, the minimum. Indeed, the actual increase were in many cases more than 12½%, in a few cases even as high as 23%. I underline the words a “few cases”. What was granted therefore was not only 12½%, for scale adjustments were made and in some cases the succeeding scales had to come into operation.

There was an average increase of 12 to 15%.

No, I think it was higher than that. There was indeed a greater increase than the 12½% to which the hon. member referred.

The hon. member also referred to the pensions, and I also took cognizance of what the hon. member for Parow said about the pensioner who retired five years ago and earlier. I shall give that matter the necessary attention. This year the pensioner received an increase of 10% over and above the 2½% to which the hon. member for Turffontein referred. In other words, during July, the pensioners on the Railways therefore received an increase of 12%. The hon. member compared their position to that of civil pensioners and asked why I was not doing what the hon. the Minister of Finance had done. To everyone receiving a pension of R250 or less, he gave R25, but I did not do so. Now I shall tell the hon. member why we did not do so. Naturally there are talks between the various departments and Ministers, as befits a good Government. It appeared that the minimum income level of married railway pensioners amounted to R130 per month while the minimum of civil pensioners amounted to R118 per month. We should like to achieve parity between those two. For that reason we proceeded to grant a full 10%—not less—to the railway pensioners, which brought the minimum up to R144 per month—while the R25 to those civil pensioners receiving the minimum amount, increased the minimum to R143 per month. The minimum income level of the railway pensioner is therefore still R1 a month more than that of the civil pensioner. This is because there was a difference between the civil and the railway pensioners. I hope I have replied sufficiently to this matter.

I now want to discuss harbour facilities for a while. The hon. member for Simonstown raised the matter. I should like to convey my appreciation to him. It may seem extraordinary, but the hon. member did in fact give us a very valuable elucidation.

This is the first compliment I have received from you!

That just shows the hon. member that I am prepared to proffer a compliment where it is justified. He gave us a very valuable elucidation of the position with regard to harbours. In particular he referred to the tankers, the dangers of oil pollution, and so on. I want to say in passing that I have heard that the members of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours paid a visit to the Table Bay harbour on Friday. I think such a personal visit to a harbour, workshop or whatever it may be, constitutes tremendous advantages, particularly when it comes to a discussion of the relevant matters in this House, because one is then able to discuss something which one has seen personally. Now I just want to tell him that the Moffat committee investigated the matter of the location of a tanker berth. The committee found, however, that it was not desirable in the commercial harbours. I may mention in passing that there are various harbours in the world where tanker facilities are within the commercial harbours, although I am aware that there are certain dangers and problems attached to this. But the ships which carry, load, or off-load petroleum products, need not necessarily constitute a danger. The possibility of danger is there, but it need not necessarily constitute a danger if the necessary precautionary measures are taken to eliminate the danger.

Are you satisfied with the precautionary measures?

Well, I have no reason to be dissatisfied, and I have not received any complaints.

The hon. member also raised the possibility of a deep-sea mooring buoy for the off-loading of oil. This possibility has been investigated in the vicinity of Blouberg Strand, but the investigation disclosed that the swell in Table Bay is such that, taken together with the south-easterly and northwesterly winds, it is impracticable to have such a deep-sea mooring buoy in that vicinity.

Is it not possible in the vicinity of Robben Island?

Sir, I cannot say whether such a possibility has ever been investigated. I know the oil company thought that there should rather be loading and off-loading facilities in False Bay. The hon. member will probably object even more to that, perhaps on justifiable grounds.

Let me just say a few words about productivity, since it was raised here in so far as it relates to the activities of the Railways. The hon. member for Maitland, inter alia, raised the question of productivity while the hon. member for Bloemfontein North furnished certain information in that regard to the House. During the period 1964 to 1973, viz. nine years the amount of revenue-earning traffic per rail increased by 38,8%. The gross ton-kilometres increased by 1,8%. At the same time the number of passenger journeys increased by 47,1.

The harbours and the Airways have developed, too. During that period the number of air passengers increased by 256%, and during the same period the number of the staff only showed an increase of 4 762. In other words, over the period of 9 years there was a mere 2,12% increase in the number of staff. That shows us that a high rate of productivity was maintained in order to handle the increased number of passengers, and so forth, with such a small increase in the number of officials. I think that something may well be done, if we can find the time, to inform this House and the public better, if possible, on the measures which are in fact being put into operation by the Railways to promote productivity. Today I observe, in contrast with former years, not only greater purposefulness and enthusiasm on the part of the worker, but also the high degree of automation and mechanization for which the Railways are geared. I recently paid a visit to Salt River, and I must say I was quite astonished to see the extent to which the machines there have been changed and improved since the days when I used to work with them. Of course, that was quite a number of years ago—it was 30 years ago that I left the Railway service—but, truly, if one takes the trouble …

Are they still using the same tools?

No, no. They are working with fantastic machinery today in comparison with the ones I worked with. I do not know whether the artisans are better. However, we shall not argue about that now.

The hon. member for Gezina raised a very important topic here. He spoke about housing. It will perhaps be a good thing if I just expressed a few thoughts in this regard since we know what an important role housing plays today in the organization of any company or corporation or whatever the case may be. At the moment we have two house ownership schemes. The one is known as the 100% house ownership scheme and the other as the 10% house ownership scheme. Under the 100% house ownership scheme, a house is purchased for an official and 100% of its price is paid by the Administration. The official can not take transfer of that house before a certain percentage of the total amount of the outstanding debt has been paid back to the Administration. The 10% scheme is connected with a servant’s own contribution to the pension fund. In other words, they can use the servant’s contribution to the pension fund as a deposit to purchase the house. Ten per cent of the cost of the purchase of the house is guaranteed by the Railways, and the servants may then, in respect of the balance, obtain a loan from a financial institution, a building society or whatever. Under the 100% house ownership scheme a total of 20 662 houses to the amount of approximately R163 million have been purchased over the years. Under the 10% scheme 17 440 houses have been purchased so far. Consideration has been given lately to rendering more assistance to officials of the Railways so that they may have homes of their own. It goes without saying that there is a tremendous need on the part of officials to obtain their own houses and for the necessary financing to enable them to obtain such houses. That is why a new system has now been introduced. I approved it recently. In terms of the proposed scheme funds will be made available by means of, firstly, a loan from the House Ownership Fund on the basis of a servant’s personal membership of the pension fund at the interest rate charged on the house ownership loans from time to time—it is 4% at present—and, secondly, a loan for the balance from money made available by the pension fund at the average interest rate which the fund can earn on its investments elsewhere. I approved this scheme recently, and the necessary amendments to the pensions Act will be effected early next year in order that this scheme may be put into operation properly.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to ores and minerals, and he also said that the differential between minerals for export and minerals for local processing would be completely abolished with the introduction of the new tariffs. Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to explain the position to the hon. member because it appears to me that it is not altogether clear to him. Firstly, I would like to say that the statement made by him that the rail rate for export ores and minerals will be reduced by 10% is incorrect. The facts are that the rate for low-valued ores and minerals railed to local factories or to foundries will on average be increased by 26,2%, and the normal export rate will on average be increased by 21,2%. The special rate, which is very much lower than the normal export rate—and that is the rate which is applicable to manganese and iron ore exported through Port Elizabeth—will be increased by 15%. Low-valued ores and minerals are charged at tariff 14 less 20%—that is the position at the present moment—when consigned to a factory for further processing, whilst ores and minerals are charged at tariff 14 if railed for export. The rate for local railings is therefore 20 % lower than the export rate. From 1 November 1974 local railage will be chargeable at the new tariff No. 15, and export traffic will be charged at tariff No. 14. The rate for local railage will then be 16% lower than the export rate. Sir, I think that ought to be sufficient incentive for benefication in South Africa.

*Mr. Speaker, the question of staggering working hours was raised here, and it was said by hon. members that the report had been published a long time ago and that nothing had been done in that regard so far. I just want to say that this is not such an easy task, because negotiations have to be conducted with so many different organizations. But at the moment there is an inter-departmental committee which is investigating the matter, and, without going into the details, I just want to say that it has already been decided to start with an experiment in Pretoria whioh is, from the nature of the case, known as the City of the Public Servants.

The hon. member for Durban Point also asked whether the Railways were integrating with the Defence Force and with security organizations, and whether the Railways would be able to do its share should emergencies arise.

That was not my question. I asked what the nature of the co-operation was.

Yes, I can inform the hon. member on that matter. However. I want to tell the hon. member that as far as information of this nature is concerned, it is desirable that we keep it on a confidential level. Here in my hand I have a document which I shall make available to him. I shall send it over to him, but I shall be pleased if the hon. member would treat it as confidential and return it to me. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Railways can very easily be integrated with essential and strategic services should this become necessary at all. I want to tell the hon. member that I myself have personal experience of this matter. I was working on the Railways in 1939 when the war broke out, in a machine-shop in Salt River, and I know to what extent and with what great facility it was possible for us at the time to change over at short notice in order that we too might contribute our share on essential and strategic levels. I am sure that today we shall be able to do this to a greater extent and with greater facility than it was done at the time of the Second World War.

Certain hon. members, especially the hon. member for Tygervallei, spoke here about the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. This was also raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. For that reason I feel myself called upon to express a few thoughts with reference to what was said here. You will recall, Sir, that the Government decided last year that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line would be constructed as a single-purpose railway line for the conveyance of Iscor’s goods, and that Iscor itself would operate the railway line. Subsequently legislation was in fact piloted through this Parliament to render possible what the Government had decided. My predecessor, Mr. Schceman, often commented on this matter as Minister of Transport, and extracts from his speeches were quoted here, inter alia, by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. But since that decision was taken—and I should like to emphasize this—i.e. that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line would be operated by Iscor as a single-purpose line, representations have been received from several organizations, and I think hon. members, especially the hon. member for Johannesburg North, is probably aware of this fact. Several other organizations came forward and said the need existed that they export more ore and that they would also like to have facilities, if possible, to convey it on the Sishen-Saldanha railway line once the line was in operation. It was therefore necessary to take the whole matter into reconsideration. As a result of the representations by these organizations and the need that existed to provide facilities for them in the national interest, we had to review the matter and it was in fact considered by the Government. When this matter was submitted and being considered, the Government was very seriously impressed by arguments presented by Iscor, i.e. that, if a change should take place in regard to the operation of that railway line, their relations would be affected and that their contracts that had already been concluded might possibly be influenced or prejudiced as a result. This was indeed viewed in a serious light. For instance, it is common knowledge—we know that Iscor has already made this known—that they have concluded a series of contracts with firms abroad for the export of approximately 17.5 million tons of ore per year. Over and above that they acquired certain partners, especially in Europe, for the construction of a factory for semis. The Government has decided that this will also be at Saldanha, after considering the merits of the case. The task of integrating these partners in this factory is of paramount importance to them, and we are aware that this is of great importance to South Africa, because we foresee that the scope of that semis factory which may be established there may quite easily mean earnings amounting to R500 million a year in foreign exchange for South Africa. This is a vast undertaking which is very valuable for South Africa. Seen in the light of a possible change of the decision that Iscor itself will have control of the railway line, especially in so far as the conveyance of its goods is concerned, the Government accordingly decided that last year’s decision should be adhered to, i.e. that Iscor should continue with the operation of that railway line. Put we were still left with the representations made by other people who were also keen to use the railway line. At the same time attention was also given to the St. Croix scheme, and the St. Croix scheme was then given the green light by the Government. Sir, the hon. member for Johannesburg North quoted me, and may I just say that I have always been in favour of a public line or a multi-purpose line— “the same difference”—being operated by the Railways. But circumstances sometimes force one into certain directions, and we must weigh up the pros and cons. You must remember, Sir, that I do not have sole control. I am a democrat; we discuss these matters and we consider the pros and cons amongst ourselves. But, be that as it may, I want to emphasize that it has always been my view that it would be best if the railway line were operated as a public line.

In respect of St. Croix, and the application to which reference was also made here, it has always been my view—in the first instance, when there were two applications, Saldanha or St. Croix—that we could not undertake both schemes at that stage. Both are tremendously big schemes, and I felt we had to decide on one of the two, because since there were doubts about the viability of one of them, there naturally had to be more doubts about the viability of two. For that reason it would be desirable and sensible for us to choose one of two. At that stage the Government decided that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line would be proceeded with. But now, in the meantime, the Sishen-Saldanha railway line has become a viable undertaking merely by virtue of the efforts of Iscor alone. Now that Iscor have told us that they already have contracts for the export of 17 million tons of iron ore, and that their negotiations with the partners for the erection of the semis factory have already reached an advanced stage, we have arrived at the conclusion that the Sishen-Saldanha scheme is in fact a viable undertaking. Before those contracts were concluded, it was possible for one to argue that the Sishen-Saldanha scheme was not viable yet and that, Until such time as it was viable, we could not undertake a second scheme, but now that scheme has become viable and for that reason I think that the Government has taken the right decision, namely that the green light may now be given to the St. Croix scheme as well. The St. Croix scheme can also help South Africa now in connection with our exploitation of minerals and in promoting South Africa’s exports and thus provide us with more revenue.

But there is another very important factor which has played a role in regard to the Government’s considerations of this matter, and that is the development of the North Western Cape. I am of the opinion that there will be no particularly great demand for services for general goods. But I do believe that the mineral wealth of the North West should be exploited properly, and transport facilities are a prerequisite for doing this properly. In view of all the other considerations which applied, inter alia, the desirability that a railway line be built from a point in the vicinity of Aggeneis in Namaqualand to link up with this line, to which very serious thought is being given today, and the possibility of the exploitation of minerals in that area it was accordingly decided that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line should not merely be a single-purpose line from now on. In spite of the decision, for the reasons I mentioned, that Iscor should operate it, it was therefore decided that it should not only be a single-purpose line but that, as and when required, that line should also be available for the development of that part of the world, which the Railways has always made its object. For that reason the Government then decided, firstly, that the railway line between Sishen and Saldanha would remain an Iscor-controlled line, that it would be a multi-purpose line in every respect, and that other branch lines, as well as a network of roads, would be built as and when required. Talks will take place between the Railways and Iscor to determine the most practical method concerning the conveyance of goods other than Iscor goods, and also to make the necessary provision in respect of rates.

In connection with the anxiety of the staff, to which the hon. member for Tygervallei referred, I should like to set out the role played by the Railways in this regard so that the hon. member may convey this to the Railway workers.

Hon. members should not think that I …

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? The hon. the Minister mentioned that contracts to the value of R17 million had been concluded for the supply of iron ore. Is that per year?

Yes, it is per year. The information given by Iscor is that they have already concluded contracts for the export of 17 million tons of ore per year. Perhaps I should correct myself to a certain extent in this respect. I do not know whether these contracts have already been concluded, but the possibility of supplying 17 million tons of ore per year does in any case exist. It is especially in regard to the role which the Railways must play in this undertaking that the Government also took the additional decisions. A moment ago I referred to a branch-line or branch-lines which may be built to link up with this railway line. The Government has decided that the branch-line or branch-lines will be built by the Railways. In other words, any other branch-line except those on the Sishen-Saldanha railway line itself will be built by the Railways.

Can branch-lines therefore be built on a private line?

The hon. member should wait a little for the time being. Secondly, any requests from persons or organizations desiring transport services from a branch-line and/or from the Sishen-Saldanha line must be addressed to the Railways. In other words, if there is any need on the part of any person for using the Sishen-Saldanha railway line or the branch-line, representations will, in the first instance, be made to the Railways. The Railways will, in turn, conduct negotiations with Iscor with regard to the method of transport on this railway lire and the rates that will be payable should such transport be handled by Iscor. Iscor has tackled this undertaking and negotiated the loans for building the railway line. These negotiations between Iscor and the Railways are to take place from now until some time in the future. One can hardly lay down a fixed pattern of how they are going to take place. Nevertheless, there will be negotiations. The position may be that the goods will have to be transported by the Railways up to the point where it meets the Sishen line, should such a branch-line be built, from where it will then be transported further, to the harbour, by Iscor. There is even a possibility that the trains used on the branch-line of the Railways may be hauled all the way to the harbour by way of Railways tractive power and that they may be synchronized with the transport system of Iscor. At the moment we do not know as yet how this is going to be done.

Is it economically possible?

Why not? I realize that it will involve problems, but in the light of the difficult circumstances I am now giving hon. members only the decisions that have been arrived at.

Thirdly, should it be necessary to build more crossing or other facilities so that additional traffic may be carried on the Sishen-Saldanha line, Iscor will provide such facilities. One appreciates that, from the nature of the case, the Sishen-Saldanha line belongs to Iscor and will be operated by Iscor. More facilities are required by way of sidings. It will not be the task of the Railways to build sidings on Iscor’s line, but Iscor itself will have to provide the necessary facilities for carrying the additional freight.

Will Iscor build the ore harbour?

I am coming to the harbour; I shall tell the hon. member in a moment what the position is in regard to the harbour. At this stage I want to tell hon. members that the Sishen-Saldanha line will not be a complicated line in so far as it will be operated and used by Iscor, for at this moment Tscor is only envisaging four long trains a day. Then, over the entire length of 850 km, there will only be nine loops. In other words, the loops and also sidings will be 85 km apart. In order to increase the capacity of the railway line, more loops or sidings will be built from time to time, as and when required, in order that the trains may pass each other.

In the construction of the ore quay by Iscor, provision must also be made for other exporters. In other words, we are already envisaging that there may be other exporters of ore and minerals who will be making use of the loading installations at Saldanha Bay and of the railway line, and that that need should be taken into consideration at as early a stage as the design and construction of the ore quay.

In respect of the staff, too, the Government has seen fit to take certain decisions, namely that salaries and other remuneration offered by Iscor to its staff for the operation of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line must be in keeping with the salaries and other benefits paid by the Railways. The reason for this is obvious. Finally, the same pattern with regard to employment— this refers more specifically to White as against non-White—must be followed in connection with the Sishen-Saldanha railway lines, i.e. the pattern as applied in the Railways from time to time.

Seen in the light of these additional decisions taken by the Government in respect of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, I do not think that there need be any great fears on the part of the Railway officials. I want to give hon. members the assurance that I am not unsympathetic to the considerations raised here by the hon. member for Tvgervallei in respect of the standpoint of the Railway official. I share their anxiety. The Railway official is a proud official. No matter what work he does on the Railways— whether he is a foreman on a station, whether he is the boiler-maker or a driver of a train—he is doing very important work. Each of them is not only doing important work, but also believes that he is doing important work, and it is no more than right that he should believe this since he must see his work in that light in order to attach proper value to it. That is why he is proud of the work he is doing and why it is very important to him that that employment should remain in existence and that it will be available to him and his children. This is why I share their anxiety in this regard, but concerning the arrangements as I have submitted them here, I think it may be said that in taking the decisions concerned there was only one consideration, namely what is in the best interests of South Africa, especially in the development of that area where this railway line will be built, as I have in fact outlined it here.

Hon. members spoke here about train services. The hon. members for Amanzimtoti and Maitland, in particular, proposed that we could make the train services more attractive. I am not keen to go into all the details now, but I wonder whether these hon. members have of late really travelled sufficiently by train and have made an adequate study of the passenger facilities we have. I know that not everybody can travel in the Blue Train, but the Blue Train is considered to be the best train of its kind in the world. However, we also have the Orange Express and the “Drakensberg”, and the standard of the facilities offered on those trains is definitely as good as one could wish for in the world, as hon. members will find if they investigate the matter properly. I have already dealt with the point raised by the hon. member for Jeppe. I do not think it is necessary for me to pursue it any further. It concerns concessions for Bantu children.

The hon. member for Klip River asked me, with reference to the situation at Newcastle and Ladysmith, whether provision was also going to be made there for containerization. My reply to that is that facilities for containerization will be created wherever it may be desirable or necessary to do so. It is also being envisaged that the necessary facilities for containerization will be created in due course at Richards Bay and, as and when desired, at Ladysmith as well. Similar provision can also be made at Newcastle. Of course, this matter is to a large extent being provided for at the various harbours, especially at the Durban harbour, where major works are in progress.

The hon. member for Simonstown asked me what had happened at the meeting between the General Manager and commerce and industry here in Cape Town. I do not think I can give a full report of this meeting. It is probably not feasible on this occasion. The meeting was held under the chairmanship of Mr. Steyn, the Secretary for Commerce, on 14 August. According to information furnished to me there was keenness to co-operate. In fact, organized commerce in Cape Town told me personally what they would be prepared to do in order to lend their co-operation in respect of making things proceed more smoothly. Arising from this a national advisory council was appointed, which will meet soon to discuss the activities in the harbours and the elimination of such difficulties and obstacles as may be found there.

†The hon. member for Simonstown also asked me about containers.

Cellular ships.

Yes, it has been agreed that the S.A. Conference Lines will operate 14 cellular vessels from European and Mediterranean harbours to South Africa. The S.A. Railways will be required to equip the harbours to handle this type of ship but it is not for the department to decide what type of ship the Conference Lines should purchase.

So the decision is that of the Conference Lines?

Oh yes, indeed, as far as the ships are concerned the decision rests with the Conference Lines. Furthermore, it is only the responsibility of the S.A. Railways to convey the containers and not to pack and unpack them. That will have to be done by private enterprise.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark spoke about the turn-round time of trucks, something about which we are, of course, very concerned and which has caused major delays in recent times. I have already said that we were obliged to increase the demurrage charges on trucks by 100% in respect of the time that elapses before trucks are unloaded. We sincerely hope that this increase of 100% and what is called demurrage charges will be an incentive to people to unload the trucks sooner so that other consumers may be able to use those trucks.

Then there is just one other matter I should like to mention. It is connected with the 12.4% increase in rates in respect of third-class journeys from and to resettlement areas. The hon. member for Houghton’s photograph appeared quite proudly in The Cape Argus on account of her comment on the same matter. Other members also referred to this. I just want to say right at the beginning that the Railways do not stand to gain one cent through this increase. The fact of the matter is that economic rates are not being paid today. The losses are being made up by the Central Government.

Fully?

Yes, the losses are made up fully. The Railways provided these services on the understanding that the losses incurred on it would be made up fully by the Central Government. The Cabinet was at times very concerned about the increased rates, and as far back as 1958 it was said that the time had arrived for placing these rates on the same level as the third-class rates applicable at other places. In 1971-’72 the loss amounted to approximately R17 million, and in 1972-73 it was R18,6 million. It is estimated that the loss will amount to R19 million in 1973-74, and that in 1974-75 it will amount to R20 400 000 should no change be effected. For that reason the Inter-departmental Committee for the Conveyance of non-Whites to Resettlement Areas recommended that the rates be increased in order to reduce the losses, in so far as these were being borne by the Central Government. As from 1 November this will in fact be the case. This is why I said that the Railways did not stand to gain a cent by it. We do not gain a thing by it; it only means a reduction in the subsidy paid by the Government in respect of these services. But once this 12,4% increase has been put into effect, it will still not be on the same level as the third-class rates at other places, and therefore there will have to be another supplementary rates increase to bring it on a par with the rates at other places.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude. The hon. member for Durban Point moved an amendment that a commission be appointed to inquire in depth into transport matters. I want to state frankly that I regard this amendment as something of an insult to the Railways. But I also regard it as a motion of no confidence in himself. Sir, the Railways are represented in the most important councils in the country, such as in the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council and in the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council as well. The needs of the Railways and its links with the economy are in the limelight all the time: they are continually being reviewed. Besides, the hon. member is probably just as aware of the fact as I am that the Railways have a division of planning, in charge of which there is an assistant genera] manager. This division is constantly keeping an eye on the planning in the Railways in all its facets. Not only the Railways, but also the harbours and all the other facets of the Railways are being reviewed all the time. As far as the hon. member himself and this House are concerned, I think that we can justifiably say that there is no other organization in the world which is as subject to close scrutiny as the Railways are to that of this Parliament. The hon. member is in a position to obtain all the documents he requires, by which means he, as a capable parliamentarian and person, is able to gain a proper insight into the activities of the Railways. Such documents as he does not receive, he may ask for. Whatever he wants to examine, he may examine. We shall make all the facilities available to him. That is why I say that this Parliament has control of the service rendered by the South African Railways. Hon. members in this House have the right to obtain at any time all the information which may be required at all. In the discussions in this House, which will take up more than a week, members of this House have every opportunity to say what should be done with the South African Railways and what should not be done. That is why I say that, while the hon. member and his colleagues opposite do not have the confidence in themselves to look at the activities of the South African Railways, we on this side of the House do have that confidence in ourselves. I therefore regard his amendment as a motion of no confidence in himself and his party, and I am not prepared to accept it at all.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning. S. F. Kotzé, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules I, II, III and IV:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? I want to start by thanking the hon. the Minister for the compliment which he has paid this side of the House. He adjourned the debate yesterday instead of replying immediately, knowing that he would have greater difficulty in replying to the debate immediately than I would have following him immediately this afternoon. I thank him for the compliment and it is, of course, quite justified. Sir, the hon. the Minister adjourned the debate because he had available to him—and I do not blame him for making use of it—perhaps the best or, let me say, the best General Manager that the South African Railways have had since we fell out of power and one who is probably equal to any General Manager we had while we were in power. Sir, he had a galaxy of advisers and experts in every field— engineers, accountants, economists, planners, rating experts, the lot. They filled the official bay; they filled the secretaries’ bay; they overflowed on the galleries; it was an all-time record. In these circumstances I thought that we were going to take a thrashing today, so I kept a score-card. I find one direct blow scored by the hon. the Minister, and I concede it. I included livestock costs in the cost of living of the consumer, whereas it should have been included in the producer’s costs. Sir, I concede that point; I concede one clean blow to the Minister. Another one was a glancing blow. The hon. the Minister made the point that the loss on school concessions was only R120 000. The point was made that the parents have only got to pay R120 000 and that that is not as much as it might have been. But it still remains R120 000, so I am afraid he does not get a point for that one. So I give him one and a half points, Sir. Then we come to the rest of his speech. I am not complaining but we did not have his galaxy of advisers. We do not even have a personal typist, never mind a filing clerk, but that is how South Africa expects its legislators to run this highest body. It is fair. That gives the Minister a fair balance. He has his advisers and we have nothing. That makes us equal.

There were actually one or two good speeches from the Government side. I want to give credit for good speeches by the hon. member for Tygervallei and the hon. member for Gezina. They made positive contributions and this was an unusual and a very welcome innovation in this debate. I hope the Minister’s influence will continue to be used, because the rest of their speeches were one series of “Mbongo’s”. I want to refer to only one and that was the speech by the hon. member for Turffontein, who claimed, and quoted two examples to show, that I was out of touch with the debate. Now, Sir, the hon. member for Turffontein’s political credibility no longer exists, but he made himself guilty of a lack of factual credibility in the two examples he used. He said that I had ignored the 2% increase for pensioners. Here is my Hansard. If my Hansard does not include reference to the 2%, I will resign my seat if that member will resign his, if it is in here. In other words, it was an attack on me based on a complete misstatement. Here is my Hansard which I will give to him. The other issue on which he attacked me was that I had said that capital expenditure had gone up from R400-odd million to R1 400-odd million. Of course, his figures were wrong. I said it had gone up to R1 883 million. So the only two examples that hon. member gave were both factually incorrect and that is the extent to which the hon. the Minister has been getting support from his side.

Then the hon. the Minister dealt at length with tariffs and he said we had given no answer. He gave credit to the hon. member for Turffontein for the one positive statement he made, that consideration would be given to a Central Government subsidy and he said that we had run away from it. Now here is my Hansard, Sir. I said very clearly—

Talking of the Railways—

Who are you quoting?

Myself. [Interjections.]

… uneconomic traffic required in the interests of South Africa.

I said that the Railways could not do all three, and that this was recognized. I concluded by saying—

What could be more clear than that? But the hon. the Minister accused us of running away from it.

*The hon. the Minister said that we were not prepared to state our point of view; that we quoted, but that we did not stand by our quotations. What could be more clear than that, that the national purse should pay for the uneconomic services? It is clear and unambiguous and I am glad that at least one of our proposals, one of the positive proposals we made, has obviously been accepted and that the Government is prepared to consider it. [Interjections.] It is in operation, in three specific cases. It is in operation in the case of the resettlement areas, in respect of which it is now being withdrawn; I shall come back to that. It is also applicable to border areas and exports. In the case of exports it is only applicable to individual firms. The result of this is that if there are two firms exporting exactly the same articles, the one may get a subsidy and the other not. However, we are talking about the principle of State support for uneconomic services.

The hon. the Minister asked where the money should come from. He has a surplus of R32 million on his hands. He has a loss on passenger services which according to him amounts to R62 million. Is this not obviously a service which should be provided in the national interest? Consequently, is this not a service for which the State should pay? The hon. the Minister’s capital expenditure amounts to R201 million. But, Sir, the Railways has been paying interest on every cent of capital since 1910. In other words, up to now, until the introduction of the sinking fund, interest has been paid in respect of anything bought since 1910, even if it has been written off.

Dead capital!

Yes, dead capital. One has merely to think of the services that have been written off. We believe, Sir, that this is an area in which the example set by the Post Office may be followed. The capital investment by the State has been written off. In the same way, in the case of the Railways, capital can be written off to lighten this tremendous burden. But all that the hon. the Minister is able to say is that it remains constant at 13%. But of course; 13% on double the capital or three times the capital is not the same amount, although it may be the same percentage. The Minister cannot hide behind percentages now. We are dealing here with an amount of R201 million. This is one of the biggest single amounts that the Railways has to find.

†Then I come to St. Croix. Mr. Chairman, if we had been in power, St. Croix would have been built two or three years ago. By now it would have earned the Railways millions and millions of rands of revenue, and that revenue would have gone towards meeting the losses the hon. the Minister has this year. But this dilly-dallying and the shilly-shallying has lost the Railways millions of rands. We have a reduction of R11 million, from R29 million to R18 million, in the resettlement subsidy. Either the Minister’s figures are wrong, or his memorandum is wrong, but according to these figures there is a subsidy of R18 million this year as against a figure of R29 million last year. Had this been reckoned over a full year, we would have had a loss of R29 million this year. So, there is another R11 million.

However, the real source from which this money would have come would have been the sound and healthy economy of a South Africa under a United Party Government which in itself would have provided the wherewithal to run the Railways. The hon. the Minister asked why we were shocked. We are shocked because we fondly imagined—obviously wrongly—that with a new Minister, with a booming economy, with increasing traffic and with the carrying capacity to carry it, the income of the Railways, Harbours and Airways would have produced the additional amounts which were required. We never believed that this boom atmosphere, this increase in all traffic with everything running the way of the Railways, would mean that they would have to find R145 million. The whole case the hon. the Minister made was that my figures were wrong and that the amount of R171 million which I mentioned was totally wrong. Were my figures wrong or his speech? I have the speech with me in which the hon. the Minister said: “On average … and not on a Railway average, “… the tariffs will be increased by 12,7%.” He then went on to say that as regards the Railways the increase would be 20%, and 12,4% in the case of passengers. He then went on to deal with road transport services. This afternoon he said, I think, that the increase in that connection would be 5%.

No, more than that. 15%.

In his speech the hon. the Minister said that there would be an average increase of 15% and 30% respectively in passenger fares and special passenger fares. He said that the tariff structure would increase by 7,2%. This afternoon he said that harbour dues would increase by 5,5%. I have his speech with me and he said loud and clear that harbour dues and charges would increase “by percentages varying from 10% to 40%”. Yet the hon. the Minister gets an average of a 5% increase when he says in his own speech that the increases will be from 10% to 40%. As regards the Airways, he said that the fares for domestic fares and air freight rates would increase by 10% and 6% respectively. This afternoon, however, he said that the increase would be about 4%. Who was misleading the House? The hon. the Minister in his Budget Speech or the figures he quoted this afternoon? Let us assume that my figure of R171 million is wrong and that the figure is one of roughly R150 million. That means a difference of R20 million. Does that alter the principle? It means that instead of the R350 million which I said it would be when doubled, it will now be R300 million.

All that we have in reply is the deadly old cycle—fatal for South Africa. Inflation pushes up the cost of the Railways, the costs go up which means that the rates will have to go up and because the rates go up inflation is pushed up. So we start the cycle all over again. When the rates have gone up, inflation goes up and so we go round and round in a circle. This is what this Side of the House was trying to get across to the hon. the Minister. In keeping the points score I found that none of the real issues, the fundamental issues which we raised, were dealt with by the hon. the Minister. He did not duck them, he just ran away from them. He gave no indication whatsoever of any plan to break this deadly cycle of inflation, cost increases, rate increases and more inflation. Unless the hon. the Minister can break that cycle by some imaginative change from his present policy, we are entitled to say that the Railways are in a crisis and that we need an inquiry. He ended by saying that our amendment was a reflection on this side of the House. It is essential that we should move this amendment. We have raised a number of basic issues which were left untouched in the reply of the hon. the Minister; if we cannot drum it into his head or the heads of the Government members in this House, we must call for an inquiry which may be able to drum it into the heads of the Government.

For instance, he never mentioned some of the major issues which we raised such as the homeland issues, the question of a division of marine affairs, urban transit and others, which are all matters which are basic to the responsibility of the Government. He avoided these completely. Then he says we can debate it in this House and that that is all the inquiry one needs and that in any case there is a Department of Planning. We paid tribute to the Department of Planning. We criticized its sense of timing but what we said was that it was no use planning within the prison walls, and that one must get outside the perimeter of the present fixation with fixed boundaries beyond which one cannot move.

We have the Marais Report, but as soon as that moved outside the perimeter of present thinking, it was rejected. Yet every time the hon. the Minister and speaker after speaker on that side came back to the Schumann Commission’s Report. This report was quoted virtually as if it were the Bible which is governing rating policy and the Railways’ thinking. As long ago as the Schumann Commission’s Report which was tabled here in 1969, it was said, and I quote from paragraph 793 of that report—

That is what we have been trying to get into the hon. the Minister’s head for two solid days, i.e., if you have to apply uneconomic rates because of socio-economic needs, the State purse must pay the loss. The same thing appears in the Schumann Commission’s Report, the very report behind which the hon. the Minister and the speakers on that side of the House hide. Paragraph 787 of the report referred to uneconomic goods traffic, which it regarded as only that traffic which does not cover total direct costs. Another accepted recommendation in the report was to the effect that steps should be taken to eliminate all uneconomic passenger traffic over a period of 10 years and that the additional revenue should be used to reduce high-rated traffic. Eight of those 10 years have gone, but the hon. the Minister is still saying that he has put up passenger rates because they are uneconomic. But he cannot make them economic. What he should do is what we have suggested, i.e., make them economic and then let the Central Government subsidize the difference. It is the only way in which the hon. the Minister can get out of his dilemma.

Then there is another aspect. The hon. the Minister is continually complaining about uneconomic traffic, and yet he wants to keep that uneconomic traffic when people want to take it away from him. A co-operative of farmers wanted to get together to carry their own stock to the market because of the uneconomic traffic on which the rates had been increased by 150% in 18 months. They were refused permission to do so. Each one could buy a vehicle to carry his own stock but they were not allowed to work together and carry their stock in one vehicle as a co-operative. So the hon. the Minister will not let people take away the uneconomic traffic; he insists on keeping it and then he comes and moans that it is uneconomic. Surely, if he wants to get rid of it and somebody is prepared to take it over, why not let them do so? This shows the lack of logic one gets from this Government.

I want to give an example of what is happening with regard to savings. I put a question on this subject the other day. The example I want to give is a miner example but it illustrates the sort of thinking we have to deal with. The Travel Bureau in Johannesburg has been moved to a new site. It used to pay a rent of R153 per month but it is now paying R3 511 per month. I did a little calculation and came up with the following figures: Johannesburg produces 20,5% of the total revenue from tourist bureaux. The total profit was R415 000. Johannesburg’s share of that would be R83 000. The difference in rental alone is half of the total profit since the increased rental accounts for R40 000. The only explanation is that there has been an increase in business. However, I quote this only as a minor example of the way in which economics is sometimes secondary to the desire to put on a show.

Before I deal later, in detail, with matters affecting the Railways and Airways, there is one issue I have to broach here, an issue which arose from a debate in the Senate. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give me his attention. A debate was held in the Senate on the unfortunate Faros affair. May I ask the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark if he would have the courtesy to allow the Deputy Minister to listen to me.

You are making unsavoury insinuations.

I am referring to the debate on the unfortunate Faros issue in the Senate.

You are a real old gossip monger.

I am not going to repeat …

Order! The hon. member who referred to a gossip-monger must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I do not want to mention any of the details raised there. I want to emphasize that there is no question of accusing the Deputy Minister of any involvement in corruption or of reflecting on his integrity. However, in the Senate a question-mark was placed over his ability to exercise the heavy responsibility which rests upon him. That question-mark arises from the statement made by the hon. Deputy Minister in his own defence to the effect that the reason why he did not recognize what was going on was that certain documents had been removed from the files when placed before him and then replaced in the files when seen by the hon. Senator Crook.

Don’t you have anything else to discuss?

The hon. the Deputy Minister claims he has a witness to this, a member of the legal profession. I do not have time to quote from column 110 of the Senate Hansard. When he was asked for elucidation, he refused to elaborate further. As long as there is this question-mark, the hon. Deputy Minister remains under a cloud, regarding his ability to study a file and to see that he is being misled. The charge is that he, as a Minister, should have seen that he was being lied to. He should have seen that he was being misled. The only excuse he has got is that he has a witness to say the documents were removed and then replaced. I call upon the hon. Deputy Minister to clear the air this afternoon. I call upon him to name the witness, the only person who can remove this question-mark concerning why the hon. Deputy Minister did not see what was going on. That is the only way in which we can clear this matter up. As long as that question-mark remains, because the witness is secret, there will still be a problem. All the hon. Deputy Minister has to do is to say: My witness was so and so. Then we can know why that witness did not place those facts before the commission. We must remember that there are two contracts involved. All the details the hon. the Deputy Minister gave later referred to an October contract. The original contract was in May. There must be no confusion over this, there must be no misunderstanding. We want to clear the hon. Deputy Minister’s name as far as his ability is concerned, his qualification to handle this responsibility. We cannot clear it unless he gives us evidence as to who the person is who told him that documents had been removed from those files and then replaced. Unless we know that, we have only the Deputy Minister’s own admission that what he does not know, is when and how they were removed and when they were put back. As long as the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know when they were removed or when they were put back, he has not cleared the air. Only the witness, the legal practitioner whom he named—not us nor anybody else, because the Deputy Minister himself said that he had a witness, a member of the legal profession—can remove the doubt as to when and how those documents were removed. That, we believe, is a matter which we must clear up in the interests of Parliament and of good government. We must clear it up so that this matter can be buried and forgotten once and for all.

I do not have time now to proceed to other matters. Perhaps there will be an opportunity later in the debate. However, there were many matters raised with the hon. the Minister in respect of which he did not answer the issues raised by us. There are matters which will be raised by other members, such as the question of Saldanha, the interest load, and tariff increases, with which I have partly dealt. The only matter with which I want to deal in the moment I have left, is the question of wages meeting the cost of living. I am sorry the hon. the Minister used the example he did, because I can use the example of a Cabinet Minister who has two houses, two motorcars, drivers and all the rest, and who is untouched by the rise in the cost of living. The little bit of privilege which a member of Parliament gains, compared with the extra costs he has in doing his duty, puts him on the same footing as that of any other South African. For every South African, the 18% increase does not include an increase in living standards. The Minister ought to know it. Every member on that side knows it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point can for the most part be divided into two sections. In the first place, he started off by telling the House in quite a humorous way why he lost the Second Reading debate. I say he did so in a humorous way in order to pass off lightly the fact that he had had to admit to losing the debate. He used the second part of his speech to try to cover again that which he had lost in the Second Reading debate. That part of his speech can also be divided into two sections. In this second part of his speech, in which he tried to rectify the error he made in his Second Reading speech, the hon. member tried to use a lot of figures, but admitted at the same time that the figures he had used and calculated for his Second Reading speech might have been wrong. Then he started arguing with the hon. the Minister and alleged that the Minister’s figures, too, must have been wrong. That is why he achieved nothing here, and then had to switch over to the Faros incident to give force to his speech and in that way rectify his error. I think the hon. member is going to be subjected by the caucus of his party to an investigation in depth into his rates. In that investigation he will not be able to plead for mitigating circumstances, since his predecessor, whom he tried to attack here personally, the hon. member for Turffontein, could at least succeed every year in handling a bad case from that side with less damage to his party than that hon. member was able to do. My time is very limited and I cannot therefore reply any further to what the hon. member said.

I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister a matter which affects my constituency and, at the same time, affects the whole of Bloemfontein. I want to draw his attention to the Bloemfontein railway station. This station was built as long ago as in 1908. In 1910 an extension was added and in 1928 another extension. In other words, as it stands there now, the complete station was completed in 1928. You will realize that since 1928 tremendous development has taken place in which this station is very intimately involved.

Durban’s station is much older than that.

At present 40 passenger trains pass through this station. They come mainly from all the centres and all the major cities in South Africa. I want to quote a few statistics here— something I do not like—to show the hon. the Minister what volume of traffic that station handles. From January to August 1974, i.e. during the past eight months, 50 161 train tickets were sold to Whites, i.e. 6 270 per month. During the same period of eight months 383 630 tickets were sold to non-Whites, i.e. 48 000 per month. However, this does not reflect the real number of passengers that are handled on the station. It does not even reflect the real number of passengers that depart from Bloemfontein, because many passengers who depart from Bloemfontein also make use of season tickets, i.e. they buy one ticket per week or per month. Nor does this figure include the passengers who alight at Bloemfontein station.

I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister that an extremely undesirable situation exists there in respect of non-White passengers. I understand that a station is being planned which will solve this problem—a station for non-Whites. As regards parcels, the volume handled there is a very good example to quote. During the same eight months, January to August 1974, 245 782 parcels were received and 488 339 despatched, i.e. altogether 734 121 parcels were handled. This gives us a figure of more or less 91 800 parcels per month or 3 000 parcels per day which are handled at that station. I also understand that in respect of the handling of parcels certain facilities are being planned for the future. A building which was erected in 1908 and extended in 1910 and 1928 has obviously reached an age which demands high maintenance costs. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he and his department will not consider, while provision has to be made for non-White passengers and for better facilities for the handling of parcels, having an entirely new station complex erected at Bloemfontein. I am convinced that an entirely new station complex at Bloemfontein would eventually be far cheaper than the replacement of one section after another. It will also enable the department to establish a far more efficient complex not only for Bloemfontein and the Bloemfontein public, but also for the handling of that which is important to the Railways in Bloemfontein.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East will forgive me if I do not follow him in his plea for the Bloemfontein railway station. I want to deal with the Sishen-Saldanha matter which was raised by the hon. the Minister this afternoon. Sir, when I heard what he had to say about the Sishen-Saldanha development scheme, I was inclined to describe it as science fiction, but, Sir, I feel that this is not appropriate because there is far too little science in his concept and I think far too much fiction. I think it would be better to describe it perhaps as an Alice in Blunderland adventure, or perhaps we should say “Louwrens through the looking-glass” because we were led on an adventure in fantasy this afternoon, a fantasy which it is impossible to believe. Sir, we heard a tale of the most extraordinary confusion and delay in the planning of this project, if “planning” is not too grand a word to use. For some years now we have been very concerned about the manner in which the Government has handled the whole of this harbour development situation. The time came when quite obviously something had to be done; when some clarity had to be introduced into the matter, and the Government at last did a thing which I believe was a wise one; they selected a man of the calibre of Dr. Straszacker and said to him, “Please examine the whole of this concept and submit a report.” Dr. Straszacker completed his report and handed it to the Government; the Government read it, and they have taken certain decisions. I am confident in my own mind that Dr. Straszacker could never have recommended the nonsensical plan which the Minister gave us here this afternoon. I asked the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, whether he would make this report available to us and he said “No”. I challenged him to say whether in fact the decision of the Government was based on the recommendation of the Straszacker Commission. He got very angry and he threw out a smokescreen but he gave me no reply. Sir, I challenge this hon. Minister to say that the extraordinary exercise in logic that we heard here this afternoon was based on the recommendation of the Straszacker Commission, because I personally cannot believe it. I believe instead that what has happened is that all administrative logic, economic logic and technical logic have been broken on the wheel of political expediency. Sir, that is what has happened and that is what has led us to these strange conclusions.

The question was raised of the viability of Iscor’s Sis hen plan; the hon. the Minister told us that he had decided to go ahead with this scheme and to allow the St. Croix scheme to go ahead because at this stage the miracle had happened. Iscor had established the viability of the Sishen-Saldanha plan, because, he said, contracts had been concluded or were in view for a sum of R17 million per annum. I was so surprised by the figure …

Seventeen million tons of ore a year.

Well, I will accept 17 million tons of ore, but I did ask the hon. the Minister, by way of question across the floor, whether he had said R17 million rand and he repeated it. However, I accept 17 million tons.

You misunderstood me; I said 17 million tons of ore a year.

I accept that. This means that here we have a proposition that is going to cost R480 million. That is another figure that one might question, but let us assume that it is going to cost R480 million. This means that the interest payments alone on that amount must be of the order of R50 million per annum. This R50 million per annum for interest payments alone, without loan redemption, has to be paid out of the profit made on a contract for the conveyance of 17 million tons of ore a year. Sir, 17 million tons of ore will bring in something of the order of R200 million a year; that is to say, the total cost of mining and rail transport has to be paid out of this, and over and above that, out of this R200 million we have to find something like R50 million to cover just the interest charges on the loan raised by lscor. Sir, it does not make economic sense; this is not what one can describe as viability; whereas, compared with that, the St. Croix scheme has always been viable. It has always been viable in the sense that it could be constructed for a much smaller sum to be provided by private enterprise and be paid for out of much smaller contracts which were in fact available on the market. Yet these curious reasons are given as justification for the Government’s change of mind on this plan. We heard this afternoon the story of the hybrid trains. We heard that a main line, a multiple-purpose line, will be run by Iscor without experience of railway administration. Into this will be fed branch lines run by the S.A. Railways, presumably built and paid for by the S.A. Railways, and this curious hybrid is supposed to work. It goes even further than that, Sir. It applies to the harbour. The harbour will now also have to be a hybrid harbour; it will have to be a multiple-purpose harbour. The quays, which were designed and built for ore loading; will now have to serve also as quays for other goods. Quays these days are built for specific purposes, or for particular kinds of ships. One particular kind of quay will not necessarily do for another, particularly as far as the loading machinery is concerned. If indeed it is necessary to run Saldanha as a multiple harbour, and I believe it is, then it should have been designed as a multiple harbour and not now, at this stage, after the planning has already proceeded and the construction has already started, a decision taken that it should become a multiple harbour to handle multiple goods, presumably under multiple administration. As far as we can deduce from what we have heard, Iscor will be running a part of the harbour at one end of the quay, and the S.A. Railways will be running another part of the harbour down at the other end of the quay. The inconsistencies of wages and salaries and all those things must be sorted out by agreement between Iscor and the S.A. Railways and Harbours. If indeed such consistency can be found in the conditions of employment and the conditions of pay, etc., how is Iscor going to economize on this railway line and be better able to handle its contracts and its contract prices on a railway line that it runs itself, rather than on a railway line run by the S.A. Railways? Surely, if the costs are going to be identical, and they must be because the conditions will be the same and the wages will be the same, and if all the conditions are equal and it is no longer a single-purpose line which can be run cheaply but a multiple-purpose line, then surely Iscor is going to incur the same kind of costs, the same operational costs, as the S.A. Railways. Therefore, how is Iscor better able to benefit by its own control of this railway line? Sir, the whole thing just does not ‘tand up to examination. I believe that the Government has made a grave mistake. It is still fumbling; it is still in Blunderland. It will have to re-think this thing; it will have to re-read Dr. Straszacker’s report and come to some sane conclusion and work the thing out in a sensible way. There is no question in anybody’s mind that eventually the S.A. Railways will have to take over this railway and run it properly, and they might as well make up their minds to it now and avoid all the confusion and difficulty and the problems which will arise in trying to put something together that does not belong together.

Sir, there is one last thing I want to say. South Africa and Southern Africa find themselves in a strategic position where in fact the rational use of our railways and our harbours is going to be a matter of prime importance. We may find that we have to bear loads and carry responsibilities far greater than we now contemplate. We may have to come to the aid of our land-locked neighbours to the north. Various countries may need our services and may depend heavily on South Africa for the carriage of their goods through our railway system and through our harbour system. We cannot afford to waste our time with nonsensical schemes. Every harbour that is available to us must be developed and our railways must be strengthened in order that they may bear the strategic burdens. I believe that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line may become part of an overall complex which will give the General Manager of the South African Railways that flexibility which he will need in order to handle this greatly increased traffic. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis will understand why I do not react to his speech. He addressed questions directly to the hon. the Minister and I am convinced that he will be furnished with replies at the appropriate time.

I should like to address three requests to the hon. the Minister of Transport on behalf of the voters I represent. The first is in respect of the temporary allowance received by pensioners. At present the Railways has 40 000 pensioners and of these, 18 000 receive the temporary allowance. Of these, 11 000 are married and 7 000 unmarried. In the case of a married pensioner the temporary allowance is R35 per month while in the case of the unmarried pensioner it is R15 per month. This allowance has been payable from 1 April 1964 and to date there has been no adjustment in the allowance. I should like to make a very friendly request to the hon. the Minister to consider increasing this allowance, as matters continue to improve and as it becomes possible for him to do so. The ordinary pensioner regards this allowance as a cost of living allowance and we all know that the cost of living rises virtually every day.

If, for some reason, the hon. the Minister is not prepared to give favourable consideration to this request, I should like to make the very friendly suggestion that he give consideration to accommodating these people in another way. Under certain circumstances, family and maintenance allowances are at present being paid by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I suggest that if the recipients of the temporary pension allowance paid by the Railways do not qualify for the family or maintenance allowance, the hon. the Minister should grant his approval to the Railways paying them an amount equal to the family or maintenance allowance of the Department of Social Welfare. The maintenance allowance paid by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions at present amounts to R13-50 per child or dependant. I suggest that the recipients of the temporary allowance paid by the Railways should receive a similar amount besides the amount they already receive in the form of a pension and temporary allowance. I am convinced that if an arrangement of this nature could be made, it would afford substantial financial relief to the pensioners. At the same time I believe that the financial burden which the payment of such additional allowance will bring upon the Railways, will not be substantial.

The second request I want to address to the hon. the Minister, concerns the departmental aid fund. At present there are 1 200 persons who are in receipt of some allowance or other from that fund. The credit balance of the fund at present amounts to the sum of R3,4 million. This fund was established with the primary aim of assisting needy Railway employees, former Railway employees and the next of kin of deceased Railway employees, by way of grants and interest-free loans. My request is that the hon. the Minister should consider taking the amounts at present paid from the fund to widows and their dependants, into reconsideration. Those amounts must be increased to adapt to the increase in the cost of living. On account of the fact that these grants are considered on a charitable as well as on a merit basis, I feel that a concession in this regard is imperative.

The third request I want to address to the hon. the Minister, concerns the employment procedure. The latest statistics at my disposal indicate that over the past eight months there have been no fewer than 11 889 resignations. Over the same period of eight months 12 909 applications for reemployment have been submitted by former railway employees. In the first instance these statistics prove that a great many railwaymen regret their resignations and do not hesitate for a moment to return to their original sphere of employment. According to my personal experience, and I am in contact with them virtually every day, the facts of the matter here have been that they had thought that the grass was greener on the other side of the fence. In the second place I want to refer to the many railwaymen who committed an offence of one kind or another—something we cannot condone, of course—and who were discharged as a result. These people show their regret and sincerely wish to return once again to the service where they were previously employed. All these factors prove to us that the Railways is one of the best employers in the Republic, if not the best. For this reason I want to address a plea to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. We are all aware of the acute manpower shortage in key grades on the S.A. Railways; in fact, the hon. the Minister acknowledged this in his Budget Speech. I want to ask that apart from the many measures that have already been effected in order to contend with this extreme shortage, the Minister should consider a suggestion of mine as well. I want to quote from a circular sent to all System Managers in 1971 by the General Manager of the Railways. I want to quote the paragraph that troubles me personally, namely paragraph (d) on page 2 (translation)—

I want to address a very friendly plea to the hon. the Minister. The present policy is as I have stated it, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to effect some degree of relaxation. I am fully aware that the General Manager has laid down these provisions, this policy, very emphatically and that he did so for various reasons, and I am in agreement with him as far as those reasons are concerned. The first reason is to prevent undesirable elements having access to the service. Secondly, a greater degree of selectivity must be applied in the employment of staff. Thirdly, the expenses involved in resignation and re-employment must be kept to the minimum. Fourthly, undermining of discipline in the service must be prevented. I readily concede that all these are all good reasons. In spite of the above principles, with which I can find no fault, I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the policy as laid down and effect some relaxation of it if at all possible. I feel that in many cases opportunities for re-employment are lost, to the Administration’s cost. A reasonable concession in this respect could contribute substantially towards relieving staff shortages. In the same process a former employee and his family will be able to make a living once again. I should greatly appreciate it if the hon. the Minister were to give sympathetic consideration to these three requests of mine.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to a very important matter this afternoon, a matter which has been raised by various speakers. We are experiencing a very busy time in our harbours. The hon. member for Orange Grove also referred to this matter. It is not an unusual thing to see up to 30 or more ships lying at anchor. The hon. the Minister told us that the normal growth rate for harbour traffic is more or less 5% per annum. Accordingly, the department planned on that basis. However, we learned that the expansion was, in fact, 33%. This, naturally disrupted the entire planning. Because there has suddenly been such an additional flow of ships to our harbours, we cannot blame the Administration. The congestion is caused by various factors and are mostly beyond the control of the Administration. In the first place, there is no control over the arrival of ships. The Administration cannot, as in the case of trains, draw up a schedule and say “this is how it should be done”. Today the ships transport a far larger tonnage than they did before, because larger ships are being used. The blame sometimes lies with the shipping agents themselves because their documents do not always arrive on time with the result that ships have to wait for documents coming from overseas. Sometimes one finds, too, that importers cause delays due to the fact that their financial arrangements are not in order. Many times cargo is damaged, too. I understand that chaos sometimes prevails in the warehouses at the harbours on account of damaged cargo accumulating there. Such things may be prevented by proper packing. Furthermore, late rains have delayed the maize crop, and ships had to wait to be loaded.

The hon. the Minister informed us about everything that is being done to eliminate these delays. He told of facilities being created at Durban, Cape Town and Richards Bay, facilities which will cost more than R300 million. This is ambitious planning. He also told us of the success of unit cargo working which is now being applied, by means of which handling is accelerated from 15 tons per hour to 55 tons per hour.

Now we come to another method by which congestion at the harbours can be eliminated, i.e. by the application of modern shipping methods. I am referring here to containerization. With the expiry of the freight agreement with the Conference Lines at the end of 1976, a new era will dawn because in the new agreement provision is made for containerization as from 1977. From as early as 1978 approximately 70% of all freight will be handled in containers. We have learned of the cellular ships which are going to be used. We have learned that the Conference decided to use ten ships on the route between South Africa and the northern European harbours. These are going to be enormous ships. Each of them will carry 65 000 tons and be able to transport 2 450 containers of 20 ft. in length. The service on the Mediterranean Sea will be undertaken with four smaller special ships, each able to transport 1 300 containers. It is interesting to note that these 14 special ships will replace more than 100 conventional ships. It is also interesting to learn that the various lines which took part in this Conference are now going to co-operate in acquiring and exploiting container ships. I think it is something unique in shipping history that they are going to act in this collective manner and follow an integrated schedule. It is estimated that, towards the end of 1978, Cape Town will be able to handle 160 000 containers per annum, Port Elizabeth 150 000 and Durban 250 000. It will also be possible to transport refrigerated cargo in these containers. It was no easy matter to decide on introducing container traffic. Proper studies were undertaken and as far back as 1970 the department visited all the harbours in South Africa to see what would be required. The Steenkamp Commission was sent overseas and visited the United Kingdom, Germany, Holland, France and Belgium, and made a study of what was being done in other countries. In co-operation with the Perishable Products Export Control Board, the Department of Transport undertook studies in connection with refrigerated containerization. The Conference Lines also made this system the subject of a very comprehensive study. They established a co-ordinating body, known as the Executive Planning Council. Under the leadership of this council 16 study teams made up of expert staff members of the shipping lines are still engaged in investigating all aspects of containerization. Important fundamental decisions were taken during these investigations. I just want to refer to a few of them. One of these is that customs inspections will be made in the container depots. Another is that separate facilities will be essential for overseas ships and coasters. Container quays and warehouses within the harbour area will be under the control of the department. As far as possible container depots will be situated inside the harbour areas and will be hired out to private entrepreneurs. Harbour planning in order to be able to handle this tremendous number of containers includes: Durban with five deep-sea quays and two for coasters; Cape Town with two deep-sea quays and two for coasters as well; Port Elizabeth with one deep-sea quay and one for coasters. According to the latest figures it now seems as if even this planning is going to be inadequate since it may be influenced by the extent to which shipping lines are going to containerize in respect of shipping traffic from the United States, Canada and the Far East. East London and Walvis Bay will each have one container quay for coastal traffic. Regardless of the tremendous capital costs the shipping lines have to incur—one container ship will cost up to R65 million— the department will also have to incur tremendous expenditure. One deep-sea container quay costs R12 million and one coaster container quay is going to cost between R8 million and R9 million. We can therefore see that the department will have to plan for this matter on a large stale. The handling of containers in the harbours will have to be automatised completely. Cranes with a capacity of 40 tons will be required to handle containers at depots. Straddle carriers and other heavy apparatus will be required to handle and load containers. It is interesting to note that trains will be loaded directly and it will be possible for containers to be delivered within two days from Durban to Johannesburg and within three days from Cape Town to Johannesburg. Provision will also be made for the transportation of containers by road. It is being planned that 950 containers will be delivered in Cape Town by road transport services, while road transport services will be able to deliver 1 350 in Port Elizabeth and 1 200 in Durban. It is interesting to note that such a large number of containers will be delivered in Port Elizabeth because motor parts are well suited to containerization. Of course, as we all know, Port Elizabeth is the major centre of our motor industry. A modern terminal will also have to be erected in Johannesburg at a cost of approximately R13 million, and R2,8 million has already been provided for terminals at Durban and Cape Town. The whole containerization project is therefore going to cost millions of rands. Unfortunately this will push up our export costs. However, the fact is that investigations have shown that this is actually the only solution. To continue with the old methods of transportation would cost far more and would probably be impossible, in any event, because entrepreneurs would not be interested in using the old methods. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a specific point on harbours, and in doing so, I want to refer to an article in The Cape Times of 19 September by Mr. George Young. The heading of this particular article is “Humiliation at the Docks”, and it highlighted a particular aspect of our harbour situation that should have the attention of this House and of the hon. the Minister. This article deals with a visit to Cape Town at that time of the Italian passenger liner, Asia, with a number of transit passengers on board. Mr. Young who frequently visits newly arrived passenger ships in Cape Town harbour to interview important or interesting passengers, says that there are many occasions nowadays when he feels very humiliated for the sake of South Africa because of the provocative notice boards around the dock area. He was humiliated on this occasion, because among the passengers was a retired Indian army officer from Britain and his Indian wife. They asked Mr. Young the sort of question that we South Africans find very difficult to answer on occasions. They asked him what sort of taxi they should take to get to town, a White taxi or a Black taxi. What should he say? Should he say: “You, Sir, had better take a White taxi, while your wife had better take a Black taxi”? Is that what he should say? And further: “You could meet in town, but do not go into a restaurant. When you want to get back to your ship, get two taxis again, a Black one and a White one.” Mr. Young had to answer these questions, and he did so by asking a friend to take this couple to town in his own car.

But, Mr. Chairman, this was only the start of his problems. A British Government official with a Pakistani wife was about to step onto a bus in the dock area. He found that, while he sat downstairs, his wife would have to go upstairs, unless a seat was available at the rear downstairs, and there were no such seats available. What does one say when faced with this sort of question? Do you suggest that they take separate taxis? What would the hon. the Minister’s reply be to a question like this, and what could Mr. Young do? He took them to town in his own car. Let us just for one moment imagine ourselves in a similar position, arriving in a strange country, a country about which you have heard many strange things. You are eager to see a beautiful city, the City of Cape Town. You are eager, and perhaps apprehensive to find out just what this apartheid business is all about. And immediately you step off the ship, your wife is degraded to a different sort of human being, not fit to taint Whites with her proximity. Sir, I do not have to, and I do not want to, spell out what impact this must have on people like these and others from the outside world. What can one possibly say to such people? Do you say that it is not really like this, or that it is not really that bad? Or do you say that that person’s case is a special one around here and do something about it? This particular British Government official’s comment was particularly illuminating, in that he said: “I imagine this rule is deliberately designed to play into the hands of your country’s enemies.” Mr. Young says that every time he visits a passenger ship, it is necessary for him to try to whitewash unsatisfactory aspects of our local race practices, and that this is humiliating to a South African anxious to provide a bright image of his homeland. He sums it up all by saying that these incidents emphasize the need for the Railways to remove promptly the provocative notice boards which do more damage to the pation’s image in five minutes than all Dr. Eschel Rhoodie’s information propaganda can undo in a whole year. Sir, I find myself on the horns of a dilemma in regard to this matter. Do I now have to plead with the hon. the Minister to insulate his harbours for Black visitors in the same way as our airports and our five star hotels have been insulated from apartheid? Do I have to ask the hon. the Minister to whitewash the harbours, because whitewash is precisely what this is? Black VIP visitor insulation has always rather puzzled me. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain this to me. If separate development is such a morally acceptable policy, if it does not humiliate people of different races but in fact satisfies their true, hidden, separate nature, if it cancels out friction and promotes racial peace and harmony, why then is it necessary—and it is necessary as has been shown to me to be the case—to whitewash apartheid for visitors and protect them from it? This should, of course, be a golden opportunity to do some real promotion work for the political philosophy of the Government. Perhaps Black visitors should be given the opportunity to experience for themselves what a good thing it is …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I have no time for that. As I say, perhaps Black visitors should be given the opportunity to see for themselves what a good thing it is and what a beneficial effect it has on them. Now we come to the crux of the matter. Is Black visitor insulation our admission that separate development is discriminatory and humiliating? If this is so, is there any earthly reason why our own Black people, our own South African Black people should not receive these same benefits? Is there any reason why they should not expect to receive them? These are the problems that have to be faced. After all, whitewash remains whitewash. It seems to me that Black very important personages have a shrewd and very cynical idea as to why and to what extent they are getting special treatment. I would not be surprised if our own Black people in South Africa see this as an effort to delude visitors about the true nature of apartheid. I am sure that it rankles with them. They must find it a very bitter pill indeed to swallow that visitors should be given privileges that they are denied as citizens of this country. In the end, though, I shall not ask the hon. the Minister to reinstate visitor apartheid although it would in fact perhaps be more honest. I am in fact pleading for more whitewash. Put our ports on an international basis. Take away these offensive signs and restrictions. Put our ports on the same level as our airports and our five-star hotels. If there is just a little whitewash left over in the can perhaps we might even decide to whitewash some of the other tatty pieces of our policy that need whitewashing.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Gove will pardon me if I do not follow up on what he said. I just want to give him this piece of advice. He should not be walking around in the harbours at such a late hour of the night.

In the short space of time at my disposal I should like to pay tribute here this afternoon to the railway staff. In saying that I want to pay tribute to the railway staff, I include everyone in the employ of the S.A. Railways, from its General Manager down to the lowest paid employee in this vast Service. And I do not only include the Whites in my tribute either, but also the Coloureds and the Bantu in the employ of the S.A. Railways. I believe this country can be proud of the men and women in the employ of the S.A. Railways. Certain people I am particularly interested in and I want to deal with some of them in particular. In saying that people such as the police and nurses are people who I am particularly interested in, because they are people rendering national service, they are people who have to render essential services, I cannot but associate railwaymen with these people. These people are called upon to work overtime for long hours. Sir, I may possibly be told that everyone wants to earn more money today—that is a fact —in this era in which we are living and with the cost of living rising all the time. I am not going to express an opinion on that score, but I just want to mention here that the railwayman is compelled to work overtime for long hours. Sir, I want to pay tribute in particular to the railway workers who are directly responsible for rail traffic. I want to thank each stationmaster and his staff, however big or small the station may be, for the services they are rendering. I wonder how many of us who make use of train services everyday and who simply travel past those stations at great speed, remind ourselves of the fact that we are only able to travel past the stations as trouble-free as we do because of there being people in the employ of the Railways enabling us to enjoy our journey and ensuring our safety. Sir, when considering the services rendered by these people, then we, South Africa as a whole, cannot but thank them. I have said that many of them have to work under very trying circumstances. Many of them often have to work far away from their homes, and many of them have to work overtime for long hours, but they see to it that the steel wheels are running smoothly over the steel rails in this country. We are greatly indebted to them.

Sir, I should also like to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister which is an important one as far as my own constituency is concerned. I am also raising this matter on behalf of the constituency of Klerksdorp. I should like to learn when the overhead bridge on the Klerksdorp/ Kimberley section is to be constructed. That part of my constituency will in the near future be served by a network of roads; between Klerksdorp and Orkney a dual road is to be built during the 1974-’75 financial year, and this overhead bridge has become essential. I want to make an urgent appeal to the Minister in this regard. That crossing serves a considerable part of Klerksdorp, but over and above that it also serves the entire industrial area, as well as the township of Boetrand. Sir, the inhabitants of Boetrand are for the most part pensioners, and in the coming year another 250 houses are to be built. The double line which was constructed there, has made the position very difficult for these people, and I want to ask that this project, if possible, be commenced in conjunction with the major road projects which are being planned there and that construction of the dual road from Orkney to Klerksdorp. If that is not done, we are going to experience tremendous problems there. Sir, it is a fact that there is some supervision at this crossing, but there are nevertheless a great many problems and I shall appreciate it very much if this matter can be given some attention. I do not want to ask for this to be given preference to other essential services that have to be rendered, but I should be glad if the hon. Minister and the department could pay attention to that matter. Sir, over and above those persons whom I thanked here today, I also want to thank our new Minister, who, as a boy, became acquainted with the Railways in difficult times. I want to wish him well. I am satisfied that under his sound and competent leadership and with the assistance of his competent officials, the steel wheels will also in future run smoothly over the steel rails to the benefit of South Africa.

I thought it would not be necessary for me in the short time I have at my disposal to refer to the United Party, but the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Walmer compels me to refer back to the days of the rinderpest when the United Party was in power. You know, Sir, in those days, 26 years ago, when the National Party took over, the hon. member for Walmer was still walking around in a nappy and was still in the care of a nurse-girl. Yesterday he made a speech and I notified him that he should be present in the House this afternoon, as I very much wanted to reply to his speech. He started off by saying—

He said he had been sitting there for two days and had not heard a single constructive contribution from this side of the House. This is not because there were no constructive contributions here, but because his mind is so addled that he cannot distinguish between what is constructive and what is not constructive.

Who are you speaking to now?

Not to you.

He went on to say—

Now I should like to tell the hon. member for Walmer this: Amongst the Afrikaners it is a tradition to be courteous; courtesy is an innate tradition as far as the Afrikaner is concerned, and if courtesy is not a characteristic of his he should not expect us to degenerate as he has done. Of course we thank our Minister. We congratulate him and we thank him, and we go even further and thank the Railways staff too, from the top man right down to the shunter. We thank those people. Surely we are entitled to thank them. After all they are tendering a service to the State. Where does the hon. member for Walmer get his idea that we may not show this courtesy to the officials and the workers on the Railways?

Say a little about the Railways now.

I shall come to the Railways. I want to tell that hon. member that things were made so hot for him in Walmer that he is now sitting in Port Elizabeth Central. The hon. member for Walmer went on to say—

[Interjections.] Then the hon. member went on to say—

On what grounds does the hon. member for Walmer make the assertion that the Railways suffered a loss of R100 million? I want to rectify the matter. An hon. member, who has a seat in the highest council in the country, makes a flagrant misrepresentation here. [Interjections.] He is hiding at the moment, but in his speech he also said—

Again this is a confounded lie. After all, we do have an ore quay at Port Elizabeth.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say “a confounded lie”? There has already been a ruling that the word “lie” is unparliamentary language.

Order! Which hon. member used those words?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North.

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North must withdraw the word “lie”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that word. I must, however, point out that we do indeed have an ore quay at Port Elizabeth which is not being used to full capacity. So where does the loss of R300 million which the hon. member spoke about come from? I want to go further. There are those who suggest that the Government never wanted to grant permission for the St. Croix scheme to be proceeded with. In this regard I want to quote what the previous hon. Minister of Transport said (Hansard, vol. 42, col. 2590)—

This means that the harbour at Port Elizabeth has never yet been fully utilized. However, it is clear from this that permission would indeed have been given for St. Croix. The previous hon. Minister went on to say—

These are the facts. They never came to the hon. the Minister with such contracts and asked him for St. Croix to be built because they could not export all the ore through Port Elizabeth harbour.

Are you opposed to St. Croix?

The then Minister went on to say—

This is the position. Up to the present it has not yet happened that exporters have approached the Railways with such contracts. It has never been pointed out to the Railways that the present ore quay will not be able to handle the quantity of ore provided for in contracts, and that St. Croix should consequently be built. [Interjections.]

I now come to the next point. I read in the English press: “Nat M.P.s oppose present programme”, but what are the facts? There sits the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He knows as well as I do what the attitude was of previous mayors of Port Elizabeth. In this regard I refer to Messrs. Rademeyer, Ellis, Kleinhans and S. Rubin. From time to time those four mayors met the Members of Parliament representing Port Elizabeth constituencies, held discussions and made representations. Not one single person from this group opposed the St. Croix scheme. All we said was that we would abide by the decision of the Cabinet. After the Cabinet had made the relevant decision, we asked that St. Croix be developed as a supplementary quay. The hon. members may go and read the speeches made by the hon. member for Algoa and from them they will see that he advocated the development of St Croix. Now, long afterwards, the hon. member for Walmer professes to have been the champion of the development of St. Croix. He reminds me so much of the old Native woman who wanted to sell a rooster and when the hawker asked her what kind of fowl it was, she replied: “It is the Ram of the chick”. Permit me to say that that hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central paid heavy school fees. While he and his colleagues were fighting for St. Croix, the hon. member for Walmer was undermining him, so much so that he lost his seat and no longer represents Walmer today. The hon. member for Walmer is one of the biggest political foxes that ever was. [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “fox”, and say he is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds and … [Interjections.] He is not even a fox …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw in its entirety the statement he made.

I withdrew it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

The hon. member has already withdrawn it. The hon. member may proceed.

One day the hon. member supports the Progs, the next he supports his Transvaal leader, Mr. Harry Schwarz, and the day after he supports the Cape leader, the hon. member for Groote Schuur. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, for nine out of the ten minutes that was available to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, he wasted the time of this House with an attack on the new hon. member for Walmer. I have come to the conclusion that in the area of Port Elizabeth the U.P. have over the years made such a positive contribution with the suggestion which will now become a reality when St. Croix at last comes into being, that nothing which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North can do can detract from our record both through addresses in that area and in Hansard itself.

The hon. member for Humansdorp made a far more constructive speech in his examination of the harbour problems which we are facing in South Africa. We on this side of the House also want to return to the subject of the harbours, especially to the delays in most of our harbours and to the question of containerization. These are subjects which are non-political but which affect very directly every citizen and more particularly the members of the chambers of commerce, the Handelsinstituut and the chambers of industry throughout South Africa. Throughout this debate it has been made clear that despite the protestations of the hon. the Minister, the costly delays in shipping are such that they are affecting our rate of inflation and the cost of living in this country. There is no denying the fact that in harbours such as Durban, Port Elizabeth, and Cape Town, delays are affecting the routine of commerce and industry. I want to make some constructive suggestions as to how time can be saved in respect of goods arriving in Cape Town, being cleared off the ships, being cleared from the harbour, and taken to the warehouses of commerce to be distributed.

Firstly, I want to start with ship handling. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it may well be possible for the Port Captain to know at a prior stage what ships are carrying maximum cargo. If a ship is carrying 80% cargo compared to another which is carrying 40% or 50% cargo, priorities should be considered in order to bring such a ship in first. We do realize that most of the delays in harbours are the result of the period of time it takes to unload the vessel. Then there is the question of the low productivity of the labour which is being used. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister should consider the possibility of having two or three shifts of workers to work in periods of extreme stress in harbours like Durban and Port Elizabeth where the motor industry can be delayed and productivity can be affected if ships are not cleared rapidly. I also want to suggest that we should recognize that one of the causes for the delays in our harbours is the fact that the sheds themselves are congested, although that is not the major cause. To alleviate the position, I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether he would not allow the free-delivery area to be extended from 50 km to 80 km or even 100 km and further whether he would not consider the possibility of private enterprise undertaking the delivery of all goods in the free-delivery area as well as the handling at the terminal itself. I believe that in this way the Railways could concentrate on the long-delivery schedules and the country would certainly benefit.

Then, with regard to containerization, I wonder whether most people realize the thousands of millions of rands that will be involved before containerization becomes a fait accompli, beginning approximately in 1977, as has been indicated. I wonder if it is realized that Cape Town harbour particularly is not going to enjoy the same perfection of planning in its containerization plans as will be enjoyed by Durban. This is a tragedy because of the new extensions envisaged to the outer harbour of Cape Town which have been on the drawing board for many years and because commerce has constantly been asking the S.A. Railways and Harbours to plan with them. Now we find that some comment that, because a large portion of the outer harbour had already been constructed before containerization was considered, we are not going to have the same quality of containerization handling as will be the case in Durban. When one realizes that we will be handling 160 000 to 200 000 cases throughout each year, each case measuring 20 ft. × 8½ft × 8 ft. and when one realizes that the price of these boxes we will be handling will be R1 500 to R1 800 per case, and that these cases will have to be broken down from bulk outside the harbour area, I believe the hon. the Minister and his staff will appreciate the tremendous problems that will be created if these containers have to be moved out of the harbour area in order to be broken down.

I want to deal very briefly with the lack of S.A. Railway ownership of a major deep-sea salvage tug. Based at our harbours we have Dutch and German deep-sea salvage tugs but, with the high incidence of shipping disasters, clearly these deep-sea salvage tugs are fully occupied and they can be a highly profitable undertaking. I believe that we ourselves are now a large enough maritime nation—as the hon. member for Simonstown indicated, we have a coastline of some two thousand miles—for the hon. the Minister and his Administration to consider the purchase and manufacture in South Africa of deep-sea harbour tugs that could replace the services now being rendered by Germany and Holland.

Then I want to make special reference to an innovation on which I want to congratulate the Railways Administration. I refer to the fact that airfreight overnight cargoes are going to be initiated on 1 October between the main cities of South Africa. This will be a tremendous service to commerce and industry, but again problems of congestion will arise. I put it to the hon. the Minister that as far as the documentation of this airfreight cargo is concerned and as far as the congestion at the terminals is concerned there should be the closest possible co-operation between the department of the hon. the Minister and commerce and industry. In the same way, air cargoes at international level are becoming more and more popular. We know that overseas airlines are sending aeroplanes to South Africa carrying only air cargo. The development of this practice is again leading to tremendous congestion at the airport in Johannesburg and creating problems of documentation. At the moment the carders have to go to the offices of the various overseas airlines such as Air France, Alitalia, BOAC, etc. to collect the relevant documents. If only a central store could be arranged where all documentation could be cleared, this would save an enormous amount of time which could be better spent and would ensure that the goods reach their destinations far more promptly.

I also want to put to the hon. the Minister a suggestion to which I hope he will give favourable consideration. It has to do with the coming festival to be held in Cape Town next year when, during three months, the city is going to endeavour to sell itself as a new tourist centre out of the main tourist season of December and January that it normally enjoys. Could the hon. the Minister consider a train-hotel concession facility along the same lines as his presently operating air-hotel concession facility? This is common in overseas countries and I believe the hon. the Minister must realize that it pays him to make maximum use of his transport. These are off-season months as far as tourism is concerned. They are months in which the Cape Peninsula and its environs are at their very best as far as the weather, the lack of wind and sporting facilities are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens must forgive me for not reacting to his representations, since he touched on a number of local matters which are important as far as his constituency and also Cape Town are concerned. However, I should like to devote a small part of the time at my disposal to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. In a characteristically emotional way he yesterday …

An irresponsible way.

… belched forth once again without making a single positive suggestion. Actually, we have already become used to having that from the hon. member. If this hon. member wants to level criticism, he has every right to do so. In fact, I think any opposition has every right to criticize the Government. However, there should also be a positive bias. Not a single suggestion came from that hon. member in respect of wiping out the deficit which the Railways would have shown if rates had not been increased. On three occasions I asked him what his suggestions were. Mr. Chairman, do you know what was his answer?

Get a proper government.

His answer was: “Change the Government and let us have an efficient administration.” But this is a blueprint for disaster. This hon. member is very much out of touch with reality. I do not want to take up the past but should, nevertheless, just like to ask the hon. member this: What happened in his own province during the past elections? He should rather analyse his own side of the House, before the election and after it as well. Then he would come back to earth again and not speak so lightly of “changing the Government”. I want to assure that hon. member that the more he nags in an emotional way in this House, the smaller that side of the House will become and the smaller the danger will be of that side of the House ever coming into power.

The hon. member did something else. He said by implication that we had an inefficient Railway Administration. I quote him once more:

By implication that hon. member is saying that we have an inefficient Administration. He is the only person—this much I will say for him—who had the courage of his convictions to say what all of them wanted to say but did not have the courage to say. I should like to put it on record today that this side of the House is grateful for an efficient organization such as the Railways. We are grateful for that. We are also grateful that we got a new Minister who has already shown that he is prepared to take this efficient organization, carry on with it and develop it in the interests of South Africa. There is one other thing I should like to tell the hon. member. This side of the House does not talk about the agriculturist. We talk to him. That is why 99% of the rural areas are represented by this side of the House. We are used to having discussions with them. We do not only talk about them in this House. [Interjections.] That hon. member still has certain things to learn. He has been here for a while, but he has not learnt yet. He has to learn, that this side of the House represents 99% of the farming community of this country. In talking about the “farming community”, I am talking about the agriculturists.

Talk about the Broederbond instead.

The hon. member should not bring up other matters when he finds himself in a tight corner.

You are in a tight corner. Not he.

I want to say at once that I as an agriculturist and as a member representing a agricultural constituency am not going to say that I am happy about these tariff increases. Of course I do not feel happy about them. Show me a person who is happy when his purse is affected? Show me a person who is happy when tariffs or taxes are raised? Of course I am not happy about them, and very few agriculturists are going to be happy about them. But, Sir, this side of the House also looks facts in the face. It is the duty and responsibility of this side of the House to make sure that the books of the South African Railways balance. It is not for us to have emotional outbursts on public platforms, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and Durban Point did. We may not do so. We are responsible for governing the country, and it is the responsibility of this side of the House and of that hon. Minister and his Administration to see to it that the books of the South African Railways balance. I want to repeat that I am not happy. Much has been said here about the increase in the tariffs for the conveyance of livestock but hon. members did not listen to the Minister. I just want to interrupt the trend of my argument by saying that the hon. members for Durban Point and Pietermaritzburg South spoke about an increase of 150% within 18 months. Surely that is not so.

It is.

It is 120%, not 150%. Initially there was an increase of 60% and now there is a further increase of 60%.

It is 60 on 160.

The calculations which that hon. member makes do not always work out. Let me come back to the point I want to make.

What is 60 on 160?

If the hon. member would give me a chance, I would make my speech; he will have an opportunity to speak later. Let me come to the point I want to make. The hon. member said in his Second Reading speech that after the increase the transportation of livestock would only cover 65% of the costs. In other words, livestock is still being transported with a subsidy of 35.% After all, we should take realities into consideration. Surely, we cannot allow the gap to become progressively wider. We have to see to it that, where increases are affected —and I want to concede that this is a considerable increase—we should narrow the gap, and that we shall not be compelled to announce in a few years’ time a rise the industry will not be able to bear.

Nevertheless, I want to sound a note of warning. I want to interrupt my argument again and point out that it was said by these hon. members that the housewife would have to pay for this increase. I am concerned that certain parties would, in fact, hide behind this increase to exploit the housewife to a certain extent. I want to sound a note of warning today to every housewife in this country, and tell them that if they walk into a butcher’s shop and are told that the price of meat has been increased as a result of the increased railway tariffs, they must reply immediately that this is not true because the farmer is bearing this cost, and not the housewife. The farmer is bearing this alone. I want to go further and ask these hon. members to make another calculation. I do not want to go into this matter any further, but I just want to ask them to make another calculation before saying anything further. By how much has the floor price of meat been raised in the last two years? I do not think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South knows. I want him to make a calculation and tell me by how much the floor price of meat has been raised over the last 18 months.

In the short time left to me I should like to say a few words about the conveyance of slaughter stock. Since this is still not going to cover the full cost and may widen the gap even further, I should like to make one suggestion to the Railway Administration in this regard. I want to ask whether they could not investigate the possibility of double-decker transport for small stock in particular. I know that this matter was raised in this House on a previous occasion, but I am of the opinion that it is in fact possible for us to double the present truck capacity by means of double-decker trucks. I say this because we are not dealing with weight problems here, but with problems concerning space. I am convinced that if we could add a removable floor above the lower deck, we should be able to double our capacity in respect of the transport of small stock. There is also the problem in respect of the loading facilities at railway stations. However, we as farmers are quite ingenious in this regard. We have already constructed small scaffolds we use for double-decker lorries, and which can be put up to load the upper-deck. As soon as the upper-deck has been loaded, the scaffold is removed and then one proceeds to load the lower deck. I therefore do not believe that this problem is incapable of being solved. I ask for a thorough investigation to be made in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of this Committee to an aspect of rail travel which may appear trivial to some hon. members in this House, but which is of vital importance to countless thousands of people of colour in this country. It affects them directly every day. I am referring here to the accommodation provided for passengers on the second-class reserved coaches on medium-distance and long-distance trains. I hope sincerely that the General Manager will instruct his staff to take a very critical look at this situation. I can assure him that I am speaking on the basis of an investigation which I made myself.

From this I can state that the condition of most of these second-class reserved coaches is really quite appalling. Not only are they old and dilapidated, which is one aspect of the matter, but many of them are really filthy—I am not talking from hearsay now—even at the outset of the journey. This seems to me to be a condition which ought to be avoided. I can give the assurance that in many cases the accommodation provided for second-class reserved passengers is no better than that in the third class. Surely this is an injustice? These people are, after all, paying the same fares as White people are paying who travel second class. I can assure you that there is absolutely no comparison between the type of accommodation that is provided for second-class reserved passengers and for second-class passengers.

In recent times we have heard a great deal about equal pay for equal work. We have heard this very recently from the other side of the House. Here I submit is a case of equal pay for the most unequal treatment, for something very unequal in relation to the accommodation provided. I sincerely hope that something really “kragdadig” will be done about it. I do not know whether this is a case of discrimination or differentiation; that is the kind of subtlety that escapes me. However, whatever the case may be, I certainly do hope that the Administration will do something about this matter.

I should like to refer to another aspect of rail travel as far as Black people are concerned. I was glad to see a statement by the hon. the Minister of Transport in reply to, I think it was a question asked by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Orange Grove, that booking facilities are in fact being provided for third-class passengers on some trains. I hope this facility will be extended, but even if it is not it seems to me that something should be done about overcrowding in third-class compartments. Sir, I have two employees who tell the most hair-raising stories about travelling third class on long-distance trains. The hon. the Minister said the other day that the average accommodation in each compartment in the third class was about six. This may be so in theory, but my information is that very much more often there are ten to a compartment, particularly over weekends. I am told, and I personally know of cases, where Black people simply refuse to travel third class on night journeys because conditions are totally impossible. This seems to me the type of unpleasantness which the Railways Administration would be anxious, I know, to avoid. I can assure you, Sir, that a lot of these people are refusing to travel third class; they rather seek other means of travel, like pirate taxis. Surely, that is something which ought to be avoided.

One final point I wish to make about long-distance travel by Black people is this. The hon. the Minister spoke the other day about light refreshments being available. I know of people who have done the journey from Bloemfontein to Johannesburg, a journey which takes nine hours, where they could not get any refreshment at all. I know there are probably some hon. members not 1000 miles from here who do not trouble themselves about these matters, but I should like to assure you, Sir, that this is a matter of very real concern to me, and from what I know of the Railway Administration I know that they will be anxious to do something about it.

There is one other small point as far as this is concerned, and that is the provision of tickets for long-distance travel for these people. I know of cases where people have had to wait two or three hours to get to the head of the queue at the ticket-office. Surely, this is not something which any White community would put up with, and I do not think we should expect the Black community to put up with it either. This is the kind of irritation which I believe we could eliminate and if we could, it would do a tremendous lot towards achieving better human relations in this country.

Finally, I want to raise an old but a very grave matter as far as Johannesburg is concerned. It concerns every one of us in Johannesburg, whatever his colour or his political affiliations might be. I am referring to the conditions of travel between Soweto and Johannesburg. Incidentally, I think it is correct to say—the Administration’s officials might be able to confirm this —that eight times as many Black people use the Soweto line every day as White people travel on the Blue Train in an entire year. This puts the matter into perspective in a way. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is clear to everybody who has ever been anywhere near the Johannesburg railway station, that conditions of overcrowding on these trains are today as bad as they have ever been. We were glad to hear from the Minister this afternoon about the experiment which is to be made in regard to staggering working hours, and that is was going to be done in Pretoria. One can only hope that it will prove practical and that it will be extended to Johannesburg, where, heaven knows, it is badly needed. But even if it does prove feasible, it is going to take a long time and one hopes that something will be done before then to relieve the congestion. Sir, we are well aware of the tremendous difficulties that the Railway Administration faces. I think in many ways they do a fantastic job in getting a train away from Johannesburg at peak hours every couple of minutes. We also know of the tremendous difficulties they have at Canada Junction and places like that and of the problems involved in bringing hundreds of thousands of people from one area to another a few miles away. Anything that can be done to relieve this situation seems to me to be a contribution towards better human relations which we hear so much about but about which we are so unanxious to do anything. I can assure you, Sir, that anybody who travels on those trains will tell you that conditions are almost unbearable. This is where tsotsism flourishes; this is a fertile field for thuggery of the worst kind. It is no exaggeration to say that people get on to those trains and they fear for their lives and for their possessions. Whether anything can be done to provide any better supervision, heaven alone knows. One hesitates to use this kind of argument —one prefers not to think of accidents, and heaven knows, we pray that no accidents will ever happen—but experience has shown that when accidents happen under circumstances when people’s nerves have already been frayed to breaking-point by the jostling and the squabbling and generally travelling in maximum discomfort, it needs but the tiniest spark to set off a conflagration. Nobody in his right mind— with the emphasis on “mind”—would want anything of this nature to happen. We can only hope to obviate trouble by improving travelling conditions at peak hours by treating Black passengers as simple human beings, which I am sure is the objective also of the Railway Administration.

The hon. member must pardon me if I do not respond to his speech. The questions he put here will be replied to in full when the hon. the Minister furnishes him with replies to these questions later on. Sir, it is a privilege for me to express my particular appreciation for the work being done in our country by the Railways and the place the Railways occupies in our country. To my mind the successful running of our Railways essentially rests on four very important main pillars, and these main pillars are a good example to be followed in other spheres. I am just going to mention them briefly. I am thinking of economizing, in the second place of productivity, thirdly of efficiency and fourthly of successful planning. Due to lack of time, however, I want to dwell for a moment on this one aspect, i.e. planning.

The expansion of the Railways in all spheres, and •particularly the overburdening we have in the Witwatersrand area, have created some problems which give us a great deal of trouble in respect of the marshalling yards. This makes it essential that a solution be found in this regard. Seven main railway lines converge in the Witwatersrand complex and as far back as 1969 a study was undertaken and conclusive proof was found that a central marshalling yard was essential and could be justified economically. The purpose of such a central marshalling yard is to have a traffic area where train-loads may be marshalled and received at all these seven main railway lines. It was then decided to build such a central marshalling yard near Bapsfontein which would meet all the requirements and where we could apply our technological know-how and our knowledge of organization and mechanization to the benefit of the Railways. This yard will be able to marshall the outgoing traffic in block loads for specific regions. The complex being envisaged here will eventually consist of four mashalling yards which will each have a hump and 64 classification sidings with the necessary arrival and departure lines. Furthermore, there will be a block load marshalling yard, various maintenance workshops, a locomotive shed and a tranship depot. In order to obtain the best for South Africa, a team of experts proceeded overseas to study the latest developments in that sphere. The main intention is to install reliable and efficient mechanical equipment with which trucks, after having been pushed over the hump, can be automatically controlled up to the classification sidings to be coupled there with stationary trucks without causing damage to the trucks or their loads. Such a system completely eliminates the tedious work of the brakesmen. Equipment used overseas may be adapted to South African conditions. The rolling resistance of our goods vehicles is determined in order to ascertain at what grades those classification lines should be built. Most modern boosting and retarding equipment, as well as signalling and communications equipment will be installed here. Computers will be used to transmit, analyse and process data. The investigation made it essential that it be determined which area had to be chosen for this purpose and consequently various aspects had to be investigated. I am just mentioning this briefly. The topography of the area generally had to be suitable; the site had to be large enough; it had to be taken into consideration whether it was a built up area, whether there was industrial development or whether there were proclaimed areas, and so on, A very important consideration, of course, was whether it was situated reasonably close to Germiston, which is the centre of gravity of goods traffic in our country and especially on the Rand. A very important aspect which had to be determined here was the natural slope of the area in order thereby to determine the scope of the earth-works, which would naturally be very expensive, which had to be undertaken here. Last but not least, it also had to be determined what the geological formation was in order to ensure that no underlying dolomite was present. After all these considerations had been taken into account very thoroughly, it was decided to purchase an area of 5 606 ha for this purpose in the vicinity of Bapsfontein. The advantages in this area eliminated all the other areas which were examined. This area is ideally situated and will in the course of time obtain a number of connecting lines in order thereby to bring the traffic onto the main railway lines. When this complex is put into operation, we will derive very great benefit from it. In the first place, it will relieve the heavily loaded main lines on the Witwatersrand; it will result in far less damage to goods and trucks, and the existing marshalling yards on the Witwatersrand will then be enabled to handle local traffic, an aspect which is giving a great deal of trouble at present. The composition of block loads will result in fewer trains having to be remarshalled. The modem equipment which will be used will also result in a marked decrease in the number of staff. Goods from the Witwatersrand and destined for the Witwatersrand will be able to reach their destination more quickly. In addition, trucks will be returned sooner in order to be used again. Sir, this development will entail very great benefits for the Railways and for South Africa as a whole. It will not only justify the heavy expenditure it entails, but the increased efficiency and saving this will involve will conduce to the benefit of not only the Witwatersrand but the whole of South Africa. It will give the South African Railways, which has a very good reputation, an even better reputation, and it will not only improve the transport service but will also contribute to improved and more stable working conditions for the staff. But, Sir, it is obvious that with a major project such as this, where a large amount of land has to be expropriated, emotions will be stirred up. This 6 000 ha, a very large area, is situated in one of the finest agricultural regions of the Transvaal, and consequently there are some owners who feel decidedly hurt because their land has to be expropriated for these purposes, and one can understand their feelings. But I am convinced that in its planning, thorough as always, the Railways will also see to it that these problems will be solved in the course of time and that this will be done to our mutual benefit. Here we have another example, however, of an instance where our people are going to be asked to make a sacrifice in the interests of the country as a whole, and where it is not only the interests of the individual as such which should be considered. I hope that our people who are affected by this project will realize that this area was selected after very thorough investigation and very thorough planning and that, when this area is developed further it will be in the best interests of the whole of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on a very constructive speech. I would just like to say that I have learned a lesson from my predecessor and that is that constant dripping wears away a stone. Sir, I might be a drip, but I am not suggesting that the hon. the Minister is a stone. But I know that if you keep on, you eventually get something. I want to give the hon. the Minister notice now that he is going to hear this story year after year as long as I am in this House. I want to plead for a harbour on the Natal South Coast. Mr. Chairman, we know that every nation blessed with an abundance of harbours has a distinct advantage over any nation which has no harbours or very few harbours. We have four or five very good harbours, but very few estuarine harbours. We are not utilizing our great rivers to any extent, and I wish to plead that more research be done in this connection. Sir, I have mentioned the Natal South Coast because the Cape coast is blessed with many harbours, but the Natal coast is not blessed with any at all except for Durban, as we know, and of course the forthcoming harbour at Richards Bay. But between East London and Durban there are no harbours as such. Sir, there are several reasons that I can advance as to why this matter has now become one of urgency. This question has been raised before. Port Shepstone has been mentioned as a possible site for a harbour at various times, but now in the light of circumstances, with the Transkei coast becoming perhaps not a hostile coast but certainly a foreign coast, we do need a harbour close to the Cape-Natal border. There are several big free-flowing rivers, rivers which at this time are still uncommitted, in that area and which could be utilized for this purpose. There are several reasons why such a harbour would not be wasted. The primary reason, of course, is that it could be used for defence. I do not know what has been planned for expanding our Navy and for maritime defence, but judging by what was said by the hon. the Minister of Defence following upon the request of the hon. member for Simonstown for a naval patrol system, along somewhat similar lines to the coastguard system of the United States, I feel that this deserves serious consideration, as the hon. the Minister himself said. A harbour near the Cape border would be ideal for the stationing of such a service. First of all, we would require to patrol the Transkei coast. I know at the moment it is being efficiently patrolled by air, but air patrol, although it serves its purpose, has also driven underground many activities that may be taking place along this coast, these activities are now taking place at night. Smuggling, particularly smuggling of dagga, is going on at night, and then of course there is the smuggling of people. It is fairly well known that people are being landed on that coast, and this all takes place at night. For this reason I feel that we do require a constant patrol of that coast, night and day, by boat, and coastguard cutters would be the ideal craft. Small boats, with their own helicopters, could undertake this sort of work, and they could undertake it not only for defence purposes but also for the purpose of fighting oil pollution. Mr. Chairman, I want to pay tribute to what the hon. the Minister and his department have done in the fight against oil pollution. It has been a wonderful effort and they deserve to be congratulated. But I must warn them that there is still a very imminent danger of a large tanker either running aground or being involved in a collision, or even breaking up at sea, and then you will require ships close to the source of the trouble, ships which could take off quickly, and you will also require depots where the dispersant and all the other materials required to fight a pollution tragedy would be available, and for this reason we require some harbour between East London and Durban. Furthermore, the fishing potential of this coast is tremendous, and at the present time it is not being utilized. It is very difficult to take off with a ski-boat under the present circumstances and it is also very dangerous, and I doubt if they fish more than 100 days a year. In the near future we shall require all the protein we can find in South Africa in order to feed our expanding population. It will also be a base for the training of naval reserves. As an hon. member has said, we are a maritime nation. If we are not, we should be. We have 2 000 miles of coastline and South Africans should become a naval people, a people who would enjoy serving at sea. I have seen how the Zulu people have adapted themselves to naval activities after gaining experience from ski-boat fishing. They make good sailors. I feel that we have a tremendous potential which can be utilized.

There is also a harbour needed there for sea-rescue work. The other day when the Produce sank on the Aliwal shoal, if it had not been the efforts of two courageous ski-boat crews who took off into that raging storm and took off those sailors from the Produce, they would all have been lost, because five minutes after they had been taken off by the ski-boat crews, the ship capsized. I feel that we require some sort of life boat service on that coast.

It is not only the danger of shipwrecks on that coast which must be taken into consideration, but also the danger of the storms which we encounter on that coast. These big tankers have shown how prone they are to storm damage. In the last year we have had two very large tankers being severely damaged by wave action. One had a hole knocked into its bow over a hundred feet deep by a wave. It will not require much more than that to sink one of these large tankers. Apart from any other reason I could advance, there is of course the use to which this port could be put in the field of recreation and tourism. This could be a tremendous draw-card for South Africans and overseas visitors who wish to go deep-sea fishing. Off this coast are tuna fishing grounds which are very popular. People come from all over the world to fish off this coast.

We have several advantages there which I could mention. First of all, rumour has it that there will soon be two major cement factories going up in this area. The material will be available for any work of this kind. The hon. the Minister must know that we also have a free, uncommitted railway service with excellent facilities which is not being utilized to its fullest extent. This is a fully electrified line which could be utilized and this port, in turn, could itself be utilized for the landing of goods. We have a harbour at Durban which is hopelessly overloaded and we have Richards Bay which will come into operation in two years’ time. I feel that within two years Richards Bay will be overloaded too, judging by the extent to which development is taking place in Natal, and also by what is now happening in Mozambique. The possibility exists that we shall have to handle Rhodesia’s traffic as well. There is a distinct need for another harbour on this particular coast. Plenty of labour is available on this coast which could be utilized. All that has to be decided is where and when.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to have a survey undertaken of this particular coast in order to establish which river mouth is indeed suitable for this sort of development. I would have thought that the one at Port Shepstone would have been the best since the second largest river in Natal enters the sea there, but of course this river has been spoilt by the bridge which was built across the river mouth. This bridge has caused excessive silting. I ask the hon. the Minister respectfully, once he has decided where this port should be, to instruct somebody to investigate methods of developing the port, somebody like the CSIR, who undertook the research work in investigating the possibilities of Richards Bay, so that we can be ready within five years, or however many years it may be—I hope it will be soon—to build this harbour and so that we can have all the knowledge at our finger-tips.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot but mention something about the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown. I think it is time to forget what one’s previous occupation has been and to remember that one is sitting here as a member of Parliament. When someone writes in The Star about the Blue Train and the train to Soweto and tries to draw comparisons, I think I am justified in drawing a comparison between Harry Oppenheimer, who lives in a house of 10 000 square feet and 16 000 Bantu who live in a compound of the same size. The argument could be advanced that that number of feet take up the same room as Harry Oppenheimer does with his household. This is the kind of comparison we have had in this House from that hon. member. I do not believe that the hon. member …

There is no comparison.

That is an excellent answer. Similarly, there is no comparison between the Blue Train and the daily train to Soweto. I want to tell the hon. members of the Progressive Party that they should remember one thing and that is that we are dealing with Railway affairs. The Progressive Party came to this House just like a big tick: a lovely abdomen and a small head that will not let go. When you lift it up from behind its legs kick in the air. Just like a tick that party has no backbone. It has been blown up by a Press that has been looking for something else for years.

Order! The hon. member should rather confine himself to Railway matters.

I want to convey my good wishes to the hon. the Minister for the exceptionally fine Budget he submitted here. I am particularly pleased about the appropriation of R30 million in respect of housing for Whites and R9 million in respect of housing for non-Whites. Let me say at once that we should not try to draw comparisons here. I want to thank the hon. the Minister particularly as far as this appropriation for housing is concerned.

In my constituency, however, there are still many railway workers who are not allowed to buy their own houses. It is essential that a man who has worked for the Railways for 22 years and longer should have the right to buy a house while he is still working so that when he retires he should not have to go looking for a house and then have to pay for accommodation with his pension money. But this happens among the people living in Langlaagte North and Crosby. Many of the people living there are still not allowed to buy their houses.

Listening to the speeches by the hon. members of the Opposition in this House, one realizes that it has become necessary for the public to be better informed about the benefit derived from the Railways by the South African economy. Over the years it has been the case that an Opposition has of necessity had to criticize a budget. The Railways is pictured as a one-man locomotive, seven wagons and one station, and when the locomotives is past the station, that is the end. The impression is created that the Railways has a single aim, and that is to profiteer. But the Railways connects Windhoek with Durban and Rhodesia with Cape Town and makes each town on that line linking them viable. If it were not for the Railways, for example, one would never have heard of Port Shepstone and it would probably have been washed away by the river. That is the situation we have today and there is very little recognition of what the Railways does. For example, I have in mind the facilities created at the harbours for the ships of the whole world at a time when the manpower shortage in the whole of South Africa is a grave problem. Every day we hear that more people have to be employed. We recognize the fact that there is a major manpower shortage, but nevertheless the Railways provides the whole world with harbour facilities. No one in this House will contradict me when I say that the South African Airways is second to no other airline in the world.

When we look at the Budget we see the following: R211 million for the Airways, R1 061 million for rolling stock, R33 million for road transport service, R121 million for harbours, R59 million for pipelines etc.—giving a total of R3 866 million. That is when one realizes what a phenomenal business or undertaking the Railways is. I went and ascertained for myself in what way a large business such as this operates and in what way it keeps abreast of the times. I attended a daily operating conference and saw how it was held. The office of the Assistant General manager (Operating) is simultaneously connected by conference line with the offices of other members of the management in the various system offices and in this way a daily operating conference is held from 8.15 to about 9.15 between the Management and the system managers at Cape Town, Kimberley, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, Durban, Johannesburg, and all the other major cities. The Assistant Superintendent (Operating) in the General Manager’s office is in charge of the proceedings. The aim of the conference is to get an over-all picture of the traffic situation on the Railways every day, and it includes the following: The traffic at hand at, and the flow of traffic to and from, the major yards; the traffic unshipped and shipped and the wagons booked, provided and loaded at the harbours, as well as the number of ships in, and expected at, the harbour. This is really a major task, but nevertheless the over-all picture becomes clear in a matter of minutes. The over-all picture also includes the following: Wagons ordered, provided for, and loaded with livestock, cement, lime, iron, chrome, manganese ore, coal, fuel, fruit and vegetables; the wagon requirements of each system; the position in regard to coal supplies at locomotive depots and power stations, and the tonnage distined for them; the position concerning wagons at goodsyards and private sidings; the availability of locomotive power; determining the staff position and making adjustments where necessary; discussing the timekeeping of passenger trains and express goods trains and in the event of accidents and washaways occurring, giving instructions and taking immediate action. You see, Mr. Chairman, that this enterprise is run on business principles. Time is not wasted. Every day these people are engaged in a task that becomes more prominent with every minute and in every direction, and then we still get people who complain about it and who have no appreciation for it. After one has seen this picture, one should know that the railwayman, whether he is the General Manager or a clerk at Cape Town or a machinist at Langlaagte, is truly a worker of whom we can all be proud.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, it is not every day that I find myself agreeing with the hon. member for Gezina. I should like to read you something he said in his speech on Monday. I quote—

I must say that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member. The Railways has a reasonably good record as regards the provision of housing. This has been the case in the past, and to date it has perhaps been one of the few departments of which it can be said that if one has worked there long enough, it will in fact be possible to realize the ideal of owning one’s own house. But in the bigger cities we find today that this ideal is going to be beyond our reach within the foreseeable future. I could remind you that it was stated in Monday’s Die Burger that a house that cost R25 000 today, will perhaps cost R1 million in 32 years and 7 months’ time. In the constituency that I represent, namely Durban Central, one finds that more and more Railway employees are left to the mercies of either the Department of Community Development or the City Council. Some are forced to find housing in buildings and flats where they are subject to timely and untimely rent increases. Others, on the other hand, have to find housing in old buildings which are in fact earmarked for demolition. In any case, for more and more of these people, flats are becoming a permanent form of accommodation. A house of their own is not going to be available to them. I accept that there has to be a point system and a waiting-list for houses, but some of these people stay in the same position on the waiting-list for months and years. In fact, later on some of them find themselves lower down on the waiting-list. Now I believe that the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration to the idea of flats as accommodation, not only for unmarried people, but for married people as well. I am not impressed by the argument that the Railwayman does not want to stay in a flat because of the noise and because he needs the rest when he works shifts. The fact remains that for practical purposes more and more of them are being forced to live in flats today, in spite of the noise and in spite of the fact that they also have the additional worry about rent increases and in spite of the trouble some of them experience in moving from one old building to another. In a constituency such as Durban Central the major property owner is the Department of Community Development, which already possesses so much land that I think only the streets and the pavements are still safe and out of their grasp. This is therefore a golden opportunity for the hon. the Minister. He can do one of two things. In the first place he can try to buy that land from the Department of Community Development and erect flats there. In the second place there are a number of blocks of flats in this constituency erected by the Community Development Board. These blocks of flats are sold to private persons and companies. We know from experience that some of them are not sold at an enormous profit. It is strange that when they sell land, they sell it at a profit, but when they sell properties such as flats, then they do not sell it at a profit. I believe that the hon. the Minister can negotiate in this respect. Let him, too, be one of the tenderers so as to provide housing for his people in that way. However, I want to state clearly that this does not eliminate the ideal of house-ownership. This should be something supplementary.

Now I come to another matter of local importance for a number of voters in my constituency. In my constituency there is a railway-halt known as Churchill Road railway-halt. It is about four kilometres from Durban station. There are about 36 privately owned dwellings there. These 36 dwellings are situated on an island in a sea of noise. As far as the householders’ children are concerned, too, they are caught between two evils. On the one side is Umgeni Road with an enormous pressure of traffic which causes noise and is a source of danger, and on the other side there is the railway line. This railway line is separated, from the houses by what I would call an apology for a fence. One can get through the fence at any point. The inhabitants have asked on a number of occasions for the erection of a proper fence, but it simply is not done. Not only is there the problem of the danger to their children, but there is also the problem of noise. They are not concerned about the ordinary noise which one associates with a railway line. Some of them have been living there so long that that noise lulls them into a deep sleep. It serves as background music, as it were. What gives them nightmares, however— and for the most part this occurs late at night—is the thunderclaps caused by cleaners when the coaches are stood at this halt at night for cleaning. They tell me the thunderclaps are caused by the slamming of doors and the opening and closing of windows. It sounds far worse than a percussion band. The people of Churchill Halt feel extremely bitter about the fact that their halt should be chosen for this purpose. Four kilometres further north, towards Durban North, there are halts where there is no one in the immediate vicinity. There are halts in the direction of Durban Point, another four kilometres to the south. However the hon. member for Durban Point will be able to testify that in all the years he has been sitting in the House of Assembly, he has only had, two voters in that area. In any event he has never been able to contact those two voters, not even in the year in which he wanted them to submit postal votes. The request made by my voters, which I can easily understand, is just this: If the trains have to be cleaned late at night at a certain halt, why should it be done at their halt? There are 36 houses, there is a fence of about 200 metres long that needs to be erected and further away there are other halts where there is not a single person in sight. However we do want clean trains; do not say now that I am pleading for dirty trains. I want them to be cleaned at night. They should be well cleaned, all the windows too, but what I do not want is for people in my constituency, good supporters of mine, not to be able to sleep.

What about the Nats?

No, there are only three Nats there. We are all United Party supporters. The erection of a proper fence is also bound up with the noise. They tell me now that owing to the fence being in such a shocking condition, the Railways are abusing the situation now that they are engaged in a new petrol saving scheme. All the trucks and bull-dozers take a shortcut through this residential area and use illegal crossings in this area. You can realize for yourselves that this causes even more dangers and more noise for those people. You will realize for yourselves that these people work very hard. They work with these trucks without a break, from early till late, Saturdays and Sundays. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the plea made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I just want to say that I hope the noise to which he referred, does not have an influence on the number of children in his constituency. I want to express the hope that that is not the reason for the housing problems he is experiencing. The hon. member will understand that his problems are local ones and that I am unable to react to them. I am sure he will be furnished with the reply he requested.

As the son of an ex-Railway official who, many years ago, worked on the Railways with the hon. the Minister in the same town, you will permit me, Sir, on the occasion of my first entrance into the debate in this Committee, to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his first Budget. You will also permit me, Sir, to wish him and his Management and all the officials throughout the Republic every success and blessing in respect of the difficult task that lies ahead of them.

In the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech and in many subsequent speeches in this debate as well, reference has been made time and again to the fact that it is stated in law that the Railways must establish a cheap, efficient and financially self-supporting transport service which must be run according to business principles in such a way as to serve the interests of the country as a whole and stimulate the economic development of the country. It is important to lay stress on this fact, the fact that the Railways must be run on economic principles. National transportation certainly forms an essential and indispensable part of the whole infrastructure in our country. The efficiency of the S.A. Railways in respect of both the service it has to provide and the costs involved, is intimately bound up with a sound balance between revenue on the one hand and expenditure on the other. It embraces inter alia the optimum utilization of available facilities. It includes, too, the most economic utilization of rolling stock in particular. That is why I trust you will allow me to refer in this debate to the question of the increase in demurrage charges on wagons and tarpaulins and in addition, the question of the departmental cartage service, in regard to which the hon. the Minister made a very earnest appeal, in the course of his Budget speech, to organized trade and industry in South Africa.

Various measures have been instituted by the Administration from time to time with the aim of preventing excessive delays of wagons, particularly on private sidings. In spite of this there is a steady increase in the number of lost wagon days. Notwithstanding the fact that ad hoc committees and systems are constantly liaising with representatives of trade and industry on this matter, it is clear that these arrangements are not bearing the necessary fruit. There is a steady increase in wagon delays and this also results in a shortage of tarpaulins. It is of interest to point out that in the year 1962-’63 the Railways had 112 400 goods wagons, and ten years later, in 1972-’73, they have 161 700, i.e., if my arithmetic does not fail me, an increase of 40% in the number of goods wagons over ten years. Sir, if one also bears in mind that over this ten year period, the carrying capacity of goods wagons rose from 3,04 million tons to 4,796 million tons, in other words, by 60%, and that 84,8 million tons of freight were transported in the 1962-’63 financial year, as against 109,6 million tons in the year 1972-’73. signifying an increase of 41%, then it is clear that although the carrying capacity of the Railways goods wagons has increased, the actual tonnage of freight transported by the Railways over this ten year period has increased in proportion to the number of trucks. Sir, this is a significant figure. It is evident, for example, that in 1971. 442,281 wagon days were lost on private sidings alone, and 153 000 at stations and harbours, making a total of 595 000; and in 1973 this total number rose to an amount, expressed in round figures, of about 700 000. This is a very significant figure, because if one bears in mind that the South African Railways had 161 747 wagons over this period and that the capital value of those trucks they had in 1972-’73—and this is a very approximate figure—was about R665 million, and if one assumes, for argument’s sake, that a 40 ton wagon, economically utilized, can earn R40 or R50 per load, then I leave it to hon. members to do the arithmetic themselves and work out the loss suffered by the Railways on 700 000 lost wagon days per annum.

You are unable to work it out for yourself

It is clear, too, that it is not only the Railways that suffers loss as a result, but that the economy of the country as such will also have to make its contribution in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself in all humility with the plea made by the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech when he said that trade and industry should co-operate with regard to improved utilization of wagons. The number of wagon days lost has risen sharply. The hon. the Minister also pointed out that the revenue earned by wagons is far higher than the revenue from the increased demurrage charges. It is disturbing to have to point out that it appears that the industrialists consider it more profitable from an economic point of view to pay demurrage charges rather than hire extra labour or have a six-day working week or incur expense in acquiring adequate siding services. I think it is a pity that this should be so and I want to associate myself, in all humility, with the appeal made by the hon. the Minister to trade and industry to cooperate in this respect. In the time that remains to me. Sir. I want to refer, in the same breath, to the departmental cartage service as well. The growing pressure of traffic in our major cities results in the department’s cartage service having to contend daily with a number of bottlenecks resulting in so much waste of time, that the effective delivery time is being reduced to an ever-increasing extent. Consequently I want to ask the hon. the Minister, since people are now being asked to make night deliveries and so on, whether he could not consider a reduction in cartage charges here in order to contend with this problem. In my opinion this would be a fine incentive for our trade and industry, particularly in the major cities, to follow the suggestions made by the department in this regard to an increasing extent and to cooperate in bringing about more efficient service in the economic interests of the country. [Time expired.]

Sir, I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I think he has a case and I hope the hon. the Minister will take note of what he has said. I think the utilization of our truck capacity is of importance and I think he put his case very well. But I do not want to follow him up. I am really interested in saying a few words to my colleague, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. The hon. gentleman kicked up a tremendous row here a little while ago, and although he is not here now, I hope his colleague, the hon. member for Algoa, will convey to him the message I want to give him. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North probably made the best speech he has ever made in this House and the reason is that he was wise enough to take the speech of the hon. member for Walmer and read it out, almost verbatim, for eight minutes of the time allocated to him. Sir, I can realize the hon. member’s dilemma. He is obviously not an original thinker, so when he has a problem he takes a speech, a well made and motivated speech, and uses it as his plea to the Minister. But I want to warn this hon. member that when the St. Croix project was in doubt, and we were trying to convince a stubborn Cabinet, the hon. member was conspicuous by his absence. I want to warn the hon. member further. He said that I had been forced out of the Walmer constituency. [Interjections.] That is not the case at all. I trained the hon. member for Walmer and I want to say that I am busy training another successor for Port Elizabeth Central, and the next seat, I take will be Port Elizabeth North. [Interjections.]

Then I want to say a word or two to the hon. the Minister. Over the years we have been discussing the development of one of the greatest national assets—I am not talking about the Nationalist Party—one of the greatest assets of South Africa, namely Algoa Bay. Algoa Bay has acquired a very special significance in so far as South Africa is concerned. In the first instance it has an island whose name is well known in this House, the island of St. Croix. It is an island, a rocky outcrop, some 2 000 yards off the shore of Algoa Bay. The real significance of this island is that it is only 2 000 yards off the shore of Algoa Bay, and that around it it has deep water, deep enough to accommodate the biggest ships in the world. If we decide to develop St. Croix as a general harbour in Algoa Bay, we will not have the problems of trying to dredge difficult subterranean terrain as we are having in Saldanha today. The situation is ready-made, and I want to make another appeal to the hon. the Minister to think not only of developing St. Croix as an ore exporting berth, but also to think of it in terms of a general harbour for the use of South Africa. In the past we discussed with this hon. Minister the question of St. Croix as an ore loading berth, but the Minister at that time was the Minister of Economic Affairs and he was not inclined to listen to our plea to use this great national asset which South Africa has. Every word that we said in the debates as to why St. Croix should be developed along with Saldanha was ignored by the Government. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is sorry today that he did not listen to our plea to develop what I have called a great national asset. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is sorry today that he does not have St. Croix working as a growing concern. However, we on this side of the House did our duty, we did our best in that respect.

I merely mention this point because the case has been well made by other hon. members that when we speak in the national interest, we hope that the Cabinet will take note of what we have to say. The hon. the Minister said yesterday that he hoped to plan a visit to Port Elizabeth. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could give me his attention for just one moment. The hon. the Minister said that he was planning a visit to the Port Elizabeth area. I hope that when the hon. the Minister pays that visit, those persons who are interested in the future of Algoa Bay, not only in a parochial sense but in the best interests of South Africa, will be asked to accompany him on a reconnaissance into the prospects which Algoa Bay offers to South Africa. I ask the hon. the Minister that in his future planning in so far as Algoa Bay is concerned, he should also consider not only doing what is now in the form of blue-prints by extending certain of the quays at present in the Port Elizabeth harbour, but also building an extra quay to accommodate the further requirements of the ore and other cargo traffic that will be offered in Port Elizabeth. I think it is vitally important that the hon. the Minister does not decide that what is on his papers at the moment is sufficient to deal with the traffic that the Port Elizabeth area has to offer. I do hope that he will grant me this request that when he does visit Algoa Bay and Port Elizabeth, we shall be requested to attend so that we can look at the planning of Port Elizabeth and its harbour together.

There is one further point that I wish to make, unconnected with harbours. On many of our stations—I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would give this matter his attention—the facilities available to the Coloured and Black people are completely inadequate. I believe that if the hon. the Minister will take the trouble to visit, say, the station of Kimberley and investigate very carefully the facilities which are available for the Coloured and Black people on that station, he will find them completely inadequate. I do not blame the hon. the Minister because it is a very old station, but I believe that some serious consideration has to be given to this aspect. If we look at the statistics available to us, we find that the Coloured and Black people provide an annual revenue to the S.A. Railways of the order of R70 million. The facilities at the stations, however, are completely inadequate.

The hon. the Minister is often in Pretoria. I think it will be wise if he, in acquainting himself with all the installations affecting his new portfolio, takes a good look at the Pretoria station. I happened to be there and I had a very good look at the facilities available to the Coloured people on that station. I would be very glad if the hon. the Minister could assure me that he will in the very near future take up the matter of the facilities which are to be provided for the Coloured people on that station.

I should like to know too what the future of our station at Port Elizabeth is to be. Has the hon. the Minister any plans about the reconstruction of the station at Port Elizabeth? I am dead scared that Mr. Anton Rupert might buy the station in the very near future as one of the buildings which he wants to restore for posterity. It is looking very old and very drab and I think that Port Elizabeth ought to be next on the list for a new station. I hope that the hon. the Minister, when he thinks about the replanning of the Port Elizabeth station, will bear in mind that we in Port Elizabeth have a very big non-White population who also use the station. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will provide adequate facilities for these non-Whites. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on the argument of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat although he was being reasonably positive. He made certain suggestions, but in one respect he was not original and that was when he said that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North was not an original speaker. However, it seems to me that that hon. member is not an original sitter, because he shifted from Walmer to a new constituency.

A migrant labourer!

Yes, a migrant labourer.

Yes, but at least my family was able to migrate with me.

The hon. member for Durban Point thought that he had the solution when he said that the Railways should be handed over to the United Party or that there should be a new Government. Then all the problems would be solved. Does the hon. member for Durban really expect that we who sit on this side of the House would hand the Government over to a party which is not even able to protect one of its MPCs in its own province? [Interjections.]

I did say, after all, that delimitation did not work; so then you made another plan.

Yes, there is an excuse for everything.

I want to address a few words of congratulation to the hon. the Minister.

Hear, hear!

I want to do so, because this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate him since he became Minister of Transport. Hon. members may think it is strange, but we are grateful for what we have; that is why we are governing.

Yes, and it is very little.

That is why we govern the country in this way. I am really pleased that I am not a United Party supporter, because they are even ungrateful for the trains they travel on. I want to tell hon. members that it has become very clear in the course of the debate, and I have kept a close eye on the Press, too, that the tendency of the Opposition has been to cast suspicion on bodies connected with the Railways or with Railway matters. They do so owing to the fact that these are linked to the Railways and the Railways is linked to the Nationalist Government. I want to tell hon. members that they will crash into the steel and iron wheels of a large undertaking such as the Railways. If the hon. members are unable to think positively, but want to be negative, they will eventually find themselves lying, decapitated, next to the track. If the tendency always to be sowing suspicion about the Railways is going to continue, we shall eventually have to deal with the matter on a more personal basis. I want to leave this matter a: that.

In the few minutes left to me, I should like to discuss my constituency. I want to thank the Railway Administration for the reaction I had to an appeal that I made three or four years ago. I asked that the railwaymen should have their houses within the community of the town at which they are based. I am able to say this evening that at Vryheid, and at Greytown too, houses have been built that measure up to all the requirements of modern housing. These houses provide the railwaymen with the opportunity of being part of the community. This is true to such an extent that the retired mayor of Vryheid was a railwayman and we have had a number of councillors on the Vryheid Municipality who have been Railway officials. It is something for which I want to thank the Administration that it has so situated the housing of these people that they could form part of the community of which we should like them to form part.

In the second place I have a problem. I know that it costs a great deal of money and that the Railways have their problems with capital expenditure, but not so many years ago I asked that a new site be found for the station at Vryheid. I asked that the station should not remain where it is at present. However, for reasons best known to the officials and planners concerned with the matter, they decided to leave it where it was. I still maintain that if the station were to be moved in a northerly direction there would be far more room for expansion because in Vryheid we are coming up against the outer limits of the small vacant area available and we no longer know in which direction we are to move. While mentioning this, I want to say in passing that we have discovered a new development on the Railways there, namely that hauliers who have contracts with the Railways have changed over from male to female labour, but no provision has been made for female labour on the station. The situation there is not what it should be. One should like to see attention being given to the matter.

Then there is another matter which I could also mention and about which we could perhaps argue a little. This is a matter which troubles us and it would be as well if it were given attention. When major projects are planned in advance we as members of Parliament and the public as a whole should be informed about this planning at an early stage so that those people who are affected by any expropriation, in that the Railways wants to expropriate their houses or yards, are able to leave in good time and procure other properties for themselves which they can go to before demand inflation also enters the labour market. Those people must receive reasonable and good compensation. I have never doubted that this is what happens because I have never yet had anyone coming back to me. In any event, those people must be provided with sufficient means to re-establish themselves.

There is one last idea I should like to mention, namely the question of demurrage. As far as this is concerned, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. I want to admit at once that I am not happy that the Railways has been obliged by circumstances to increase the fees and rates, and this applies in particular to our young beginners and grain farmers, because their fertilizer, seed, sacks and other products or means of production are going to become more expensive, and this will create a problem. As I have learnt to know the Nationalist Party over the years, from the time I opened my eyes, I know that we shall find a way and a means to accommodate these people.

When are your eyes going to open?

All of you have been blinded from childhood. [Interjections.] I hope therefore that a solution to this problem will be found. I only hope that if that solution is found, they will hide it from the United Party supporters because they will only gossip about it again. I do want to say that the question of demurrage charges should perhaps be reconsidered if, in time, the wagons are unloaded faster and can be utilized more effectively. There is a railway line from Kranskop to Pietermaritzburg on which a great many delays occur with the result that my voters are continually complaining about a shortage of wagons. Those people, of course, are very progressive farmers and what they produce is virtually more than the Railways, the road transport service and their own transport services combined are able to transport. Consequently they now find themselves in the position that the trucks, after they have offloaded the goods, run empty from Kranskop to fetch coal when there is a coal shortage, whereas they could very easily take on sugar, timber and, in the future, wood chips too along the way and off-load these goods at places along the route—for example Estcourt, where there is a factory where timber products are processed and Pietermaritzburg, where those products could perhaps be reloaded to be transported to other areas. In this way we could get the stations clean, the farmers’ products disposed of and above all, we could earn money for the Railways through the transport of timber. Rates for the transport of sawn timber and mine timber is high, and I take it that it would therefore be very profitable. I therefore want to ask that we should please listen to the entreaties of our farmers and provide them with the necessary wagons, so as to enable them to transport the material from their farms. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member for Vryheid whether he knows how much more he is going to pay to transport his timber after this new Budget. Does he know? I do not believe he does. He had a half-hearted complaint against the hon. the Minister because he did not really have the courage to put his case as strongly as he should. He does not know that he and his colleagues in the timber industry are going to pay a tariff increased by 18,6%. Do you know what that represents, Sir? It represents over R25 per short bogie of timber transported. Is the hon. member prepared to absorb it? Is the hon. member for Koedoespoort prepared to do so? The hon. member for Koedoespoort has said that we must accept what the Minister says and absorb these increases. How much do we have to absorb?—R150 million on Revenue Account and R130 million as capital expenditure. The hon. the Minister says we must absorb all this. Commerce and industry must absorb it. I am glad to see the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is back. Agriculture has to absorb R50 million this year. Is he happy? Does he agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet? What did the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet say before dinner? He says that the Nationalist Party does not talk about the farmers; but with the farmers. I want to say to him that the farmers are going to talk with him about the extra R50 million that they will have to absorb. [Interjections.] Oh, yes. I want to hear what is going to happen at the next congress of his Agricultural Union, when the farmers will get hold of the hon. member.

Where will you be?

I shall be there, telling the farmers about the R50 million they will have to spend. Where will the hon. the Minister be? Does the hon. the Minister of Agriculture accept this increase? Does he accept that the farmer will have to pay R50 million extra, that they will have to absorb this extra amount raised by the hon. the Minister of Transport? They cannot pass it on; they must absorb it.

He said it.

Yes, he said it. I want to repeat what he said. He said that if any butcher says that the price is higher because of the increased rail tariffs, the housewife must tell the price controller. Once again, here is the Nationalist Party hiding behind a shield.

What shield?

They are hiding behind the shield of that hon. Minister, who says that the farmer must absorb it. But I want to know from the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet …

I said the farmer would pay.

That is fine. I hope that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet will go and repeat that ini his constituency. Will he repeat it there?

He is an honest man!

He is a what? [Interjections.] Let us come back to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. That hon. member, like his noisy colleague in front of him, spent ten minutes attacking me. If I had not made a speech yesterday, he would have had nothing to say today. What did he say? First of all, he acknowledge my right to criticize. It is not only a right, Sir, it is also a duty. That is what I am here for. That is why that hon. Minister and the Minister of Agriculture are so uncomfortable at this moment—because they know that I am going to criticize them. They know that they are wrong. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said that the Minister needed a more efficient administration. He took me to task and said that I had, by implication, criticized the administrative staff of the Railways. He said that I was the only one on this side who in fact had had the courage to say what all members on this side wished to say. I want to throw those words right back in his teeth. I want to ask that hon. member why he selected only certain passages and then quoted them out of context. [Interjections.] Yes, I have it here too. I sent for it after the hon. member had spoken. My memory is not so short. Why did he not quote the following? I said:

And I went on:

This is through inefficient leadership, not inefficient administration.

You are making no impression, Warwick!

Making no impression? With respect, nobody can make any impression on that hon. member. I want to repeat what I said here last evening. We have now had three days of debate, and with the exception of the hon. member for Vryheid who, in passing, said that he was unhappy about the increased tariffs, we have not had one word of complaint from farmers on that side of the House regarding the increased tariffs and their effect on the farmer. This is the position with a Government that claims to be the farmers’ Government. As I said yesterday: They are no longer the farmers’ Government, today they are Boerehaters. They are exploiting the farmers today for the sake of cheap votes that they are getting from the housewives. I want to say finally to that hon. member for Graaff-Reinet that he must go and do his arithmetic. [Interjections.] Nee, u kan later praat.

Does the hon. member wish to answer a question?

No, I do not have time. He has time. He can have ten minutes if the Whip will allow him.

†For the benefit of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, a 60% increase in February of last year plus a further 60% increase now totals 150%, not 120%. He still shakes his head. I think he must go back to kindergarten and learn arithmetic.

I want to talk now to the hon. the Minister of Transport. I want to get to his reply, if I can have his attention for a moment. I want to speak to the hon. the Minister about his reply regarding the concessions to school-children. I cannot accept the explanation given by the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading today regarding non-Whites and Blacks particularly. He knows that in terms of the policy of this ideology-hound Government, there are no high schools in any of the urban Bantu townships. Every Bantu child attending secondary school has to travel to the homelands or to some other centre to get his schooling. These are the people who are now being deprived of this concession which this Railways Administration has granted them over the years. It is no good the hon. the Minister saying it is only R120 000. How much of that money is in respect of these Bantu children, our lowest income group, who require concessions more than anyone else? How much is he taking away from them? This is the question. He must not come and talk about the rich man’s children who go from Johannesburg to CBC in Kimberley or to one of the private schools in Grahamstown or in Pietermaritzburg.

What about the Coloureds?

It is no good talking about those. The hon. member for Griqualand East has just said: What about the Coloureds? Coloureds in Umtata have to send their children either to Kokstad or Uitenhage because there is no secondary school. And similarly the Blacks in Umtata have no secondary school for their children. They have to send them somewhere else. This is the concession he has now taken away.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members in the cross benches. I hear every word that is, said there, while it is difficult to hear what the hon. member is saying here.

I hope, Sir, I am going to get injury time. This is the concession that has been taken away. In addition to that, apart from those children who are going to private boarding schools, what about the students in the urban areas who are transported daily to technical colleges by his Administration? This is what he has now taken away as well. Whether it is included in the R120 000 or not, I do not know because unfortunately the hon. the Minister is a bit obtuse when he gives us figures.

I now want to come to the question of facilities in Pietermaritzburg. I was terribly disappointed yesterday when he answered a question I had put to him by telling me he did not know how many claims had been made for lost or damaged goods which had been consigned to Pietermaritzburg. He did not know the total value of those goods. In an attempt to help the hon. the Minister I even put a supplementary question to him. I asked him if he could not give me globular sums. Does the hon. the Minister in all seriousness want to tell this Committee here this evening the same thing that he told the House yesterday afternoon, that he in fact does not know the total value of the claims made against the Railway Administration in respect of goods lost in the Pietermaritzburg area? Was he serious when he told me that yesterday?

Did you not hear my reply? Do you not believe me?

What was the hon. the Minister’s reply? I am asking whether that reply was in fact correct.

The reply was that we do not keep records in such detail.

What was my question? My question was how many claims for lost and damaged goods transported by rail to Pietermaritzburg were received during each of the past five years and what was the total value of such claims in each such year? The hon. the Minister’s reply was: “I do not keep those details”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister made a very good Budget speech. It so happens that it will not be such a popular Budget because there had of necessity to be an increase in tariffs. This is something which gives pleasure to hon. members opposite; as they say in English, they revel in it. If there is a difficulty anywhere, then that is what they prey on.

Now you are telling them.

In 1970 it was necessary for the Railways, which had a deficit of R90 million in prospect at the time, to cancel unremunerative services. One of those services was the suburban service from Bloemfontein to the eastern smallholdings around Bloemfontein.

I had to fight there too.

The hon. member for Durban Point should exercise a little patience; I am coming to him. Subsequently, objections were raised by the owners of those smallholdings around Bloemfontein that fall within the constituency of Smithfield. When that happened the political vultures at once thought that this was an opportunity to make trouble. In the forefront in this respect was a man who could get nowhere, namely Mr. Jaap Marais. At the time, Mr. Jaap Marais descended on those smallholdings with his portrait and all. He stated grandly: “Whites train services are withdrawn.” With all the venom for which these people are known, Mr. Jaap Marais set upon those people. They incited unrest to an unbelievable degree.

And then you took fright.

I did not take fright. But what happened then? Then the hon. member for Durban Point came along, because there are no United Partymen in the Orange Free State. The hon. member for Durban Point had to accommodate the hon. Senator Oelrich of the Other Place. Then he, too, fell to among them with the aim of causing further trouble.

Allies.

They were allies, Mr. Jaap Marais and the hon. member for Durban Point. They wanted to come and make trouble among those eastern smallholdings.

Well said, Koos!

And who else did they call in? They called in the newspaper of the hon. member for Sea Point near whom I have to sit, but near whom I do not really want to sit, The Friend. It, too, was called in and then all hell was really let loose. Listen to what The Friend said: “Nats steamed up over H.N.P. move.” They went on to say that the member for Smithfield, Mr. J. S. Pansegrouw, was so frightened that he did not even know what to do. However, what the Marais’s and hon. members opposite did not know, was that if one belongs to the National Party, one possesses political ability. That was where the hon. member for Smithfield came in. We called a meeting which was attended by more than 600 people from those eastern smallholdings. On the evening when Jaap Marais was to hold a meeting, an article appeared in Die Volksblad with a portrait of the system manager. The following was stated: “We have already said that if there is anything that can possibly be done, then we act as one should.” He was going to discuss the problem with the General Manager. That evening this heading appeared in The Friend in connection with Jaap Marais’s meeting: “Train protest meeting fizzles out.” Sir, I just want to say this about this onslaught by Jaap Marais and the United Party men—I am not even talking about the Progressives: they wanted to come and cause trouble there and do you know, Sir, what the result was? The result was that I was returned by Smithfield unopposed. The member of the Herenigde National Party, Jaap Marais’s man, states that he had been on the way to the nomination court in Smithfield, but that his car had broken down and that if he had not arrived late, I would have been finished. Sir, that is precisely what has happened now in this Committee. The hon. member for Durban Point stood up here and said that he was the champion of the constituency which I am not good enough to serve. I am going to use this House of Assembly as a forum tonight and I want to say the following to those voters of mine: If those train services are used by them to such an extent that they become profitable again, then those services will be re-introduced; in other words, Sir, the matter is in the hands of those people. This also applies to the people who use the bus services of the Railways. Sir, the hon. member for Orange Grove refers to the financial policy of the Railways; I should like to discuss it with him a little and tell him that we farmers have enough business sense to know that if a bus service, however convenient it may be, is not a paying proposition, we cannot maintain that service, and Chat is why those services were withdrawn. But if those services become a paying proposition again owing to the support given them, then we shall re-introduce them.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. member for Sea Point has such a lot to say to me here every day; after all, you witness the altercations we have, he must give me a chance to address the Chair now. Sir, I just want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that harbour conditions in Europe and elsewhere in the world are totally different to those prevailing in South Africa. The hon. member speaks about the Railways not being profitable, but do you know, Sir, how sly he is? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that. He says that the service is not a paying one, but he says that the workers are outstanding. He wants their vote, but they will not vote for him. He says therefore that that is not Che reason for the Railways not being profitable. Then he says: “We may think the Management is up to maggots”, but then he says that that is not true; that the Management is just as good; and do you know, Sir, what conclusion he eventually comes to? He eventually comes to the conclusion that because the profits of the pipeline are pooled, the motorists have to subsidize the maize farmers. Mr. Chairman, I invite the hon. member; we shall give him a big reception at Smithfield; let him hold a meeting there and then we shall see what those farmers do to him. Sir, if he does not have the support of the farmers, then he and his Progressive Party will never make any progress. They are here where they are tonight merely because this hon. member grew up in Hobhouse in the Free State. Sir, because my time is so short I cannot say much about this, but the hon. member came here and spoke about containerization. He said that this Government was six, seven or eight years late. I just want to tell the hon. member—I think that we should have this on record—that we in South Africa will never have a government department which will behave autocratically. The position is simply that the industry has not accepted containerization for reasons that are obvious, but that I am unable to discuss here now. Containerization must of course come at the right time. The hon. member here is always telling me that we are too slow, but now I want to tell the hon. member through the Chairman that the National Party does the right thing at the right moment—that is why we enjoy success. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate with keen interest. I listened to the hon. member for Smithfield, who has just resumed his seat, with interest as well. I wonder why the hon. member for Smithfield preferred to go to the Nationalist Party congress when his voters were waiting for him to lead a deputation to the Administration. But he probably preferred to go there and to amuse his congress as he tried to amuse hon. members of this House this evening.

Sir, if ever the United Party, the official Opposition, were correct in their forecast in April that this Government would never, and has not a hope of ever, stemming inflation in South Africa, it was then. We were correct in everything we forecast prior to the election. Here we have a Budget, a shocking Budget, and while the people outside will pay through the neck, we sit in this House and we laugh.

You can cry if you like.

We have a Budget here of over R2 000 million. When I page through the Brown Book and the Estimates of Expenditure from cover to cover, and see the items to be defrayed from Revenue Fund during the year ending March next year, I must quite frankly say I am bitterly disappointed.

Now I want to be parochial. I want to deal with matters concerning the Eastern Cape and particularly East London. I was terribly disappointed to see that very little of the R2 000 million will be spent in East London, on the railways, or the Eastern Cape system. In fact, when I went through the Brown Book and the Estimates of Expenditure, I came to the conclusion that what is to be spent in my area, East London, is just a joke.

You are a bad M.P.

I will come to that. I am very pleased that that interjection was made. I will come to that point. Very little provision has been made for our area. We have seen year after year that there will be a replacement of a tug in East London harbour, but I can tell you, Sir, what is going to happen to that tug. It will go to Durban or to Cape Town, as has always happened. East London will then again receive the old tug, although the expenditure is shown in the book as money to be spent in East London. But we never receive the new tug; we only receive somebody’s “oorskiet”. We see a piffling amount to be spent on the widening of the Buffalo River, the harbour. We see that three cranes are to be replaced. We are not getting new cranes or additional cranes. Three cranes are merely to be replaced on the docks. And that is all. That is all that is to be spent in the East London harbour. We have heard so much about Saldanha and Richards Bay and other harbours, but this is all that will be spent in the East London harbour. I want to know from the hon. the Minister why, when one considers the Government’s declared policy of the decentralization of industry in the East London and the Cape Eastern system, and when one considers that according to Government policy that this is a potential growth point, so little money is being spent there.

We are very concerned. Will the hon. the Minister tell me whether this is due to a lack of motivation on the part of the Railway Administration or has the Government any other reason for not spending money in the East London area? I am asking the hon. the Minister and I shall demand a reply. We are sick and tired of having to put up with what is happening. East London is in a White corridor and we see time and again when we go through the Post Office and the Railway Budgets that very, very little money is to be spent in that area. Nevertheless they want us to encourage industries in that area, while the Government, however, appears to have no confidence in that area.

I now come to the interjection which an hon. member made. He said that it is because of East London having United Party MPs.

The hon. member for Algoa made that interjection.

I want to point out to him that the last time a considerable amount of money was spent on East London—-on the provision of a commercial berth in its harbour—was in the period 1939-’42. That was the last time East London received any appreciable amount. At that time the United Party was in power. Since 1942 there has been a terrific increase in cargo and yet no improvements have been made by this Government. In fact, there has been no suggestion of improvement from this Government.

My colleague, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, has suggested that St. Croix would provide a deep-sea harbour. We know that East London is a harbour where silt is a menace. I want to talk to the hon. the Minister about the dredger problem there. We have a German-built dredger, called the D. E. Patterson. This has been operating in East London for only a few months, but it has proved to be a hopeless flop. It is giving continuous trouble and in my opinion it has been a complete waste of money because it happens to be a push-button dredger, fully automated. Because of its automation, it requires a team of specialists to keep it in operation. I believe it is advisable not to buy luxury dredgers which do not fulfil the purpose when a more conventional type of dredger would suit that harbour far, far better. The world seems to have gone crazy on automation, but I appeal to the hon. the Minister and his department to consider replacing this dredger.

In the short time at my disposal I want to mention another matter which was raised earlier this year during the short session by the hon. member for Griqualand East. I refer to the train service from East London to Johannesburg. We in the Eastern Cape view this problem very seriously indeed. Prior to the change of the timetable we had six trains per week running from East London to Johannesburg. Understandably the Government has curtailed the service from six to four trains per week. We used to have them running every day except on Thursday, but they are now running on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday.

We have appealed time and again to the Government to reconsider this. We must bear in mind that we are now living in times of petrol and fuel restrictions. We do not actually want more trains to run from East London to Johannesburg, but if the Government staggered the train service better, we would be very pleased. For example there can be a train on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays and these can be the most important trains from East London to the north. Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturdays can be skipped. If the Minister wishes it, there can be another train on Sundays. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the ignorance of the hon. member for East London North concerning the affairs of his own constituency does not surprise me, for there are very few United Party members here who know what is going on in their constituencies. Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that a beautiful airport was built at East London not so long ago? The airport was even named after the previous Minister of Transport.

When was it built?

Not so long ago. The hon. member has only to go there and he will see it. Listening to the hon. members of the Opposition, I am reminded of something that I said last week. After the hon. the Minister had introduced the Budget, the hon. member for Durban Point raised a terriffic dust. When I met him in the lobby, I told him, “Vausie, you must be careful, my friend, you must not talk so big; remember that it is not the whistle that pulls the train.” And this is the way it has turned out to be. What has become of the hon. member’s dust-raising? He reminds me very much of a gelded goat which attempts everything but achieves nothing. [Interjections.] Not only that, but the hon. member is stupid as well. I recall that the hon. the Minister had to point out to him some mistakes he had made in his calculations. As a former teacher I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that if he had ever been a pupil of mine, I would have passed him on the grounds of his weight alone and not on the grounds of his age.

I should like to say something in response to remarks made by the other side of the House in regard to the pipeline. I want to repeat to the hon. member for Orange Grove what has been said by the hon. member for Smithfield as well, that in discussing the profit of R58 million, he said the following—

Those were that hon. member’s words, according to Hansard.

With emphasis on “could”.

The hon. member for Maitland agrees with him. I do not own a mealie farm; I am not a mealie farmer, but as a consumer I want to tell him that this allegation is a disgraceful allegation, not only against the Government, but against the farmers as well. I wonder whether the hon. member took the trouble of ascertaining the percentage of benefit or subsidy derived by the farmers from the tax on fuel. Did he do so?

I asked the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member was unable to tell me that when he was speaking. The hon. member must first get his facts straight, for that cheaper fuel …

What is the percentage?

The hon. member must pay attention now; then he will learn. Then he can also go and inform Harry Oppenheimer, who writes his speeches, of the true facts. If the hon. member had been sure of his facts, he would have known that the cheaper fuel used by the farmers is not subsidized by the Railways. This is not done at all. This has nothing to do with Railways subsidies. Does the hon. member not know that it is subsidized by the hon. the Minister of Finance from customs and excise duties? So that is a stupid argument. Before making any further speeches, the hon. member should first inform Harry Oppenheimer of the facts and ask him, Harry Oppenheimer, not to embarrass him again. Now I want to ask him what happens to those subsidies, even if they are a subsidy for the maize farmers. Does the hon. member know who are the biggest consumers of maize in South Africa?

Vause Raw.

The biggest consumers of maize in South Africa are those people for whom those hon. members are the so-called spokesmen here in Parliament. I know that the consumption of the hon. member for Durban Point is large, but the hon. members of the Progressive Party are the people who are always pleading the case of the Bantu in this House of Assembly. I want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove who the people are that would suffer the most if that subsidy were not there. Who are the people who would have to pay more for those maize products? They are the people of whom the hon. members complain that they are living under the bread-line. Allow me to say to him that the subsidy, amounting to R32 million, is already lowering the consumer price of maize by 70 cents a bag, apart from the subsidy on fuel. So the hon. member should first check his facts before expressing an opinion here.

I want to go further. The hon. member spoke of the pipeline. Do you know what he reminds me of? He reminds me of the Pantu who was lying down and wanted to cover himself completely with his blanket, drawing it down over his feet and up over his head. This just happens to be a habit of those people. Then the Bantu found that the blanket was too short and that when his feet were covered, his head was sticking out. So he cut off a piece at the bottom and added it on to the top. And this is what those hon. members want to do with these tariffs. They want to reduce the tariffs on one profitable service and increase them on another, that is all. This is just their Bantu blanket policy.

In respect of this pipeline that they are making such a fuss about, I want to say further that it is shocking to see how many people drive about one to a car while there is a convenient suburban railway service available. Only this morning a large number of us Members of Parliament were visiting certain institutions in the southern suburbs. Without exaggerating—hon. members may ask the hon. member for Pinelands for confirmation of this—at 9 o’clock in the morning the cars were standing bumper to bumper for some miles out of town, with only one person to each car, while these cars come from a neighbourhood from which a very convenient train service is available. However, these are the people for whom the hon. member wants to have cheaper fuel, instead of thinking, rather, of the fuel that we could save. These are the people who claim to be so patriotically minded. For that reason I want to appeal to our people tonight rather to make use of our convenient suburban train service whenever possible, not only to assist the Railways in that way, but also to conserve our precious fuel.

Then I should like to ask the hon. Minister a few questions concerning the improvement of the appearance of our railway stations. I am aware of the fact, and I think that it is generally appreciated, that for the most part our railway stations take great pride in laying out gardens, etc., and that there are even competitions arranged between the stations. At some of the stations, however, the yards are rather unsightly, possibly as a result of the nature of the goods loaded and unloaded there. I should like to ask whether something cannot be done about this. I want to refer specifically to the main station at Boksburg, Boksburg East. I want to ask whether the yard at this station cannot be enclosed by means of a wall in order to hide its unsightly appearance from the street, where very attractive lawns and shrubs have already been laid out. In addition, there is the unsightly wire-fencing, which always tends to rust and has to be repaired from time to time. Perhaps I may suggest that the aid of the city councils be called in to help the Railways keep those places tidy.

Then there is another small matter of a local nature, i.e. the compound inhabited by approximately 4 000 Bantu railway workers at Delmore, which is situated in a White residential area. Coal stoves are often used in this compound during winter, which causes a terrible smoke problem. It is not only unpleasant, it affects some people’s health as well. I do not want to ask for those coal stoves to be replaced by oil heaters, because we have an oil crisis. Cannot some other solution be found? Electric heating would be an answer, but the ideal would of course be for that compound to be moved elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a suitable time to reply to a few ideas that were expressed here. Allow me, therefore, to begin with the hon. member for Durban Point, who was the first one to speak during this Committee Stage. I noticed that the hon. member was perhaps a trifle sensitive about the fact that I had used his personal circumstances to prove a point I very much wanted to bring home to him. If he was sensitive about it, I beg his pardon. I may just as well apply it to myself, because my circumstances largely correspond to his, for example, as far as the medical aid scheme to which I belong, transport facilities, etc., are concerned.

It was not personal.

In point of fact, I should like to add that the circumstances of the hon. member for Durban Point correspond largely to those of the Railway people. The one point concerning the Railways I did not mention and which is applicable to me, but not to him, is the question of housing. In many cases reasonably cheap housing is provided by the Railways for Railway officials. This all helps to bring home the point I made, and that is that if there is a rise in the cost of living, this does not mean that the increase in the actual expenditure of a person or family need necessarily correspond to the rise in the cost of living index. I think we may well agree on that point. Indeed, I believe that there are many rises in any event which are not applicable to all people. The larger the number of rises not applicable to one, the better off one is as far as conditions of inflation is concerned. I felt I had to raise this point since it appeared to me as though the hon. member was a trifle sensitive about it.

But during the past 18 months the cost of Railway housing increased by 40%.

Yes, that may be so. But in any case, as you yourself know, it is …

Still nothing.

It is still very cheap.

The hon. member spoke about the surplus of R32 million we had at the end of the past financial year. If I am not mistaken, he suggested that we should have utilized that amount of R32 million to cover part of the expenditure we are to incur in the current year. He went on to suggest that the balance of approximately R60 million was to be obtained from other sources. I should just like to settle that point with the hon. member as well. The hon. member will recall that the Railways’ loss at the end of the 1972-73 financial year amounted to R34,2 million. As a matter of fact, it had a loss each year for the three preceding years. In 1970-71 the loss was R11 million, in 1971-72, R44,2 million, and in 1972-73, the loss was R34,2 million. In other words, it had a total loss of R89,4 million in these three years. Because our Rates Equalization Fund was able to bear that loss, we were able to end the past financial year with a surplus of R2,5 million in that Fund. Now I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is a wise decision on our part rather to pay the surplus of the past financial year into the Rates Equalization Fund in order to strengthen the Fund to some extent. In fact, I feel it should be far stronger than it is at the present moment so that we may use it on a rainy day when things are not going so well for us. For that reason I think it was a sensible thing for us to do.

The hon. member raised another matter here, to which I just want to refer in passing. He said we had objected to a co-operative society or a farmers’ association wanting to undertake the transportation of livestock themselves. The hon. member should remembtr that if one breaks down an already non-paying concern still more, one renders it even more non-paying. It does not follow that because a concern does not pay one should surrender that concern in bits and pieces. If one wants to abandon a non-paying concern, one should abandon net only part of it, but the non-paying part as a whole. This holds true of these nonpaying facets of the Railways as well.

The hon. member referred in passing to the question he had put to me in connection with the location of the travel bureau in the central area of Johannesburg whereas it used to be on the premises of the station. The hon. member quite rightly said that the rental being paid at present …

It was not transferred to the central area. It is in Plein Street.

Yes, but now it is in the business area of the city. The hon. member quite rightly said that the rental used to be very low. Of course; it was very low many years ago. Indeed, it was not a rental in point of tact but only a book entry since the building in which it used to be accommodated was a Railway building. Now, however, we have to pay rent. This is so, but I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the transfer was made for the better. At its old location, people in actual fact bothered the travel bureau with things which did not concern the bureau. Sometimes passersby asked it for information. Now it is in the central part of the city where the business people whom we regard as potential clients are. It is true that the rental is high, but, on the one hand, we anticipate that the bureau will attract more business where it is, and, on the other hand, the premises occupied before, are at present being utilized to advantage by the Railways for other purposes. So here we have two good reasons which justify the higher rental.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East spoke of the station at Bloemfontein. Evidently Bloemfontein station is being renovated at the moment at a cost of approximately R100 000. What the hon. member said is true—the station building is a very old one. There are, however, other priorities in Bloemfontein and these must have preference before anything more can be done about the station. Electrification is priority number one, and the next one is making provision for non-Whites on Bloemfontein station. Only when these things have been done will it be possible to give attention to the White part of the station. The Railways recently informed the Sakekamer in Bloemfontein of the future steps to be taken with regard to the station. At this stage I should like to say that hon. members asking for improved facilities at stations should have regard to the fact that station renovation has to be placed on a priority list. The stations appearing at the top of this priority list, are those in respect of which renovation is most justified in view of the heavy traffic at those stations. Other considerations also apply, of course, but what is chiefly taken into account in this regard is the matter of economic advantage to the Railways. The station at Bloemfontein is being renovated, once again, but I should not like to hold out to the hon. member the hope of the White part of the station being replaced in the near future, because that station, as it is being renovated, will be capable of providing good service for quite some time. There is other important work in Bloemfontein itself that has to receive attention before the station does.

The hon. member for Von Brandis spoke of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line and put certain questions to me in connection with the report. The hon. member will forgive me for not replying to those questions. He will realize that the report is not in my hands, but in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Indeed, it was on my instruction that the Straszacker Committee brought up this report, but I am no longer in charge of that portfolio. It is in the hands of another Minister, and consequently I am of the opinion that the hon. member should put these questions to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

Arising from a question put to me this afternoon by the hon. member for Simonstown while I was speaking, I want to refer in brief to the harbour at Saldanha. At the moment there are no general harbour developments there. The only thing being considered for the harbour and in the process of development at the moment is the ore-loading installation which Iscor is building for its purposes only. The only thing additional up to now, is that the Government has given its permission, in the event of a cement factory being built there for the purposes of exporting cement, for that loading installation to be used, with the approval of Iscor, of course, by the cement factory, too, for the loading and the export of cement. Apart from these two considerations I have now mentioned to you, there is no development in the harbour in general or anything further in the Saldanha area. As a matter of fact, it is also true that the development of a harbour, when it becomes necessary, will be undertaken by the Railways.

May I put a question? Would the hon. the Minister explain to us how it is possible for a multipurpose railway line to off-load at a single-purpose harbour?

It is not the object to have multi-purpose goods off-loaded at that harbour now. When it happens—and we are not holding out the prospect of this now; as yet the need does not exist; as yet the goods are not there—the goods will come through Cape Town. After all, this railway line crosses the Bitterfontein line which runs from Cape Town to Bitterfontein. If it were to happen that there were general goods that had to get to the harbour, those goods would join up with that line and then be transported to the coast.

And pass through Darling?

That is possible.

The hon. member for Uitenhage spoke of the temporary allowance for pensioners and asked for an increase in that allowance. These are basic pensions. The hon. member was quite right. The temporary allowance has not been increased. Although the temporary allowance was not increased in the past, the minimum income levels were in fact raised. It is not quite clear to me that the hon. member wanted to achieve anything more than an increase in the pension. If this is effected by means of raising the minimum income levels, surely he achieves his object. The temporary allowance has not been increased, but the minimum income level has. The hon. member also referred to a fund called the Benevolent Fund. This Fund was established for the purpose of assistance to Railway servants, ex-servants and the next of kin of deceased servants who find themselves in indigent circumstances, by means of grants and by granting interest free loans to servants. The Benevolent Fund also assists Sick Fund beneficiaries who are suffering from chronic diseases to defray the costs of hospital and nursing services in excess of the continuous period of six months for which the Sick Fund accepts responsibility. I am mentioning this simply to illustrate that this Fund is in fact charity through and through. The hon. member is apparently aware of this. The cases to whom assistance is given by this Fund, are considered on an individual basis and on merit, and this happens on the basis of recommendations by welfare workers under whose attention these cases come. The grants are made on merit and in the light of the particular circumstances prevailing.

Sir, the hon. member referred to persons who resigned from the Railway service and then experienced difficulty to join the Railway service again. What the hon. member read out in this regard was merely a guide. It does not mean that it has to be followed strictly according to the letter of the law. The hon. member himself advanced a very good reason here, and that is that we want to exclude the bad ones from the Railway service, and for that reason we have those regulations but they are flexible, and I shall in any event give my attention to them.

†Sir, the hon. member for Orange Grove discussed a matter which is purely a matter of differences of principle and policy between my party and his party. All I can really tell him, therefore, is that I have noted his remarks. I doubt whether this is the time or the place to discuss policy matters of that kind. It is because of the difference between our respective policies that his party is represented by only seven members of this House, while we are the governing party. Sir, seven may be a well-known Biblical number, but in this case it is not sufficient to put that party into power. In the circumstances, Sir, I do not think that it will serve any purpose for me to discuss this matter with him. The hon. member will realize that it is my duty to see that in the administration of the South African Railways the policy of my party is carried out.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North has just replied to the hon. member for Walmer who spoke here yesterday.

He read his speech.

The hon. member for Gardens again referred to our harbours and said that goods were piled up there. I made special mention of this in my Second Reading speech and said that we should like to obtain the co-operation of the public to have the goods removed more rapidly from the harbours and to have them do the necessary documentation so that the goods may be removed more rapidly.

The hon. member also asked whether we were going to be responsible for the breaking down or the unpacking of the containers and for the division of the contents thereof. The answer is no, this will not be handled by the Railways. Areas will be made available at the various harbours for this purpose. But a company, a type of consortium, will be established consisting of the various responsible companies or organizations which will handle the unpacking and the division and the consignment of these goods.

The hon. member also spoke of containerization in the various harbours. He will realize that the Railways found itself in a rather awkward position; the Railways Administration wanted to plan and in fact did start planning for containerization in the harbours a long time ago, but up to very recently it still did not know what the ships of the shipping lines would be like. It was only four months ago that we obtained more clarity with regard to the ships, and as a matter of fact we still do not know today what the ships that will carry refrigerated cargo will be like.

Then the hon. member spoke of a type of hotel train and the granting of concessions in connection with the festivities to be held here in Cape Town. We shall give the matter the necessary consideration.

Sir, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet asked us to give consideration to double-decker trucks for the transport of sheep. I am informed that this matter has already been taken into consideration, but the hon. member should remember that as soon as one introduces in a double-decker truck, one has a truck that can be used for nothing else but the transport of sheep unless one is able to remove the top deck, which I think is what the hon. member suggested. But even if one has a truck with a removable top deck, there are complications and difficulties hampering full utilization of the truck, and therefore it would seem to me, in the light of the investigations conducted up to now, as though this is not a feasible proposition, but we shall give the matter further attention.

Sir, the hon. member for Parktown, who raised the next point, is not present at the moment. So I think I should conclude my reply now and proceed at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading debate I was dealing with the question of ship repairs and shipbuilding. I did not have time to make any remarks about shipbuilding before my time expired. I would like to say something this evening very briefly about shipbuilding. I tried to make out a case yesterday to the Minister that encouragement should be given to ship repairing and to ship-building in South Africa. A start has already been made in Durban and we have shipyards which at the moment are in a position to produce cargo vessels of 8 500 tons dead weight. There is an order at the moment for two of them which has been secured by the shipyards in Durban at a cost of R10 million. But the problem in Durban, just as in Cape Town, is the question of space. If the Minister and the department are seriously going to consider the provision of facilities for shipyards in our major harbours, they will have to do some radical re-thinking and they will have to make a lot more space available than is the case at the moment. I think it is also appropriate for me, after our visit to the harbour last Friday, to pay tribute to the builders of the two tugs that are now in operation in Cape Town. They are Voith-Schneider types and were built in Durban. They were built for manoeuvrability within harbours. They are not open-sea tugs, but they can move in any direction, as members of the Select Committee who travelled in them will be able to testify. They can turn within their own length and they have a fireman’s platform and a hose with which to fight fires in the harbour area. I think these tugs are a credit to the builders and are definitely an asset to our growing shipbuilding industry in South Africa.

Now I want to come back to the question of ship repairs. I should like to refresh the Minister’s memory by saying that yesterday I referred him to the fact that dry-dock facilities, although existing in both Cape Town and Durban, were wholly inadequate. I said that in the case of Durban his predecessor, Mr. Schoeman, had said that it was possible that a consortium would be formed with finance from the IDC and that they could either take over the existing dry-dock in Durban, and they could in addition build new dry-docks. When I asked him the same question about Cape Town, his answer to me was that he would give consideration to a consortium being formed to undertake the building of a dry-dock in Cape Town harbour, but in his own opinion Cape Town would be too expensive a project and he thought in any event that the bay was too shallow. I then referred the hon. the Minister to the fact that his predecessor had said that consideration could also be given to the building of a dry-dock in the present yacht harbour. I made the suggestion to him that the yachts should be moved from their present basin to Grainger Bay and that a sea wall should be built at Railway expense to accommodate the yachts there. I do not think I need press that case any further.

From there I moved on to the question of the building of a dry-dock at Narinda Bay in Malagasy. I said that I thought one of the reasons why his predecessor had possibly not proceeded with and given the green light to the building of dry-dock facilities in Cape Town or in Durban was because of the possibility of a consortium, again financed by the IDC, building an enormous dry-dock at Narinda Bay. I asked him in his reply to say what the position was. Are we now still in a position to negotiate with Malagasy about the building of a dry-dock there, or has that come to nothing? The question of dry-docks is very important to South Africa. Not only is it a service to the foreigners who use our ports, but it is a service to our own people and in addition to that, a fortune can be made in the form of the earning of foreign exchange.

In the case of Durban some years ago there was an offer by a consortium of approximately R9 million for the provision of finance to build a dry-dock there. If I remember correctly, the then chairman of the British Petroleum Oil Company said that the Government’s failure to provide dry-docking facilities was costing South Africa a fortune in earnings in foreign exchange. The hon. the Minister’s answer at that time was that we should wait for Richards Bay. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is still his policy. Are we still going to wait for Richards Bay?

I want to make a case for the Government to give consideration to the building of dry-docks in Cape Town or in Saldanha Bay. The hon. the Minister has said that the Sishen-Saldanha line is going to be built and financed by Iscor and that Iscor in addition to that is going to provide wharfage facilities in Saldanha Bay for the export of iron ore and other minerals. He has also said that the Railways will come into the picture in that if representations for railway services are to be made they should be made through and by the Railways.

Many engineers have looked at Saldanha Bay for a long, long time. They have thought it is possibly one of the most appropriate places for a deep-sea commercial harbour, ship-building yards and ship-repairing facilities. I want to make the point that there seem to be conflicting opinions. Some of the engineers will tell you that geographically Saldanha Bay is ideal for these purposes, that there is enough room for an ore harbour, a large dry-dock and a commercial harbour. They say it would be ideal for big ships which would be able to turn without the necessity of being “handled” by tugs. They say that there is plenty of room for expansion and the building of stores and warehouses, especially for steel exports. They say that this position has been like a football thrown between Government departments for a number of years.

In addition some years ago there was a suggestion that a Dutch shipbuilder by the name of Verolme should build a super-shipyard at Saldanha. I understand that he made an offer to the Government to provide R50 million in finance for shipbuilding and repair yards. He said that he would be in a position to build 60 000 tonners and that he would be able to repair and service 200 000 tonners. At the time—this was a few years ago—it was said that all he was waiting for was Government approval.

But I referred to the fact that there are other opinions. Other opinions that I think must be given very serious consideration. I have here a chart of the Saldanha Bay anchorage drawn by Prof. Mallory of the South African Hydrographic Office. It appeared in Travel and Trade of August 1970. In describing this chart Travel and Trade said—

On this chart there are superimposed three ships, marked A, B and C. They are at various distances from where the projected ore port at Saldanha Bay is to be located. The first ship, A, represents a 150 000 tonner and requires 11¼ fathoms in all. They say that unless a special channel is dug, she cannot get within 3½ miles of the projected iron terminal. The second ship, B, represents a 326 000 ton tanker. It is 1 135 feet long. This ship requires 16 fathoms. The third ship, C, is a 477 000 tonner. As I said yesterday, 11 of these enormous tankers are being built in the world shipyards. Such a ship would require 18½ fathoms to lie in. The conclusion that is reached by Travel and Trade is—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat very definitely is an authority on harbours and I shall consequently not follow him in that field. I just want to say that he, unlike many of his colleagues in the United Party, at least tried to make a positive contribution.

I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He referred to the maize farmers in South Africa in a very derogatory way. I want to ask one thing of him. When he goes to bed tonight he must give some thought to what he has consumed in the form of food today. I can give him the assurance that there is virtually nothing he has eaten today which does not have some connection with the maize farmer and the product he produces.

I have nothing against that.

However, I do not want to devote much more time to the hon. member. I should like to refer to a much more important matter. I should like to discuss one or two aspects in connection with the handling and transportation in South Africa of grain in bulk. It is worth mentioning that the Railways does a mamoth job at our harbours in respect of the transportation of export grain in particular. We had a record maize crop this year and it is anticipated that the Railways will handle the export of approximately 4,2 million metric tons. This will be a record. It is a mammoth job, so much the more so since the Railways, as we know, has been experiencing many problems this year with the transport system as a result of congestion in our harbours. At present the co-operation between the officials of the Railways Administration and the relevant control boards, and I am referring to the Maize Board in particular, is decidedly of the best. This results in record loads being transported to the harbours. From there it is shipped and taken to overseas markets on which it is fetching very high prices. In this way valuable foreign exchange is being earned for South Africa. Also as far as this aspect is concerned, the contribution of the Railways may not be overlooked.

The transportation of record loads of grain has been rendered possible only because the Railways, in consultation with the various grain-producing industries, has changed over to a bulk handling and the bulk transportation system. On the one hand the grain-producing industry has developed storage facilities for grain in bulk, while on the other hand the Railways loads the grain into trucks designed for this purpose. Only in this way can we develop an efficient transportation system for our grain exports. The costs involved in bulk handling, as far as the various control boards are concerned, are as follows. Since 1955, when a change-over to bulk handling was adopted as the national policy, an amount of R70 million has been made available, by means of loan funds, to the various agents, agricultural co-operative societies, millers and private agents in order to establish the present capacity of approximately 8 million cubic metres. This amount of R70 million represents the loan funds only. Amounts provided from individual capital resources still have to be added to that. We may safely assume that a total amount of more than R80 million has been spent when we speak of the amount spent to date on the provision of facilities for the storage and handling of grain in bulk. Because bulk handling and storage of grain is also important for an efficient Railways transport system, the Government has already approved in principle that a further amount of R70 million be made available over a period of five years. This amount will be provided to the various agents in the form of loan funds to meet the additional storage requirements of approximately 5,5 million cubic metres. When we take individual funds into consideration—the R70 million is purely loan funds—we may once again say that it will cost a further R80 million in the course of the next five years to establish an additional 5,5 million cubic metres of storage space. Since it is national policy to change over to the bulk handling of grain and the State itself grants loans to agents of control boards, a grain silo committee was established in the fifties, mainly for the purpose of ensuring that these expensive structures were located at the correct places, that they were of a good quality and that they were durable, for those silos have to last a lifetime. The composition of this grain silo committee is such that its chairman is the chief director of economic services in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and that representatives of the various important grain boards such as the Maize Board and the Wheat Board serve thereon, as well as a representative of the Land Bank, charged with the granting of the loan funds guaranteed by the State to agricultural co-operative societies, as well as a representative of the Railways who at present, as I understand it, has retired from the functions of the committee.

In addition, engineers from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services serve on this committee so that certain technical assistance may be rendered by them. The further requirements for the establishment of a silo of this nature are, firstly, that it should be centrally situated within a production area, and secondly, that the capacity should be adapted to the production area. They have a specific formula they apply. They take the production history over a period of ten years and then make a projection into the future for a period of ten years, subsequent to which they try to determine by means of averages what the ideal storage capacity of a project of this nature should be. Thirdly—and this is important—the project should be linked up, by means of sidings, with the S.A. Railways network. The various agents of the control boards then have to apply to the committee individually for the allocation of a grain silo. Only when such an application succeeds does that agent qualify for a loan which is made available by the Land Bank or the State. One of the next steps the agent has to take is to obtain approval in principle from the S.A. Railways for a siding for his project. Once he has obtained this approval, the Railways itself determines in what way the siding should be linked up with the traffic of the relevant railway station or within its shunting yard. It is at this very point that an agent or a miller sometimes comes up against the cost aspect he could not have foreseen when he made application. The Railway regulations provide that, if such a junction requires the conversion or modernization of the station, the costs of that work are to be borne by the relevant applicant. This means, inter alia, that the less moneyed agent is placed in a position of hardly being able to proceed with the erection of the silo he is planning and in respect of these particular costs he does not qualify for a loan from the State or the Land Bank. I know of a case where adaptations at the Railway shunting yard required the agent to spend an amount of approximately R100 000.

There are two matters to which we should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention. Firstly, we want to ask that the Railways take a seat in that grain silo committee again, even if in an advisory capacity only, since it is imperative that these bulk grain projects should be linked up effectively to the railway network of South Africa. Secondly, we are asking that the costs of the conversion and modernization of shunting yards to which grain silos have to be linked up, be borne by the Railways. Sir, we are asking that the hon. the Minister give these proposals his consideration since these costs that have to be incurred in respect of the shunting yard will not be to the benefit of one single user of the Railways only, but to the benefit of the entire industry. These grain silos are decidedly an integral part of our Railways network. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Bethal will not take it amiss if I do not reply to his speech because he spoke purely from a farmer’s point of view, about silos and that sort of thing. I want to say that I come out strongly on the side of the professional men in the administration of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. I take strong exception to the views expressed by the hon. member for Uitenhage, who made a plea for men who have resigned no less than three times from the Railways. He still asked the Minister to deal kindly with them. I think the hon. the Minister should be strong about this question. A man who joins the Railways and resigns, joins and resigns, joins and resigns, is absolutely no good to any department whatever. He is a commercial traveller, and he is no good to any Government department, let alone the Railways. Commercial travellers, of course, have their own views, but these are commercial travellers in another sense. I think the Minister should have taken a stronger stand against the hon. member for Uitenhage and told him that a man like that is no good to the Administration. He should support the General Manager and his officers in saying: “No more! We have had enough of you. We have given you three chances, and you have had it, chum. You can go.” This is the trouble. The professional men know their job and they do it. It is when politicians, who know nothing about it, become mixed up in the matter, that the trouble starts. I hope that the Minister will take a stronger stand with regard to this problem, and not be so “barmhartig” as he promised the hon. member for Uitenhage he would be. This matter needs no reviewing, and the Minister can go straight ahead as he has done.

However, whilst talking about discipline, I will say to the hon. the Minister that I feel that in the Railways there is undue haste when members are suspended from duty for months pending appeals and decisions on cases. I think that the department should be less hasty as regards suspension from duty. These men are, for two or three months, put off duty without pay. I know of cases in my area where such people, who had bought furniture on tick, afterwards had it repossessed. When the time of suspension is over, such a person is told that his appeal has failed and that he is now out of the service.

It can go on for over a year.

Well, I am just talking about cases that I know of. This is where I think that suspension is being cruelly applied. Surely, in times of shortage of manpower, these people can still be allowed to work until the day the chop finally comes.

I view what the hon. member for Parktown said with great sympathy, because I myself have seen and noted how overcrowded and uncomfortable these trains are which transport Bantu workers from the towns to their townships at night. Actually I would like to give a medal to those policemen and conductors on duty for the way in which they go through the coaches because, honestly, there is danger to life and limb. The coaches are overcrowded and we all know what pickpockets are like. Why more conductors have not had their pockets picked I do not know. I do not know what the Railways’ record is, but I have every sympathy with the conductors and the Railway Police who maintain law and order on the trains themselves. The trains are overcrowded. I suppose there is a shortage of staff, but could there not be trains more often? Since I do not know, I leave that to the hon. the Minister. It is his responsibility. He is getting more pay, like everybody else, so why worry.

Let me take the hon. member for Klip River to task. There are trains passing through Ladysmith at night, obviously travelling up-country from Johannesburg to Durban. The trains are full of Xhosas sitting in those surburban coaches and sleeping in every conceivable position, virtually on top of one another. The smell emanating from those coaches is something indescribable, particularly when one is in a train that is standing alongside them.

You should not smell like that.

This next matter I raised previously with the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. It concerns the trains to Chatsworth. We all know that there was a semi-boycott among the Indians at Chatsworth. There was also that case pending with the Road Transportation Board and the buses. There has been a resistance to the trains. I have tried to find out what the real reason is but I am not satisfied that I have really done so. The Indians are certainly not using those trains as they should. Under the circumstances, what is galling to the residents of Yellowwood Park is to see empty or virtually empty trains going through Yellowwood Park township. Although there is a station at Yellowwood Park, those residents cannot use those trains at all. Surely some arrangement could be made to attach a coach or two to the train so that commuters could travel from Yellowwood Park into town.

Why are you struggling with the 100 yards? Get it over and done with.

It is more than 100 yards; if is seven miles.

†Now I must also join issue with the hon. member for Vryheid. He spoke this evening as if the officials did not know their job. I was surprised to hear that because members on that side are most effusive with their thanks and their praise. I cannot imagine what has happened. Someone must have rubbed him up the wrong way one day in Vryheid. Vryheid as I know it is surely a peace-loving district? There I must join issue with him because I have experienced nothing but complete courtsey from Railway officials, from the lowest ranks to the highest. [Interjections.] That is quite correct.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, raised quite a few matters which in fact are unrelated, and consequently he will probably not expect of me to react to them.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a matter which in my view justifies urgent attention. It is, in fact, a matter requiring exhaustive investigation, one that has been put to the previous Minister on various occasions for a decade or two. I am referring to the extension of the railway line from Marble Hall to Groblersdal. The people in that area have been asking for a railway line in that area for the past 20 years. I understand that one may view this railway line from two angles. In the first place it may be viewed as an extension from Marble Hall to Groblersdal, but it may also be viewed as an extension from Groblersdal to the eastern main line. When the hon. the Minister investigates this matter, I want to ask him to confine himself to the first phase of this line only, and that is from Marble Hall to Groblersdal. I know that the Highveld Bantu Administration Board is also asking for an extension from Groblersdal to Middelburg or from Groblersdal to Witbank, so that a connection with the eastern mainline route may be effected. I want to ask that we first give urgent attention only to this small section of line from Marble Hall to Groblersdal. The length of such a railway line would be approximately 29 km. and as I understood from the previous hon. the Minister, the cost involved would be approximately R6 million. I think this R6 million will be money which will be wel invested. It will be an investment in the development of the North-Eastern Transvaal where, in fact a geat need for such development exists. A railway line may be constructed, firstly, when it meets departmental requirements, or, secondly, when the line is guaranteed, or, thirdly, when the line justifies itself economically. I want to as ert that this line more than justifies itself economically. I shall tell hon. members why I say this. The traffic potential of this line is, in my opinion, outstanding. For example, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has already made a survey of the agricultural products in that area. We who know that area, know that most of the agricultural products, if not 80%, cultivated there, are transported by the farmers themselves and that they do not make use of the Railway buses running in that area. They make use of their own transport to get their products to the Railway station in the best possible and most expeditious manner. A survey has also been made of consumers’ consumption, but the findings of the survey are misleading. I have made inquiries at most of the businesses at Groblersdal and they assure me that they convey their own goods from Pretoria and the Rand to Groblersdal with their own means of transport. The distance is approximately 100 miles. They do not make all that much use of Railway buses because they would like to get their products to their destinations as quickly as possible. They do not want to have to wait for the Railway buses transporting goods from Marble Hall to Groblersdal first. We know that the road transportation services are doing a good job of work and the people are grateful for that, but there is something else I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is that there is a lot of State-owned land available in this area over which the railway line may be constructed. One does not know for how long this land is going to be available and what the prices of land are going to be later on if it has to be expropriated from private persons. As the golden opportunity for using the land exists at the present time, I want to ask that the spade-work for such a railway line be done now while this opportunity still exists.

As far as Bantu passengers are concerned, we have been conducting a continuous correspondence with the department and the previous Minister for the past four to five years. The Bantu passengers are transported from the East Rand to Groblersdal in private buses. Over weekends there are up to 80 buses full of Bantu passengers who are dropped at Groblersdal. Hon. members can just imagine what the position in Groblersdal has been the past few years. Fortunately, a railway station is now being built at Motetema, a Bantu township immediately across the Olifants River. It is very near to Groblersdal; these Bantu passengers could very easily make use of Railway transport if the railway line was to run there. I think it would be a real godsend to these Bantu passengers if there was to be a railway line. Many of them who get off at Groblersdal have to make further use of buses to get to the Bantu township near Marble Hall. The number of Bantu passengers is increasing to a large degree. I can tell hon. members that steps are being taken at the moment to extend and enlarge this Bantu township at Motetema. They are looking for more land at the moment. Bantu from elsewhere will be settled there as well.

Finally, I should also like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that these parts of Marble Hall and Groblersdal are situated on the borders of enormous Bantu homelands, namely the Lebowa and the Southern Ndebele homelands. A railway line would be of inestimable value to the development there. Even at this stage there is justification for a railway line there, but I think in the near future there will be even more justification. At that time we might possibly give consideration to the second phase of this line, i.e. the further extension of the line from Groblersdal to the eastern main line.

Mr. Chairman, people travelling from the inland areas to Cape Town usually enter the city via the R9 expressway, if they are travelling by car. After the long, hot journey through the Karoo and after the beautiful mountains of the Boland, at last they reach Cape Town. Then they get their first impressions of the mother city, which in their idealism they often regard as the cradle of civilization, of the arts and of culture. First of all they see the railway yards on either side of the road. The harbour on the one side, with ships from all parts of the world, could be a truly fascinating sight for a person from up-country. On the other side, however, they see the railway marshalling yards, which can also be very interesting, but in this case, through the dirty-wire-fence, which is often plastered with paper blown against it by the wind, they see piles of rubble, old concrete and pools of dirty black water, as well as the weeds and dirty old iron lying about there.

And here and there a United Party supporter.

In spite of the beauty of Table Mountain, the approach to Cape Town is probably the least attractive, the untidiest, the ugliest approach to any major city in South Africa. If the South African Railways are travel or tourist orientated, and they should be, they will do something about this. Their Railway touring buses often take tourists along that road. The piles of rubble lying about there they can very easily flatten with a bulldozer, and if they like they can clear up that whole area. If that cannot be done, they can plant trees in order to hide that unattractive scene. I should like to request the hon. the Minister to give this matter his serious attention for most South Africans are proud of their mother city and they feel that something should be done about this.

Furthermore I should like to ask for travelling facilities for White passengers on the railway line between Welgedag and Dunswart in the constituency of Benoni. There is a regular service between Daveyton, the Bantu residential area, and Northmead station in Benoni. From there the line runs through to Dunswart station. There are no White facilities. As a result of the considerable extension of residential areas to the north of Benoni, particularly in the northern suburbs such as Farrarmere, Northmead Morehill, Rynsoord and Brentwood, a great need for Railway facilities has developed in that area. It is anticipated that the present White population of that area will increase from 37 000 to approximately 140 000 over the next few years. Many of these White inhabitants work in Johannesburg and travel by train. Many of them are students at the Rand Afrikaanse University or at Wits.

However, there is not enough parking space available at the present Benoni station for all the cars of persons who travel by train instead of by car in an attempt to save fuel. Additional White railway vehicles would be of considerable assistance, particularly for those who want to travel from Welgedag or Daveyton to Dunswart and from there on to Johannesburg. The White inhabitants of the northern suburbs of Benoni would then be able to get on the train at Van Ryn station and to travel straight through to Johannesburg. They would find sufficient parking at Van Ryn station. This idea has the support of the Afrikaanse Sakekamer of Benoni as well as of the City Council of Benoni, and they ask, too, that the stations at Avenue, Northmead, Van Ryn, Alliance and Welgedag should be expanded for this purpose.

Then I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister for more members of the Railway Police to be on duty regularly at stations and particularly during peak hours. We have had considerable problems in this regard in Benoni recently. On 2 September two Bantu were murdered at Dunswart station. Approximately 56 persons subsequently appeared in court as a result of this. It would appear from newspaper reports that there were no members of the Railway Police available and that a few people who were on duty at the station had to look on helplessly while these two Bantu were being assaulted and murdered. They were powerless to do anything about the situation.

Now I want to come to the speculations concerning the establishment of commercial harbour at Saldanha and the question of whether or not these speculations will be realized. The possible pollution of Langebaan by oil and dust which could spoil that beautiful area, is giving rise to grave concern. This region is known as one of our most beautiful recreational areas, and it is very suitable, too, for a nature reserve. Something can be done about this, particularly if one thinks of what has already been done at a place such as Richards Bay. A quay could be built from Langebaan across to Schaap Island, for example, to close off the Langebaan area from the main harbour at Saldanha. A new exit could then be dredged. This was the pattern that was followed at Richards Bay as well, in order to protect that area.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.