I have to announce that at a ceremony in the Gallery Hall this morning, the President of the Senate and I accepted on behalf of Parliament a bust of the late Dr. the Hon. E. G. Jansen, former Speaker of the House of Assembly, Cabinet Minister and Governor-General of the Union of South Africa. The bust, which was presented by his widow, Mrs. M. M. Jansen, will be placed in a suitable position in the Parliamentary Building.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration for the amount of R32 million which has been placed on the Budget for the reinforcement and extension of the railway line from Fairfield-Sishen to Hotazel, which, with a view to the future, will greatly relieve this railway line. We say thank you for that. I also want to say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister for announcing yesterday that representations may now be made for further junctions with the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. He also said that these representations should be made to the Railways. The representations I want to make now I have already made on several occasions in the past, but, since the hon. the Minister has invited us to do so, I once again want to make these representations to him on behalf of our region up there in the Northern Cape. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to extending the Sishen-Saldanha railway line from Sishen via Kuruman to Pudimoe where such an extension may then be linked up with existing sections. I am asking for this to be given serious consideration since this extension would create the necessary infrastructure over a distance of 180 km which could play an exceptionally important role in the future development of South Africa and its neighbouring states, particularly Botswana, Rhodesia and Bophuthatswana. This extension could be constructed over an absolutely level surface with few or no obstructions. I am asking for this extension because it would immediately complete an alternative Johannesburg-Cape Town rail route. It would also effect a shortened rail link between South-West Africa and the Rand complex. It could immediately enhance the significance of Saldanha Bay as an export harbour. The multi-purpose nature of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line could immediately acquire new meaning by means of such an extension. Such an extension could stimulate development in areas which have a tremendous development potential but which at present do not have the necessary infrastructure. Such an extension could have the effect that the exceedingly large mass of ore which in future would have to be transported from the Northern and North Western Cape to export and processing centres could be placed on three instead of two rail sections. It would be possible to transport ore and other products to terminals over shorter distances and therefore at reduced costs, to the benefit of the producer and the consumer.

I should now like to motivate the statements I have made. In the first instance, there is the creation of an alternative Johannesburg-Saldanha-Cape Town route; the present Rand-Karoo-Cape Town route covers a distance of 1 529 km while the alternative route, which will be created by this extension I am advocating, will cover a distance of 1 458 km to Cape Town. Here we find an alternative route over a shorter distance which winds through the maize triangle of the Transvaal and through the mineral treasure house of South Africa situated in the Northern and North Western Cape, and which is a shorter route for the Rand, Rhodesia and Botswana to an ideal import and export harbour at Saldanha Bay.

My second point is that South-West Africa will be linked to the Rand complex by a much shorter route. I want to mention only one of the beneficial aspects pertaining to this. South-West Africa markets approximately 5 000 truck loads of livestock in the Rand complex annually. These thousands of head of livestock can reach the Johannesburg markets approximately three days sooner when conveyed over this shorter route. Between 3 500 and 4 000 truck loads of livestock go to the Rand markets from Kuruman and its western hinterland annually. Over this shorter route the livestock from this area can reach the Rand markets approximately two days sooner. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services has proved by means of surveys that a sheep looses one and a half pounds in weight per day while being transported by train. If that sheep can be brought to its destination two days sooner, four and a half pounds of meat per sheep can be saved over this shorter route. As I have already indicated, thousands of head of livestock are marketed on the Rand just from these two areas I have named, and thousands of tons of meat can consequently be saved over a shorter route of this kind, effecting a saving to the benefit of both the consumer and the producer.

Then, Mr. Chairman, I made the statement that Saldanha would immediately take on new meaning as an export harbour. In view of events in Mozambique and mindful of the fact that our existing harbours are already overburdened, it is surely not far-fetched to think of Saldanha as an export harbour, and to think that this idea may have to be carried into effect much sooner than originally planned. Sir, with a shortened route from the Rand, with a shortened link from Rhodesia and Botswana, with their mineral riches, to a west coast harbour, and with a shortened link to the maize producers of the Western Transvaal, this rail link I am advocating will give new meaning to the development of Saldanha Bay as an import and export harbour. Sir, it is obvious that the multi-purpose nature of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line will acquire new meaning with the establishment of this link. It may also have the effect that the South African Railways, as the only rail transport contractor, will be able to operate and conrol the whole route from Saldanha-Sishen to the Rand.

Sir, I have advanced the argument that this rail link would stimulate areas with a tremendous development potential which do not have the necessary infrastructure at present. Here I want to mention Kuruman as an example. Kuruman, with its tremendously rich mineral deposits, where 100 000 tons of asbestos is produced annually, with the “Oog” which at present provides 15 million gallons of water per day, and the Tswana homeland where 70 000 Tswanas live on the outskirts of Kuruman, is waiting for development. We are already sure of one company which wants to start an asbestos cement industry here if a railway line could be established here. Sir, as a first phase of this extension from Sishen to Pudimoe I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider building the railway line from Sishen to Kuruman, also in view of the transportation of Bantu workers to Sishen. At Kathu near Sishen a White town, more or less the size of Welkom, is coming into being. We should not like to see a large Bantu town coming into being alongside it. We would sooner see the Bantu labourers being settled in the Bantu homelands situated close to Kuruman. They may be transported to and from their homes over this railway line.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to plead that the hon. the Minister consider this as the first phase. This link I am advocating may also have the effect that the exceedingly large masses of ore which will have to be transported from the Northern Cape to export and processing centres in the future may be placed on three instead of two rail sections, large masses of ore which may be transported to terminals over shorter distances and therefore at reduced costs to the benefit of South Africa. To give you an example, the ore which is transported at present over the Hotazel-Sishen section amounts to 11 million tons, which is approximately 10% of the total mass handled by the South African Railways. By the end of 1980 approximately 30 million tons of ore will have to be transported over this section to St. Croix, Newcastle and Vanderbijlpark. The Sishen-Saldanha railway line will carry approximately 30 million tons for export plus the ore which will be used at the Knuppel factory at Saldanha. I do not believe it is far-fetched to say that by the end of 1980 approximately 80 million tons of ore will have to be transported from the Sishen-Postmasburg-Hotazel-Kuruman area. Sir, on 5 March 1973 the hon. the Minister of Mines stated that mineral exports currently earned R600 million per annum for South Africa. It is anticipated that the figure will be R4 000 million at the end of the century. This may also bring about an enormous increase in the quantity of ore which will have to be mined and transported. Part of the mass of ore which has to be transported to terminals—and here I am thinking of the transportation of ore from Sishen to Vanderbijlpark and Newcastle—may then be sent over this shorter route. Sir, one can elaborate a great deal on this matter, but my time is limited. The previous Minister told us that we had to give a guarantee. I am satisfied that the potential of this area, this mineral treasure house of South Africa, and the areas which will be linked to one another by means of this extension are the guarantee for the success of this railway line I am advocating.

The hon. member for Kuruman has just made a plea to the hon. the Minister for an extension of the Saldanha-Sishen railway line, but I believe that he is appealing to the wrong authority. He should really have gone to the directors of Iscor because I believe that Iscor is now setting up another railway authority in South Africa in opposition to the Railway Administration.

Mr. Chairman, there are two factors which demand that the attention of the Railway Administration should be focused on the Buffalo harbour in East London, and these are, firstly, the expected dramatic rise in the use of all the harbours of the Republic due to the events in Mozambique over the last two weeks and the consequences arising from the diversion of shipping traffic from the ports of Lourenço Marques and Beira and, secondly, the absolutely urgent necessity for the creation of an industrial complex in and around the city of East London to cope with the rising demand for work opportunities in that region. Sir, at the moment the following inhibiting factors operate to the detriment of the port, namely the fact that the inter-continental containerization is being channelled elsewhere, to Table Bay, Durban and Port Elizabeth, and secondly, that the operating procedures at the harbour need urgent and immediate attention. A decision has been taken that only coastwise roll on roll off cargoes and containerization will be handled at Buffalo harbour, apart from the conventional cargoes which are handled there now. Sir, the provision of a sophisticated container berth is apparently not necessary at the moment, but what is urgently necessary there is the provision of a berth, or perhaps even two berths, to handle the Roll on Roll off and coastwise containerization. The Administration should immediately direct its attention to this need, for to utilize conventional berths will cause additional delays and hopeless congestion as far as loading and unloading facilities are concerned. At the very moment that I am speaking here there is severe congestion at the Buffalo harbour. I know that the operation berths are now being conducted in such a way that they operate on an overtime basis, but despite this attempt to ease the position, as recently as a week ago, there were more than 14 ships lying in the roadstead and the member lines of the South and South-East African Freight conference were considering the introduction of a surcharge in their rates applicable to Buffalo harbour. In their statement which they gave to the Press they said the following—

Sir, this is a very serious accuzation. I believe it is true that there is vast room for improvement of the working conditions at the Buffalo harbour. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should immediately put in hand a departmental inquiry into the conditions there in order to examine the following: Firstly, the modernization of the stacking and shed space; the proper utilization of the available waste space; the recruitment and training of labour to work at the harbour and the transportation of the labour from its source to the harbour and back; the provision of modern and adequate mechanical handling machinery; the construction of adequate rail sidings adjacent to conventional berths and the creation of a close liaison between the Administration, the shipper and the shipowner or agent in order to bring about co-ordination and the resultant optimum use of the harbour facilities there, and finally, the provision of an adequate supply of rail trucks to enable the free movement of cargo to and from the port. These are all factors which are operating against the efficient operation of the East London harbour. To accomplish these aims will need money, but with a Budget which runs into R466 million on capital works alone, we find that this year only a paltry R700 000, not even one four-hundredth of the total sum, is being spent on the Buffalo harbour. I say that, under these circumstances and in these times, the inadequacy of the allocation is a disgrace. It shows a clear lack of pre-planning for which this Government, of course, is completely notorious. I say, Mr. Chairman, that now is the time for the hon. the Minister to show his mettle. He is new to the job. Let us see if he can accept the challenge and prove that although he only dealt with railway matters some 30 years ago, he can march with the times and bring about a dynamic change in the whole concept of the railways, harbours and transport system in South Africa.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for East London City, raised a matter which is of importance to his constituency. I do not intend to follow up what he said except for observing that it was a poor remark he made in regard to Iscor and the S.A. Railways. Iscor renders a tremendously large contribution to South Africa, not only in connection with the provision of steel, but also as regards industrial growth related thereto.

I should like to follow the hon. member for Kuruman in the arguments he advanced for an alternative route which would link up the Sishen-Saldanha line to the Rand complexes too. Today steel is one of our very important metals. We have the Sishen-Saldanha railway line which is concerned with the export of ore, but we shall also have to see to the provision of ore at the existing processing plants, and it is essential to take cognizance of the fact that places such as Newcastle, Vanderbijlpark and Iscor will at some time or another have to fall back entirely on the Sishen deposits as sources of supply. That is why it is essential for us to take the idea of the hon. member for Kuruman a little further.

Proposals for alternative routes have already been made in the past. The hon. the Minister and the Administration are certainly aware of them, but I want to refer to two routes in particular today, one being the route to which the hon. member for Kuruman referred, i.e. the connecting railway line between Sishen and Kuruman and Pudimoe. From Pudimoe there is a railway line to Schweizer-Reneke, and from Schweizer-Reneke there is a connecting line to Makwassie to join up with the existing main railway line. This will mean a new line of 180 km between Sishen and Kuruman and a new line of 56 km from Schweizer-Reneke to Makwassie and an improvement of the light line of 69 km between Pudimoe and Schweizer-Reneke. We shall see that this proposed line, is considerably shorter than any of the other proposed lines. The existing Sishen-Houtkop line is 529 km if we were to take it on this basis, and the Sishen-Kimber-Houtkop line which is currently in use, is 684 km. That gives us a saving of 155 km on the section. The other alternative route is the proposed route between Vryburg, actually Sishen to Kuruman, Vryburg, Kameel Delareyville, Welverdiend and Vanderbijlpark. I think it is necessary for us to consider these two routes one against the other and to make a comparison in costs, for costs in the provision of our steel is a very important item. A new line of 200 km will have to be constructed between Sishen and Vryburg and a new line of 40 km between Kameel and Delareyville. In addition it involves the reinforcement or a reconstruction of the 294 km of light line between Delareyville and Welverdiend and Houtkop. The total distance covered by this line from Sishen to Houtkop will then be 584 km, i.e. 55 km longer than the Pudimoe-Makwassie line. The construction of the respective lines will more or less be on a par if we take the topography into consideration. It is level ground where there are not many small hills which may somehow make the construction work more difficult. But I have already said that the cost aspect, too, is very important. The approximate estimate of costs on this second proposed line is something like R40 million, while the approximate costs of the first line I mentioned, from Schweizer-Reneke to Makwassie, will be something like R20 million. If we take all of this into consideration, and if we also take into consideration the transport costs which are currently being incurred between Sishen and Houtkop, it will be possible to effect a saving in costs for the supply of ore. If the shorter route is used, one may state as a fact that the costs involved in the transport of steel from places such as Newcastle and Vanderbijlpark will also be lower. Supplying ore over this route, of which I am an advocate, can even be effected to Pretoria if a division takes place at Schweizer-Reneke to Delareyville, which gives one a shorter distance over which the reconstruction of a light line will be necessary. This can effect a further saving in the costs of supplying ore to Pretoria.

As I said at the beginning, we must accept that our resources of ore at Sishen and elsewhere in the Northern Cape will eventually be South Africa’s chief source of iron ore. We should be very meticulous in ensuring that we do not allow the price of steel to soar in consequence of the transport aspect as such. I am not saying we are doing so today; I am speaking of things which are awaiting us in the future. If we plan this line as I have suggested, it will be a multipurpose line. The hon. member for Kuruman also referred to this, but I also want to refer to another very important aspect of this line.

It will provide an immediate link between the two areas of Bophuthatswana as they will eventually exist in terms of the consolidation plan. I am referring to the areas at Kuruman and Taung. The Bantu homeland area at Taung is of particular importance for the Bophuthatswana people in particular. It is the only region within the area of Bophuthatswana where there is a major irrigation scheme. We anticipate that with the necessary technical know-how which will be imported to these people, the area of approximately 7 000 ha which is under irrigation will become a tremendous source of revenue for the Bophuthatswana people. These two areas are not only being linked to each other on an industrial or monetary basis, to put it this way, but these two areas, the inhabitants of which live in close contact with one another, are also being linked to each other by means of a railway line. This also opens up further possibilities. For example, Bantu towns which are at present situated in the Western Transvaal could then be moved to the homeland or close to the homeland. This will also enable us to undertake passenger transport.

I do not want to enlarge on other smaller items, but I just want to point out that in the broad view of the Northern Cape and the Western Transvaal, a large degree of inter-action already exists which will have to be developed still further. The Kuruman-Sishen complex is situated in the west and the large consumer centre is situated in the east which consists of the Klerksdorp-Orkney-Stilfontein-Potchefstroom area, and for that reason a connecting route of this nature is of major importance in the overall planning of the areas of the Western Cape and the Northern Cape.

The hon. member for Kuruman pointed out how important this was if we looked at Botswana and Rhodesia. Hower, in this whole process, we should also consider the development potential of the Mafeking-Lichtenburg complex. That in itself is of importance to us and the more so if we consider the further development which may take place in Bophuthatswana.

Our argument, therefore, is that we should get a line here which, in our opinion, will probably be the cheapest line at this stage. It will be the shortest line in any event. It will meet the requirements of supplying iron ore to the interior where it has to be supplied. It offers a link with the Sishen-Saldanha complex and it will render use of the Saldanha harbour possible. It also offers a link with Botswana and Rhodesia. It is a link between two poles—an eastern and a western pole. In the west we have Kuruman and Sishen and in the east Klerksdorp, Stilfontein and Orkney. We shall then be able to effect a link on a three-point basis within the framework of the major development in the Bophuthatswana homeland. I believe it will form a regional economic basis which can greatly benefit all these areas in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I should not like to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke since he made a speech about economic aspects which are fairly important to his region. I want to come to the interests of the agriculturalist and the farmer of South Africa. Two days ago, during the Second Reading debate, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised certain matters here in connection with the rates and their effect on the farmer of South Africa. I noticed that the hon. the Minister was floundering in the proverbial clay to some extent when he was replying to the hon. member in connection with those increased rates. I shall return to clay since it is something which is also involved here. The hon. the Minister conceded that the increased rates on livestock and export maize would not filter through to the consumer, but would be borne by the farmer of South Africa. Perhaps we should give some consideration to the basic policy of the Railways in this regard. In previous years the Railways was there to serve the public as a whole, including the city-dweller, the farmer and the mining industry. Today, however, the tendency of the Railways is to change over to bulk transport, for example, the transportation of one which is measured in tons. Transport is no longer taking place in the real interests of all sections of the country. As regards agriculture, the increased rates on fertilizer were mentioned here. I have here the hon. the Minister’s Hansard where he also mentioned the increased rates on minerals. The increased rates on first-grade ores and minerals will amount to 21,6%. Now, what is the most important mineral which is a raw material for the fertilizer industry in South Africa? The basic mineral is agricultural lime. It is a mineral in terms of the mining legislation of today. The increase of 21,6% means not only that fertilizer will be subject to an increase as fertilizer, but also that fertilizer will be increased in price as a result of the increased rates on the basic raw material which forms part of all granular fertilizer in South Africa today. And not only that. Agricultural lime is also a raw material which is used as a fertilizer in agriculture in South Africa. If these rates are increased or decreased in the future—I should be glad if they could be lowered at least once in our lifetime—I am asking politely that a thorough study be made of this matter. Here one finds a chain reaction which will ultimately filter through to the consumer. Here it is not only a question of the 30% increase in the rates on fertilizer. As the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South mentioned, there is also the increased cost to the manufacturer because he will have to pay a higher rate on his raw material, lime. I think these aspects should be studied very thoroughly before one just comes along with all-embracing increases in respect of minerals. There should be exemptions.

I should also like to mention another mineral although it does not actually have anything to do with agriculture. There is a mineral called kaolin—china-clay—which is mined in my constituency in Grahamstown. Continental China, which has a factory there, is not affected since it does not have to transport it. There are people there who mine and despatch it to manufacturers in distant areas. This means an increase in the price of paint, since kaolin is one of the raw materials in the paint industry. This should also be taken into account before increases are made. We should analyse our whole economic position very thoroughly before the Railways again announces an increase in rates. I now want to leave the question of rates at that.

I know that it is not common practice to criticize existing legislation, but I believe that in this debate one may ask the Minister politely to have another look at the legislation relating to farmers. Here I want to refer specifically to a congress of the East Coast Agricultural Union which was held on 25 and 26 June of this year. I attended it. One of the points for discussion at that congress was the following—I quote the paragraph under the heading “Transport” on page 6 (translation)—

I know that provision is being made for insurance, but it is of no avail when one loads one’s livestock at a siding since there is no place where one may insure one’s livestock. At present the fixed compensation is R80 per head for large cattle, and R10 per head for sheep and goats. These are the present prices fixed by legislation. This legislation was piloted through Parliament in 1957. I am asking the hon. the Minister to have another look at this Act, since those prices are totally out of line with the prices paid for cattle today. If the Minister reconsiders that Act, I want to ask him very politely not to have the compensation in respect of cattle fixed by law again but by regulation, and after consultation with the South African Agricultural Union. We know that there is provision for insurance, but that is only applicable to cattle which are consigned from major stations while there are hundreds of sidings in South Africa today at which the farmers have to load their cattle at their own risk. There is no other way in which they can do this, for their cattle have to reach the market. If they load at a siding, there is no compensation. If something happens to that animal en route, the compensation is only R80 and that in comparison with today’s prices! Who has ever heard of R10 being paid for a sheep or a goat today? I am asking the Minister very politely to look into these matters. His representative at that congress did in fact say that the matter was being looked into. At the same time I want to ask that a form of compensation be paid also in respect of cattle killed on a railway line. There are safety fences, but the farmer cannot always be responsible for the public leaving gates open. I feel that there should be compensation, and then the same compensation as I am advocating for an animal which is killed accidentally while being transported by rail.

Much more effective control is necessary, too, in terms of the provisions of the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Amendment Bill, which will be piloted through Parliament one of these days.

This very afternoon.

This afternoon? It contains a provision, the amendment to section 38(1)(w), which reads as follows—

1. (w) prohibiting, regulating or controlling the bringing into an abattoir of animals not intended to be slaughtered at the abattoir or the removal from an abattoir of animals or infectious things.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have very seldom in my life agreed with the United Party, but I want to say this afternoon that I agree with what the hon. the member for Albany said. I agree that the rate on the valuation of our livestock be reconsidered. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that the present valuation of our livestock is really antiquated and that the value of our livestock, whether goats, sheep or cattle, is much higher at present than it ever was in the past. I hope the hon. the Minister will give attention to this request which has already been made to him by the S.A. Agricultural Union.

I want to extend my hearty thanks to the hon. the Minister of Transport, the ex-Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport for what they have done for my constituency, a constituency which has shown tremendous development in the past few years. I think it was two years ago that the United Party referred in a derogatory fashion to the railway line to Copperton and the station at Prieska. When I say this, I am referring to the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Simonstown. At that time the hon. members referred derogatorily to those things which had been done incorrectly and said, in addition, that the Minister had not given the necessary attention to them. The railway line to the Copperton mines was, in fact, constructed in record time and it has been rendering a service to that community for the past eight months. Today the railway station at Prieska is one of the most modern railway stations in the whole of the Republic of South Africa. It is a privilege to see what has in fact been done there.

A few years ago there was a great delay in the transportation of livestock. I want to express my appreciation for the fact that we can load cattle at any place in the Northern Cape today and know that they will reach their destination at Newtown in Johannesburg on the third day. We as farmers have great appreciation for the speed with which our livestock is transported. We also have the privilege of knowing that the Sishen-Saldanha line will be a multi-purpose railway line, and we are glad that that for which we have striven and that for which we have worked hard is eventually being realized. At the time that we heard that the railway line from Sishen to Saldanha was not going to be a multipurpose railway line, our farmers of the Northern Cape were very disappointed. That is why we appreciate the revised decision. It means that in future more extensive and more effective services will be rendered to us.

It is unthinkable that a large area such as the Northern Cape and the Western Cape should have to manage without a service of this kind. Now we have the privilege of having this line as a multipurpose line. I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. members for Schweizer-Reneke and Kuruman. Our people know what tremendous potential the Northern Cape has as far as the future is concerned. I think the hon. the Minister, more than anyone else in this House, is aware of the development opportunities existing in the Northern Cape. With that in mind it is truly justified to ask that this line be extended in such a way that we may one day be connected with the Witwatersrand. Then they will really be able to enjoy the benefits which have remained in abeyance in the Northern Cape for all these years. When we think of the tremendous development potential in the mining sphere in the Northern Cape and Namaqualand, we do not doubt that we will probably very soon see sidings being constructed in all directions and to Namaqualand in particular, with a junction at Copperton. We hope this investigation will take place as soon as possible, so that not only a desire, but also a need, may be fulfilled.

The rate on livestock in actual fact comprised 40% of the cost of transporting the livestock. With the latest increase it has risen to 65%. At the moment we have no complaints about that. I have here in my possession a list of the prices which were paid for sheep during the past year. At present, therefore, we are not concerned about the increase as long as we have sheep to transport. In recent times the agricultural industry and the cattle farmers, in particular, have experienced a difficult time and we have found that the past year has not been one of our best years, but in fact one of our worst. That is why we want to hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will try to arrange matters in the coming year in such a way that this rate will again be reduced. In any event, it will eventually be the consumer who will have to pay the increase, for the farmer himself really cannot afford it. I want to tell the Minister that, however it might appear to the outsider, meat production for farmers today is, in any event, not a paying proposition in many respects. With the additional costs as a result of the increase in this rate, it will become even less of a paying proposition for the farmer, and that is why we want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see whether we might not be accommodated next year.

Before I conclude I just want to make another request. We have already addressed a request to the previous Minister and the Deputy Minister in connection with the fact that we urgently need a bridge at the station at Prieska. The trains arriving at this station are long and the platform there is the longest one I know of in South Africa. Now, the industrial area which is developing and expanding is situated on the opposite side of town across the railway line. Consequently the public have to cross to and fro over the railway line, and it is virtually impossible and really dangerous to move among those trains all day, from one side to the other, to reach the goods sheds. It also takes up a great deal of time. I have been promised that a bridge will indeed be built, and I hope the hon. the Minister will ensure that this is done as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prieska agreed here with the hon. member for Albany that the amount paid out by the Railways for livestock was too little. If the hon. member for Prieska were to make a true analysis of his own feelings, he would find that he agreed with many more of the members of the United Party. The hon. member for Prieska went further and said that he was satisfied at the moment with the increase in the Railway rates for livestock. He did say, however, that he hoped it would be reduced next year. I only want to say his is a vague hope. Under this Government nothing comes down; prices only go up every year. Then the hon. member for Prieska came along and said that those rates used to cover only 40% of the costs of the Railways and that it covered only 65% now. On what basis is this estimated?

Do hon. members opposite want to tell me the Railways are running at optimum efficiency today? It was said here that the increased rates covered only 65% of the costs. One finds two farmers on adjoining farms. The one is successful and the other is bankrupt. Why? Because the one is a good manager and the other is not. In terms of what does one measure efficiency? Efficiency should be measured in terms of the fact that the private undertaker is able to transport sheep more cheaply than the Railways today, but the Railways forbid him to do this. They say it is uneconomic for them, but yet they want to keep it for themselves and they forbid this private undertaker to do it. What about the question of efficiency? The previous Minister of Transport rose in this House last year and told us that he had suffered a loss of R38 million on the Railways. He ascribed it to the fact that the cooling down phase of the Minister of Finance was too drastic and of too long a duration.

In other words, he said that it was the position as a result of Government policy. These higher Railway rates we have to pay today is the price we have to pay for the incompetence of that Government. There is no point in hon. members opposite saying that they are satisfied with this; it could not have been any different. I say this is the price we are paying for an incompetent Government. Even at this late stage I want to ask the hon. the Minister, address another appeal to him and try to persuade him to reconsider these alarming increases he has made applicable to the agricultural industry. I say this because the average increase was 12,7%. Here, however, we have—and constant reference has been made to this figure here—an increase of 60% in the rate for livestock.

Now, is this fair? This is an increase following on an increase 18 months ago of 60% too, which brings it up to a total increase of 150%. Is it fair to increase the rate for skins by 16,6%? The rates for the transport of maize and wheat have been increased as well. The price of staple foodstuffs of the people of South Africa has, therefore, been increased by 20,9%. Fertilizer has been increased by 30%; anthracite by 17,5%, timber by 18%. I could continue on this vein. It would still have been bearable but it follows on an increase last year in respect of livestock of 60%. The rate for vegetables was also increased by 57%, butter by 39,7%, maize by 36,4% and now again by 20,9% and eggs by 59,2%. Now I ask whether this is fair. These increases will have a ripple effect and reach the consumer of South Africa. The hon. the Minister rose here the other evening and said smugly that he agreed with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He had said the farmer would have to bear it. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the farmer will have to bear it. He can do nothing else. He will bear it in the same way he has to bear the increases in respect of telephones. Now he has to pay R108 per year for a telephone if he is living more than 27 km from the exchange, while the man in the street pays only R36. And yet the hon. member for Kuruman is laughing over there!

I am laughing at you.

The voters of the hon. member for Kuruman are the people who will have to pay it, but to him it is a big joke. It is a big joke to him when the Railway rates are increased. After all, he is sitting comfortably in Parliament. The electorate of Kuruman will, however, get even with that hon. member. The hon. the Minister said the farmer would have to bear the increased rates. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister this:One can beat a willing horse up to a certain point, but no further. The economic laws will triumph in the end, because if one makes it uneconomical for the farmer to farm, he simply changes over to another product, as has happened in the case of milk. This Government made the production of milk a non-paying proposition for the dairy farmer, and then it became impossible for the people of South Africa to obtain milk. I want to tell the hon. the Minister what is now going to happen in the case of meat. We still remember how meat was given away in 1969-’70 for next to nothing. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not here; he is not even interested in the Railway rates having been increased to such an extent. I wonder what he was doing in the Cabinet when the decision was taken. Sir, in those days when meat was being given away for next to nothing, what happened? The people in the Western Province changed over to wheat, and that is why we are faced today with these expensive meat prices; we are struggling to build up the livestock of South Africa, and then the hon. the Minister comes along and hits us with an extra 60%.

Sir, I now want to come to the maize farmer. The transport costs for his product was increased by 36% 18 months ago, and now again by 20,9%, a total of 56%. He will have to pay an extra R13 million. Sir, the maize farmer is a man who is prepared to receive R4-50 for a bag of maize today, while the price per bag abroad is R10 today. In other words, he is subsidizing the consumer of South Africa by R5-50 per bag. He is subsidizing the consumer to the tune of a few hundred million rand, but what does he get for this, Mr. Chairman? What did we get here from the hon. member for Orange Grove? The hon. member said—

†Sir, I want to ask the hon. member where he got those facts from? Are those the facts? Is he aware of the fact that the mealie farmer is subsidizing the consumer to the tune of R5-50 per bag today? And this is the gratitude that the mealie farmer is getting. Sir, I want to say to the hon. member that if he and his colleagues want to adopt a sectional approach in this House, then we will deal with the Oppenheimer group. [Interjection.] You will be dealt with because you pleaded for lower tariffs for your Black workers because you do not pay them decent wages.

On a point of order…

No, Sir, I do not have time.

Order! The hon. member wants to put a point of order.

On a point of order, Sir, is not the hon. member supposed to address the Chair?

Sir, I can see some people being hurt when their allies of Umhlatuzana are hit. Sir, the hon. the Minister is not much better really because what did he tell the maize farmers? [Time expired.]

I always find it very interesting to listen to the hon. member for King William’s Town. I appreciate the opportunity, but at the same time I find it somewhat tragic because he is a member of a disappearing species which we shall not, perhaps, be seeing in this House for much longer. For that reason we are always grateful when the hon. member speaks, so that we can listen to him.

I should like to pay tribute once again to the S.A. Railways for what they have done in respect of housing for Railwaymen. I think that in this regard the S.A. Railways deserves our sincere thanks and appreciation because for many years, even before other Government departments and public bodies were aware of the necessity for providing people with housing or realized the importance of good housing and family upbringing, it always saw to it that its people were accommodated reasonably well and has continued to bring about improvements through the years. In this present Budget another R9,5 million has been set aside for White housing, and this is to be greatly appreciated. I just want to say that the policy in regard to housing should perhaps be reconsidered because it seems to me that in comparison with other Public Service officials, the Railway officials are at something of a disadvantage in as much as they do not always, perhaps, derive benefit from the appreciation in property values as do other Public Service officials. In addition, there is a degree of, I should not say discrimination, but officials at the smaller stations do not, perhaps, enjoy the same privileges as those at the larger stations.

I want to ask whether the Railway station at Despatch could not be given a little attention. Originally it was a place for the loading of bricks, and in consequence it was a very small station. In the meantime a large and modern town, one of the biggest in our country areas, had developed, and in my opinion that station could do with some modernization now. I should appreciate attention being given to the matter.

I also want to make my annual plea once again, i.e. whether consideration could not be given to the possibility of a suburban train service for the people of Port Elizabeth. I know that this is not a paying proposition, but in view of our fuel problems it would be a very good thing if the establishment of a suburban train service were to be considered, particularly as regards the non-Whites, the Coloured population, who live quite far from their places of employment and are having to live further and further away. This is a major problem, and I think it is something we should really take a look at.

Now I want to associate myself with what my other colleagues have said and also express my thanks for the fact that the St. Croix scheme has been given the green light by the Government. I am very grateful that the Minister now agrees with me that that scheme is worth developing. The hon. member for Walmer said that the hon. the Minister must carry the blame for the fact that the St. Croix scheme was not developed earlier. I want to say that I differed with that hon. Minister at one stage, but I never reproached him because I knew that he decided in the interests of South Africa and I in the interests of Port Elizabeth and its surroundings. Consequently we did not really differ very greatly. If anyone is to carry the blame for the delaying of this St. Croix scheme, it is my friends on the other side of the House because they tried to make political capital out of this important matter. They must know that if they had left that matter to me and my colleagues on this side of the House to enable us to promote in a proper fashion, the matter would perhaps have been settled sooner. But they made political capital out of it here in the House and made wild statements. That is not the way to promote a deserving cause. [Interjections.]

If we ask for something, then you do not do it.

But if you ask properly and co-operate, things will be done. But one does not come here and make political capital out of things and spread them abroad via the newspapers. Then one has not asked for it; then one has made a mess of it.

You have let the cat out of the bag now.

I want to say that I think that it is imperative for the S.A. Railways to consider effecting that development itself and not leaving it to private initiative. The St. Croix harbour could become a very important strategic harbour in the future and it could be very valuable as a deep-sea harbour in that it will be able to accommodate the very large ships of the future. I believe it to be very important for this matter to be developed by the S.A. Railways itself.

For Port Elizabeth, too, it is very important for this development to take place as soon as possible. The atmospheric pollution caused by the existing ore quay causes a great deal of inconvenience. At the moment the city council has R500 000 available to be utilized for development and services for the South End, but as long as the existing ore quay is situated in the city, this cannot be done. It is also essential for the ore quay to be removed from the harbour since the existing harbour must be adapted for containerization. The space at present taken up by the ore quay is urgently required for that purpose.

I want to make a few requests concerning Port Elizabeth harbour. It seems to me as if this harbour is one of the hon. the Minister’s willing milk cows, since during the three months from June to August alone, the Port Elizabeth harbour provided the hon. the Minister with the record earnings of R7,5 million. It is also of interest to note that the total tonnage of goods shipped, landed and transhipped in the three largest harbours in the year ended 31 March 1974 is as follows: Durban harbour handled a total tonnage of 32 714 000, Port Elizabeth harbour 9,8 million tons and Cape Town harbour 9,2 million tons. Port Elizabeth harbour, therefore, exceeded Cape Town harbour in total tonnage. However, in all fairness I must add that 6,1 million tons of the tonnage handled by Port Elizabeth was in respect of ore and minerals.

Owing to the problems at Lourenço Maraues and Beira and also for other reasons, there has been a congestion of shipping at our harbours. The Port Elizabeth harbour is also experiencing this congestion. It is therefore essential for more attention to be given to that harbour as well. The Port Elizabeth harbour has some particularly good features. It is centrally situated on the coast of South Africa between Cape Town and Durban. It is regarded as one of the safest harbours in South Africa. It has good rail links with every part of the country. It is therefore well-equipped to play an important role in the future, particularly in view of the fact that we are evidently going to have difficulty with our harbours until such time as Richards Bay is ready.

I therefore want to plead for the necessary developments and improvements at the Port Elizabeth harbour. According to the information at my disposal there are only 12 berths for cargo ships at Port Elizabeth, compared with 24 in Cape Town and 37 in Durban. The length of quay wall in Port Elizabeth harbour is only 3,2 km compared with 8,1 km at Cape Town and 13 km at Durban. The floor space for the storing of cargo at Port Elizabeth is only 44 000 square metres as against 82 000 square metres in Cape Town and 101 000 square metres in Durban. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Algoa will excuse me if I in fact answer the hon. member for King William’s Town who seems to have left. I would suggest to that hon. member that he should read my speech. If he has taken the trouble to get a copy, I think he should read it all over again. He will then see that the point I made was that the facts on subsidies were not before us. I requested the hon. the Minister to make sure that they were placed before us. At no stage did I say that the mealie farmers should not be subsidized. I made it very clear that there might be a good reason why the mealie farmers should be subsidized. However, perhaps the hon. member’s obvious limitations are such that he finds it very difficult to understand.

Having listened to the contributions from both sides of the Committee in this debate and the amount of special pleadings that goes on, I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I did not ask the hon. the Minister for something. I do not quite know what I should ask for. We do not have a station in Orange Grove but perhaps I should ask for a harbour in Orange Grove or something of that kind. What I would like to do is return to a question I raised during the Second Reading debate, It was answered by the hon. the Minister, but I am not at all satisfied with the hon. the Minister’s reply. The question I am referring to is that of scholars’ concessions. There are very many people indeed who are extremely upset at the attitude of the Government in this matter and they are very anxious that this question should be reconsidered. Tn his reply the hon. the Minister claimed that socio-economic subsidies are not the duty of the Railways. With this I entirely agree. There certainly appears, however, to have been an about face on this question because it would appear that socio-economic subsidies have been the duty of the Railways for many years. Up to now scholars’ concessions have been in existence and they have been in existence for a very long time. In my request to the hon. the Minister I asked that he discuss the matter with his Cabinet colleagues so that this subsidy can be restored. The whole point of my earlier argument on subsidies was that it was not the duty of the Railways as such to subsidize, but that there might well be a case for a subsidy from the general Revenue Account. Because this concerns a rail subsidy, I am therefore talking to this hon. Minister. I have to talk to someone because many people are very angry indeed about this. The hon. the Minister was very illuminating in his reply to my questions. He said that something like 10 000 main line and 13 000 suburban line concession tickets were issued each year, so that relatively few people were affected. To me these thousands are not relatively few. A lot of people are involved here. The numbers involved, however, are not important. What is important is the principle of the matter. I believe that people should be assisted to send their children to school. All this nonsense about children who travel by train coming from elite schools, is just so much rubbish.

Oh, no; you do not know what you are talking about. It is a question of certain areas.

This seems to have made many hon. members very hot under the collar. However, this is all just rubbish and I should like to say so again to the hon. member for Gezina. Children travelling to school by train are not all from elite schools, and even if they were, it would not make any difference. What is the yardstick for the classification of a school as an elite school? Look at the Peninsula; look at Jan van Riebeeck. As that an elite school? What about Nassau, Groote Schuur, Voortrekker High. Zwaanswyk—are these elite schools? What about the many Coloured schools? What about the Coloured schoolchildren? What about the Black schoolchildren? Many of them do not even have secondary schools in their own areas. They have to travel for miles if they want to go to school at all. In the Eastern Transvaal, in Belfast, where I spent a lot of my time, there is a very fine school indeed. Many of the children at that boarding school come from all over the Transvaal. However, that is not an elite school. The kind of child who goes to a school like that frequently does so perhaps because of home circumstances which make boarding school a necessity. The children of working widows, for example, frequently have to go to boarding schools. It is people like these working widows who sill suffer, people who really cannot afford to pay extra. I may say to the hon. the Minister that one of the letters I have received from someone on this subject suggested that it might be an idea for members of Parliament to go without their Railway concessions for a time. It might make them realize a little more clearly how much this affects people and how hard it hits them. It is a very natural thing to attempt to give one’s children the best possible education. Many parents make considerable sacrifices to send their children to the best possible schools and it is a basic right that parents should be allowed and encouraged to do this by the Government.

Another subsidy that I feel should be reinstated is the subsidy for Black commuters from the so-called resettlement areas. Again I would urge the hon. the Minister to persuade his Cabinet colleagues that it is vitally necessary to reinstate this subsidy. Black people living close to the breadline, either above or below it, just cannot afford to pay more for transport. I get the impression that because of the vast number of third-class passengers, the lines and services for Black commuters are more profitable than the services for White commuters. On this basis one would hope that there is a good case for a subsidy. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should do some very hard persuading indeed. Hundreds and thousands of Black commuters are very sorely affected by this situation. Their whole life depends on how much they pay for transport to get to work.

Mr. Chairman. I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member for Orange Grove said. The questions he put to the Minister will doubtless be replied to in full. I only wish I could free the hon. member of his Black obsession.

This afternoon I want to put a brief request to the hon. the Minister of Transport which, in my opinion, has real merit. I told you in my maiden speech that there was dynamic growth at Sasolburg, that within a mere 20 years this town has expanded to such an extent that it is now the third biggest in the Free State, with a population of 36 000, of which 23 000 are White. I also told you that it had become the biggest chemical industrial complex in Africa. This is a fact. The town is also, at this stage, on the threshold of new developments to the value of R200 million. This constitutes proof that the dynamic growth to which I referred, has by no means ceased. Now it is a fact that in its present form, with all the growth it has experienced, Sasolburg is still being served by the old Coalbrook station, which was originally built to serve the Coalbrook coal mine and the Kragbron power station. This antique station is still being used, virtually in its original form, to serve Sasolburg. Let me say at once that a very able and dedicated group of Railway officials is giving exceptionally good service to this community and this complex in difficult, even demanding, and primitive conditions.

Sir, allow me to just mention a few figures to the Minister. In the long run that is what really counts. These figures cover the past year from March 1973 to February 1974. The tonnage of traffic received and despatched that was handled at the goods sheds amounted to 24 255. The tonnage of goods received at or despatched to private sidings amounted to 2 663 653. The number of consignment notes and invoices handled was 84 145. The tonnage received by pipeline amounted to 3 436 006. I want to mention a few more figures to you. The number of cream cans and parcels despatched and received amounted to 41402 and 16 182 respectively. The number of way-bills in respect of parcels and baggage received and despatched amounted to 31 835. The number of tickets issued in respect of first, second and third class passengers amounted to 40 843. The most important figure I want to mention to the Minister, and the one which is really the determining factor, concerns the earnings of this station over the same period, namely from March 1973 to February 1974. The earnings of Sasolburg station over this period, including earnings from pipelines, amounted to R17 195 000. I realize that it sounds anomalous, perhaps, to state that the earnings of an antique little station dating from the old days should be of that order. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that this places it among the stations with the highest earnings in the Free State, and certainly, as far as comparable stations are concerned, the highest in the Republic. On behalf of the community of Sasolburg I should like to make a polite but urgent appeal to the Minister to provide Sasolburg, in the near future, with a station appropriate to its development and size. I think the Minister will agree with me that it would be very good for the prestige of the S.A. Railways, which stands out as one of our fine organizations, if this matter were to be rectified.

Mr. Chairman, it is almost ironic that I should follow the hon. member for Sasolburg, because whereas the hon. member is pleading for a station for an area where coal is handled and processed, I want to plead this afternoon for the storing of coal. We are aware that the S.A. Railways experiences problems arising from the seasonal nature of some products that have to be transported by the Railways. We are aware of the problems in respect of export maize, for example, which has to be taken to the harbour expeditiously from whence it can be shipped. We know too that the grain elevators have to be quickly cleared of corn to make room for maize. In addition, we in the Free State have another major problem and that is to satisfy the demand for coal in the cold winter months. We are aware that the S.A. Railways, and the Minister, too, have appealed to coal dealers from time to time to store the greatest possible amount of coal during the warm summer months. However, it is a fact that there are certain problems involved in the storing of coal which limit the extent to which it can be stock-piled. For example, there is a sportase of capital and storage space. We should like to make a polite request to the hon. the Minister to ease the burden on the coal distributors to some extent. We want to know whether it would not be possible to introduce an incentive rate for the transporting of coal in the warm summer months. An incentive rate of this kind could perhaps be along the same lines as that of the S.A. Airways for evening flights from Cape Town to the Rand or that charged by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications for its twilight service. In other words, we are asking for an incentive rate to be introduced which would enable coal to be transported at a lower tariff during the warm summer months. This would allow people to store larger amounts for the winter months when it is badly needed. It is true that excuses for the “inability” of the dealers to distribute the coal are often invented. One of the excuses one hears so often, is that it is all the fault of the S.A. Railways. I have even had some cases of people maintaining that on certain sections of the line the S.A. Railways confiscates coal for its own use or for use by the power stations. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we know that that is not correct. It is not fair that he Railways should have to carry the blame for the problems which have arisen as a result of the lack of storage space or of capital.

In conclusion I want to mention very briefly an idea concerning recreation facilities for the artisan staff of the S.A. Railways. In the past few years a vast amount of capital is being spent on water schemes and the building of very large dams. I want to submit an idea for the hon. the Minister’s consideration. I want to ask whether it would not be practically possible to make departmental housing available at some of the pleasure resorts. The Railway official would be able to go there with his family over the weekends to relax. I am sure that such a housing scheme could be made economical and that it would also give our elderly pensioners the opportunity to enjoy this privilege, which, we believe, is practically possible. One is always sympathetic towards our old Railway pensioners because they find it difficult to understand that increased pension scales involve increased contributions. I think it would have a good effect on these pensioners if the Railways could show, by way of some acknowledgment of them, that the service they gave in their time is still appreciated. Perhaps in the future we could even consider having days honouring our Railway pensioners in order to show gratitude for the work they have done.

I conclude with a request for an adjustment to be effected, if possible, making the 17½% increased on coal transport rates inapplicable during the summer months in order that there may be an incentive for dealers to stockpile coal.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear to me that the hon. member for Bethlehem is not satisfied with the Railway Budget. He presented his case very adroitly and he was naturally unwilling to hurt or to offend the hon. the Minister. However, one could read between the lines of his speech that he was completely dissatisfied with this Budget and that he is not among those hon. members who will vote for it gladly.

†In passing I would like to refer to the hon. member for Orange Grove who said a few moments ago that the hon. member for King William’s Town should get his facts right. As far as I know, the hon. member for King William’s Town quoted from the unrevised Hansard copy of the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove. Just to put the record straight, I want to quote again what the hon. member for Orange Grove said on 23 September—

Well, these are the facts that were given to us by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

You have quoted out of context. I said it was a possibility.

I really do not know why the hon. member for Orange Grove should take the hon. member for King William’s Town to task when the hon. member for King William’s town merely quoted back to him what he had said.

It was read out of context.

The ordinary English interpretation of this quotation is that the hon. member for Orange Grove said in fact that one could well say that motorists were subsidizing the mealie farmers to the tune of R58 million.

Yes, “could”.

I do not propose spending any more time on this.

No, you cannot.

There is a matter I should very much like to raise, and that is the house-ownership scheme. I should be glad if I could have the hon. the Minister’s attention, for this is an important matter. I would not say that the hon. the Minister has not had an opportunity for a proper investigation of the affairs of the Railways for I think it was his duty to investigate all matters concerning the Railways immediately after his appointment. I think that under these circumstances I am justified in telling him that he is acting unfairly towards loyal employees of the Railways. I am referring specifically to the house-ownership scheme. We know that the 100% house-ownership scheme is a very good scheme, but an employee may only benefit by it while he is in the employ of the Railways. The injustice to which I am referring is that which occurs when an employee of the Railways has to leave the service for any reason. This applies to all those employees who have to leave the service for reasons over which they have no control. I am thinking, for example, of employees who have to retire because a medical board has told them that they are not allowed to remain in the employ of the Railways any longer. No provision has been made for these people. It seems to me that these employees, who have rendered loyal service over many years, are being badly treated by the department. It is possible that the conditions pertaining to the sale of a house under this scheme may be improved. I have a copy of the conditions with me and I just want to read out two of the clauses.

†The first clause I should like to mention deals with the ownership of the property that has been sold. In terms of this scheme, the Railway Administration sells a property consisting of a piece of land with a dwelling-house on it to the employee, and the employee has the opportunity of paying off the amount of the purchase price over a period of 34 years. The conditions of sale provide that during that period ownership of the property shall remain vested in the Administration until such time as the applicant has liquidated his indebtedness to the Administration. In other words, the Administration remains the registered owner of that land and the employee can do nothing with the land except to pay the purchase price. When that employee is boarded as medically unfit by a medical board after having rendered several years of good service to the Railways, this contract of sale makes no provision for his case at all. The only provision made is clause 6 which states that if the applicant is retired prematurely for any reason and the amount of the superannuation or other benefits payable to him in terms of any law is not sufficient to meet his outstanding indebtedness, and the applicant fails to liquidate such indebtedness forthwith, the Administration may cancel the sale. I think this is disgraceful. Here is a man who has probably devoted the greater part of his life, if not the whole of his life, to the service of the Railway Administration, and because he is retired prematurely through no fault of his own he has the threat hanging over his head that if he cannot find some way to pay the balance of the amount due to the Administration in one lump sum, that sale will be cancelled. One can imagine the situation in a home. The breadwinner is no longer the breadwinner; he has become a pensioner, and his pension will not be sufficient to keep the wolf from the door. Under those circumstances this household is now threatened with the cancellation of this sale resulting in its having no roof over its head, and it now has to fend for itself. The Railway Administration simply washes its hands of this family entirely. I am addressing these remarks particularly to the hon. the Minister because the hon. the Minister started his career in the Railway Administration and is very proud of his association with that Administration from those early days. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he has not yet seen the light, other hon. members in this House have already seen it and realize that these conditions of sale must be amended. Some provision must be made to enable an employee who is retired prematurely to go on paying his monthly instalments of capital and interest as he has done in the past, and for a very good reason. As you know, the interest charged under this scheme is 3½% per annum. Assuming that this poor man who has been prematurely retired has to find the funds to pay the balance of the purchase price still owing, where can he go? The cheapest market he can approach today is that of the building societies, if they have funds. I know something about several of these cases. I know that for a period of about four months it was absolutely impossible to obtain funds. In the meantime, these poor families were under the threat of eviction at any time because of the cancellation of their sale. Eventually, one of these people was able to obtain a loan from a building society. We all know, however, that that loan carried a rate of interest of 10½%. This poor pensioner who had been boarded on account of his health and who could not work had then to find an extra 7% interest per annum in respect of the payments on his home. I think this is disgraceful. I know that this has been the case in the past. One would have thought that this would have been one of the first things the hon. the Minister would have rectified on assuming office. The explanation which one gets is something along the lines contained in this letter from the Railway Administration. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg will excuse me if I do not react to his speech except just to reassure him that I am convinced that the hon. the Minister is in fact capable of keeping the wolf to which he referred, from the door!

I should like to address a word of thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Administration, and at the same time make a request on behalf of my constituency. I want to express my thanks for the approval of the elimination of the dangerous railway level-crossing at Rivier Road, Verwoerdburg, in my constituency. I gathered that this matter was at present still at the planning stage and that it would possibly be placed on the programme of execution during 1976-’77. However, it may take longer and the small request I should like to address to the hon. the Minister arises out of this.

To be specific, I want to ask whether consideration could not be given to building a fly-over for pedestrians and bicycles over this dangerous railway line, a railway line carrying the heavy traffic between Pretoria and Johannesburg. Mr. Chairman, the existing crossings over this railway line are the following: In the first place, the railway level-crossing at Rivier Road, which I have already mentioned. It is situated in the southern part of the town. In the northern part of the town there is the road bridge Trichardt Road, a double-lane bridge, which, although it is not too busy at this stage, is shortly to be converted into a freeway connection. The railway level-crossing at Rivier Road and the Trichardt Road bridge are about four to five kilometres apart.

At the station at Verwoerdburg, which is virtually midway between the two points, there is a pedestrian bridge with a high set of steps. These are the only direct crossings over the railway line. At present, between 400 and 500 high school pupils, among others, use these crossings daily; viz. the two roads and the steps over the railway line. They are obliged to use these crossings because there are no high schools to the east of the railway line, and they therefore have to cross to the western side of the railway to reach one of the two high schools. A number of elderly people also live on the eastern side of the railway line and they, too, have to use these steps because many of them do not have their own transport. Mr. Chairman, children will be children and it often happens that they do not cross via the roads, but walk straight across the railway line, thus creating an extremely dangerous situation. It has already occured—a long time ago, fortunately—that a child was knocked over and killed on the railway line. As I have said, the elderly people are also obliged to cross the railway line via the stairs because the only post office where they are able to handle their pension and other matters, is situated on the western side.

While the situation as it is at present is not very good, therefore, I can foresee it deteriorating even further in the future. On the hand as a result of the increase in the volume of traffic over these two roads; i.e. both the level crossing and the road bridge —and on the other hand because within two or three years both these crossings over the railway line, the Trichardt Road bridge and the railway crossing at Rivier Road, are to be worked on. At that stage it is going to be extremely dangerous for the children and also for other people who use these roads over the railway line. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister and the Administration whether it would not be possible to build a bicycle and pedestrian fly-over bridge over the railway line midway between these two points at Cantonments Road. I realize, however, Mr. Chairman, that this is a matter that also concerns the local authority. They too are prepared to do their share, but any assistance from the Railways in this regard would be greatly appreciated. However, Sir, I realize that this is going to cost money because one cannot do these things for free.

This brings me to the next suggestion I should like to make. At the moment, four express and semi-express passenger trains run between Pretoria and Johannesburg in the mornings from Monday to Friday. I gather that these trains are not quite full, and I wonder whether it would not be possible, through good planning and amending of the times of these trains, to withdraw one of them. If this could be done without prejudicing the efficiency of the service in any way, I think that in this way we should bring about a substantial saving by means of which we could pay for the execution of this request which I have addressed to the hon. the Minister.

In contrast to the hon. members of the Opposition who have spoken in this debate on the Railway Budget up to now, I have only the highest regard and praise for the South African Railways. I had a problem in my constituency, but after I had taken it up with the Administration, it was given immediate attention and solved. Therefore, I cannot do otherwise but praise the South African Railways. I am referring to Mountain View Station and the crossing in Luderitz Street.

Yesterday the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had a great deal to say about the fares of Bantu from the homelands to their places of employment in Pretoria, but I should like to refer him to item 8 on page 5 of the Brown Book relating to a new station at Belle Ombre. I should like to refer him to item 23 on page 6 relating to the Winternest-Mabopani section, and also to items 74 and 75 on page 13 relating to the Hercules-De Wildt section, as well as to page 13, item 76, relating to the Hercules-Winternest section. Sir, we in Pretoria have reason to be extremely thankful. These items in the Budget affect Pretoria as a whole, but especially the northern areas of Pretoria. I am referring to Wonderboom, Pretoria North, Hercules, Gezina, Parktown and the Capital Park area. This Budget is going to give rise to expenditure that will run into an amount somewhere between R60 and R70 million. This is an enormous project which will eliminate many major problems for us. At the moment buses of African Bus Services run there which transport nearly 40 000 Bantu to and from the homelands per day and which give rise to traffic problems. With the growth of Mabopani, which was planned to house 500 000 Bantu, the matter will demand progressively more attention and there will be a greater need for the orderly transport of Bantu from the homelands to their places of employment.

What about Pretoria station?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is concerned about Pretoria station. I want to tell the hon. member that once Bell Ombre is operating it will bring relief in that at least 50 000 Bantu will be diverted from the central station. This is why I say that this matter affects Pretoria as a whole. Because Pretoria, par excellence, lends itself to a practical demonstration of the Government’s homeland policy, I should like to make the plea that we expedite this matter of transport being provided by the S.A. Railways, if possible, so that it may be possible for the Bantu to get home from his place of employment more easily and so that there may be a more effective connection between his home and place of employment. You know, Sir, there are cases of some of these Black workers arriving home only at 10 o‘clock at night and having to start planning by 3 o’clock in the morning to get back to work. Once the S.A. Railways has put this major project into operation, these people will be so close to their homes that it will be possible for them to spend more time at home, which, in turn, will have the effect that they will be happier and consequently be able to do a better job of work. A more effective connection such as this is essential as it will also give rise to increased productivity. We in Pretoria, especially in the northern area, are very thankful for this Budget, and consequently I shall vote with the greatest of pleasure that it be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Hercules to excuse me for not commenting on his speech. I should like to say to the hon. member for Florida, however, that I appreciate his problems when he makes a request to the hon. the Minister to have a pedestrian bridge built across the railway line in his constituency. We on this side respect his right to come to this House to make such a request to the hon. the Minister.

I say this because I am afraid I must take issue with the hon. member for Algoa for having accused hon. members on this side of making a political issue out of the St. Croix project. He said that because hon. members on this side had mooted the St. Croix project in this House, the hon. the Minister held this project in abeyance. If I understood him correctly, he said that the hon. the Minister held up this project because of the noises the United Party made on this side of the House. If what he is saying is correct, then I say that if anybody is making a political issue out of this project, it is not the hon. members on this side of the House. We must face the fact that this project should have been gone ahead with. I would say that it is the hon. members on that side who have made a political issue out of the St. Croix project. Often we on this side can see the needs of our country ahead and because of that, certain hon. members on that side make political issues out of these things with a result that things are not done at the proper time.

I should like to make another suggestion.I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister have a look at the developments in my constituency. I notice from the Brown Book that there is a total of R28,4 million budgeted for developments on the Upper South Coast which includes the areas of Umlazi and Prospection. I see from the Brown Book that approximately R1,2 million of that is to be expended in the current year. Of the R28 million, R24 million is for developments in the Umlazi Bantu township and for improving the railway facilities to supply this area, Chatsworth and the industrial development area of Prospecton.

This is a considerable amount of money but I want to ask whether it is sufficient. I ask this because if my analysis of this appropriation is correct, the money is being concentrated in the Prospecton Umlazi-Chatsworth area.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the developments which are taking place in this part of Natal. In the report of the Natal Provincial Administration’s Town and Regional Planning Committee we see that the population of metropolitan Durban is expected to increase by 540 000 people in the ten years from 1980 to 1990. Durban’s population is expected to increase from 1,4 million to 1,9 million. Of this increase of 540 000, approximately 400 000 will be in the Bantu, Asian and Coloured groups. These groups will increase their populations from just over one million to just over 1,4 million. The major portion of this increase is expected to be in the Umlazi and Chatsworth areas. If we read further, we notice that tremendous developments are also taking place in the Amanzimtoti area.

At the present time there are 1 200 flats being planned or constructed in the beach area of Amanzimtoti. Also, at Kingsborough, right next door, there are 2 000 ha of land being planned for by the Illovo-Glen Company which in time will create a city in itself. Further South there is a large area just inland from Umkomaas which is being zoned for the Indian population group. There is a tremendous shortage of land for homes and industrial development for Indians and it is on the cards that within the next 15 years there is going to be tremendous development inland from Umkomaas. There are also the Bantu recreational areas and holiday resorts at Umgababaa and those for Whites at Scottburgh, and in the Umzinto area there is another growth point for the Indian population group. I would say that this upper South Coast is an ideal setting for a commuter service from these areas directly into Durban. I say this because the line is electrified and because it is also a straight line. There are not many hills. A wonderful commuter service could be established to draw people off the roads.

I mention roads because if one looks at the statistics of the traffic on the Durban southern freeway, one sees that in 1969 there were 2 691 passengers per hour on that freeway; five years later, in 1974, there were 3 874 vehicles per hour on the southern freeway. This is an increase of 44% in traffic in a mere five years. I believe that this whole area can be developed as an ideal rail commuter area.

There is the Chatsworth service at the present time. We heard yesterday from the hon. member for Parktown about the overcrowding on the third-class passenger services on the Witwatersrand. I would like the hon. the Minister to have a look at the services supplying the Chatsworth-Umlazi areas. I have seen overcrowding on this route. On a number of occasions I have seen these trains travelling at speed with their doors open. I do not know whether this is due to the malfunctioning of the doors or whether this is due to the overcrowding of the train. However, I should like the hon. the Minister to look into this. I could be wrong, but is the fact that there is overcrowding on these trains borne out by the fact that under “Improvements” in this Budget an amount of R525 000 is being allocated for the strengthening of the underframes of 438 third-class passenger coaches? I may be wrong about this, but I just happened to pick this point up.

I also notice in this Budget that there is an amount allocated to convert 150 B-type wagons to handle sugarcane. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for having taken this step. It is my sincerest hope that these trucks will find their way into the Natal system and not just into the Eastern Transvaal system. At the same time I should like to say how pleased I am to see that there are 600 sugar wagons being built for the bulk haulage of sugar. I think this falls into line with the sugar industry’s desire to adopt bulk handling methods for their particular product.

I would like to appeal for better progress to be made on the construction of STD-type timber trucks. I see that the Budget makes provision for the construction of 1 500 at a total cost of over R13 million. However, I see that only R15 000 has actually been budgeted for in the current year. I sincerely hope that this position will improve in the near future.

Finally there is a matter which I should like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention, and that is that I accept that the Railways and Harbours Administration is an enormous organization in this country of ours. As such I believe that it has certain responsibilities to the community. After all, the industrial sector has so often these days been called upon to improve the environment and to accept its responsibility in preventing certain types of pollution and so on. I feel, therefore, that the Railways should also co-operate where possible. I am referring, in particular, to the advertising on large bill-boards you see today on Railway property. I think I am correct in believing that the South African Railways is the only company, for want of a better name, which is allowed to erect such bill-boards on its property so that other people may use them for advertising purposes. I notice that there is a certain amount set aside for this purpose, both on the expenditure side and on the revenue side. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to study this in order to determine whether this particular activity is worthwhile. I say this because we had what has been termed “the battle of Warner Beach” in my constituency. Here is a municipality which is struggling to try to improve its environment. They are planting trees and improving their parks and gardens. What did we have about 18 months ago? The Railways erected right on the beachfront, right opposite the Warner Beach station, a huge bill-board. After many representations this bill-board remained there and suddenly there was a big advertisement advertising a particular brand of beer. In spite of all the representations, nothing was done. Eventually, after a lot of publicity in the Press, the local community decided that they would block this billboard. So they planted a lot of trees in front of the board—many of the local people said that they watered them every day—in the hope that, within the not too distant future, this bill-board would be blocked by these trees. But, Sir, the Railways got the message, and the bill-board was removed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think I am the last speaker on our side. Therefore, I shall be quite tame. I shall not touch on contentious matters. [Interjection.] So those hon. members may carry on with their odd jobs in the meantime.

Actually I am on my feet to express a few words of thanks.

No—o!

Yes. In the first place I should like to express my thanks to my constituents, who, for the past number of years have …

Where is the biltong?

… had to make do without a regular passenger train service. The train service that existed before was suspended as a result of the sink-holes that occurred there. My constituents and those of my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Losberg, Mr. Janson, have displayed much patience, courage and hope over the years. They suffered this dangerous time with tolerance and without impatience. The situation as it is today, is that the passenger train service has not been restored as yet. I want to ask the hon. the Minister something in the general interest, so that people may get to hear about, it, because if it were to come from me it would not be published in any event. But if it comes from the Minister, it will be published. They only publish the other things I say. What I want to ask, is in the general interest, and confirmation by the Minister, will reassure the people in general. I understand from the staff of the Railways that there is hope that the service will be reintroduced soon. Then I also want to express my thanks to the town council of my constituency—I want to do it here in the House —that has approached and dealt with this matter with great intellectual patience over the years. Therefore I want to take the opportunity in this House to thank my city council. I think I am also speaking on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Losberg. Then, last but not least I want to thank all the Railway staff who have dealt with and are still dealing with this problem. I shall be pleased if the Minister will give us a peep into the new methods being applied there for measuring the movement of the ground. It would possibly be of interest to hon. members on the opposite side as it could serve to enrich their already limited insight. I shall be pleased if the Minister will let us have a peep, especially as regards the technical handling of the matter.

Now, Sir, I think I have thanked virtually everybody. All the same, I should also say that the constituents of Carletonville have asked me to convey their personal thanks to the hon. member for Carletonville for the fine manner in which he has been handling the matter over the years. This goes for the hon. member for Losberg as well, although he has not been dealing with the problem for as long as I have.

Now I want to mention only one more matter, Sir. I travel by train from Pretoria to Louis Trichardt now and again.

Do you take your rifle along?

The train departs from Pretoria at approximately quarter to nine and arrives at Louis Trichardt just before eight. On such occasions I see with my own eyes how the Black people sit hemmed in in those crowded railway coaches, and how they have to sit bolt upright the whole night long. I do not think this is fair. It does not seem fair to one. I want to bring it to the attention of the Minister and ask whether we could not do something about this. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have now done my duty.

Mr. Chairman, I think the House is entitled to thank the hon. member for Carltonville for a very brief, but cheerful performance at the end of a long debate. I think he must have read in The Cape Times this morning the report of a man who occupied his position as a guard in the last truck of a train in Switzerland, who has now been told that he must use hand signals as well as the whistle because a captive crow has decided, that he can whistle as well as the conductor. I do not know whether a captive crow has learnt to whistle as well as the hon. member, but we shall still see if it can possibly happen.

I want to raise three matters briefly with the hon. Minister. First of all, in announcing his increased rail tariffs, if the hon. the Minister did not give an assurance to the public, he came pretty close to it by saying that this would not have any dramatic impact on the cost of living. I think that he said that it could perhaps affect it by no more than 1%.

A half per cent.

Sorry, a half per cent. I do not want to let the hon. the Minister know how rapidly firms and organizations take note of these Railway Budgets in order to adjust their own tariffs. I say this, because while he was making this speech on 18 September the Cape Gas Company in Cape Town was writing a letter to all domestic consumers of gas in the Cape Peninsula in which they gave notice that the basic tariff would be pushed up by 40%, from R2-50 to R3-50 for the first 100 units for domestic consumers. The phrase included in their letter to the domestic consumers in the Cape Peninsula reads:

They did not even wait.

They are in too much of a hurry.

I wish to read it again—

Oh, no, Colin, man!

Rightly or wrongly, this is a letter which was sent to consumers in the Cape Peninsula, announcing tariff increases of 40%, and saying that one of the factors was that the new Railway tariffs announced on that day “seriously affect domestic gas production costs in the Cape Peninsula”. I merely wish to draw this to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

The second point is in connection with the quite disgraceful pall of smog which hangs over the Table Bay and Cape Town area, especially on autumn and spring days when neither the south-easter, the Cape doctor, or the north-westerly winds are blowing to disperse the smog. There was a time when this smog came largely from the power station. The power station has been switched to diesel or to oil fuel which has reduced the smog, but has increased the sulphuric content in the atmosphere. When one looks nowadays, one finds that most of the coal fumes or the fumes which are emitted emanate from the harbour area. This is not caused by ships which arrive at Cape Town, but by local coal-burning ships or tugs which emit the smoke or the shunting engines in the railway hard in Culemborg or in the harbour area. I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister and asked him what corrective steps had been taken, and he quite correctly said that in accordance with the dieselization programme it was planned to replace all mainline steam-engines station at Paardeneiland with diesel locomotives as from September 1975. Furthermore he said that the shunting locomotives in Table Bay Harbour would be replaced from September 1978. Although the hon. the Minister could not give us an assurance that these dates would be complied with, I think he has expressed his earnest intention which I should like to accept. However, I must refer to the earnest intention expressed by his predecessor. His predecessor said—

What is important, is the question of time. His predecessor gave that assurance to Cape Town and to this House in 1960, 14 years ago. Fourteen years ago it was only a question of time. We do not want this hon. Minister’s successor to be embarrassed by the fact that, while the hon. the Minister has said that this programme is now taking place, his successor must come back to the House in 14 years’ time and give a new date. There is no doubt that the smog emitted by the machines and implements of the Railways and Harbours in the harbour area is ugly and offensive. Now that the power-station has switched over to oil, it no longer emits smog that is visible, even though it is still poisonous, but the smog from the harbour is not only injurious to health; it is ugly and pollutes both the atmosphere and the buildings. We would like some better assurance from the hon. the Minister concerning his intentions for the future.

The third point I want to raise concerns an announcement made at a dinner attended by top businessmen in Johannesburg by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor who retired from the post of Minister of Transport earlier this year. This announcement was followed up by Press statements and SABC reports and has to do with the launching of the South Cape Corporation. This corporation was launched with a great fanfare of trumpets under such headings as “Ben Schoeman to Chair multi-million Rand Firm—Coal Deal brings biggest foreign investment to South Africa”. This may be a most appropriate venture and investment, but what concerns me is that the former Minister of Transport stated in his declaration that the Railways is also a partner in this whole project. He also listed Iscor, the General Mining Corporation and foreign investors who hold an 80% share. The statement said, inter alia, that the South African Railways are going to be responsible for a coal pipeline from Ellisras through Davel to Richards Bay and that the first of these pipelines will start delivering coal—5 million tons of it—from Ellisras to Richards Bay by 1977. This is to be followed by two further pipelines which in the end will deliver approximately 15 million tons. What concerns me is that there has been no reference in the course of this debate or in the course of the hon. the Minister’s speech to the fact that the Railways is involved with Mr. Ben Schoeman or this Italian Company in this major venture of coal being exported through Richards Bay. An examination of the Estimates gives no indication of the Railways’ involvement either. There was an announcement by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor that the Railways are committed to building three pipelines. He has already said—

I am surprised that the hon. the Minister has not announced this in the House. Is this in fact a specific decision by the Railways Administration?

*I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to furnish these answers to the House. To what extent are the Railways in fact involved in this project? Has it already been approved of by the Railways Administration, by the Cabinet or the Minister, as appears from the statement by ex-Minister Schoeman? Has a financial inquiry been conducted so as to check whether or not it will in fact be a profitable venture? Has an agreement in fact been concluded with ex-Minister Schoeman, his organization and the Italian Government? Who is going to finance the pipeline if the cost will in fact be R70 million? Are the Railways going to provide it to this company? Is the necessary amount going to come from the Current Account or from Capital Expenditure? As is evident from the statement by ex-Minister Schoeman, the Railways are concerned and they are responsible for financing and constructing and managing that pipeline. I also want to ask at what tariffs coal is going to be conveyed from Ellisras through Davel to Richards Bay. Have those tariffs been drawn up, and, if so, what impact will they have on the railway line between Vryheid and Richards Bay? Is this pipeline going to compete with the railway line between Newcastle and Richards Bay? Is there a general Cabinet decision in this regard? Here we have a very, very important project. There is talk of expenditure of R1 000 million. The controlling group in this scheme is an Italian company which wants a capital share of 80% in the scheme, and which will consequently have control. Especially since the Italian Government is not a perfectly stable Government, has it now been decided that this major project in connection with the export of coal will be carried on with the S.A. Railways and private undertakings in South Africa, but under the complete financial control of a foreign company? Can that really be in the interests of the country? I am putting this question, because a tremendous advertisement campaign was launched in this regard. There were statements and there was a special programme on the SABC in this regard. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Railways are in fact concerned in this, and, if so, to what extent they are concerned as regards the provision of capital and whether they in fact concluded contracts to deliver coal on behalf of this company from Richards Bay. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems as though the Government has really run out of steam. Since they are no longer able even to blow a whistle, I am going to raise a few points before we terminate the discussion on this stage of the Bill. At this stage I do not intend speaking on general matters. I shall rather touch on a few specific matters. At the Third Reading we can raise general matters again.

†The first point I want to raise is in relation to staff matters. I want to discuss the question of the Sick Fund and the inquiry that was made into the operation of this fund. This was started last year, I think, when I last raised it. The then hon. Minister told me that there was an inquiry in progress. In the short time at my disposal I do not want to go into detail. Anybody who has anything to do with any Railwayman will know what tremendous dissatisfaction there is in regard to the limitation of doctors whom Railway employees may consult and the fact that if a panel doctor is not available and such employee should consult any other doctor, he is liable to pay the bill himself. I took one case up to the General Manager and the hon. the Minister in which a parent who was desperate in regard to the state of health of one of his family consulted a non-panel doctor and then had to pay R500 out of his own pocket for medical expenses. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us that the investigation has resulted in the removal of this source of complaint and that staff members will have a freer choice in relation to the doctors they wish to consult.

I want to deal for a moment with the question of incentive bonuses. This is a system which appears to work well in the workshops. It has been praised by management and is accepted by the technical staff. I believe that we should try to extend this scheme further into other branches of the Administration. I think, for example, of marshalling yards. This is one of the bottlenecks. As far as I know, no bonus incentive scheme has been introduced in relation to marshalling yards. If this were done, it would act as an inducement for the quicker marshalling of trucks with a resultant improvement in regard to traffic. I think for instance of our harbours. A scheme has been worked out in this regard but has not yet been introduced, apparently because of a lack of co-operation on the part of the private sector working in the harbours. Surely one does not have to depend on the private sector to work out an incentive bonus scheme within one’s own organization? I want to suggest that incentive bonuses be introduced wherever humanly possible so as to bring as many people as possible into this scheme.

There is also a matter concerning widows which I should like to raise because this is the only place where I can put the searchlight on it. A widow obtains a free railway pass. She then becomes the breadwinner of her family. Usually, she has to go out and work because she is unable to live and bring up her family on her pension. And yet when she gets her annual leave, she can take herself off for a holiday, but she cannot take her children with her unless she pays the full fare. This happens to any widow who loses the breadwinner, her husband, whilst they have a young family. The number of people concerned is small and I hope that some attention can be given to this.

: Then, Sir, there is the question of the closing of the wage gap, which I do not wish to deal with at any great length. In this connection steps are being taken in the right direction, but I think the time has come when South Africa has advanced far enough to stop playing around with camouflage and fancy terms. I refer, Mr. Chairman, for instance to deck hands on tugs and on harbour craft, deck hands with a basic pay of about R184. In this connection I asked the hon. the Minister a question, to which I received a reply the other day. Sir, you have a deck hand who is a White person, and then you have a tug attendant (deck) who is not a White person. In reply to the question asked by me, the Minister admitted that their duties are identical; they do exactly the sanie job; the only difference is that one is called a deck hand and the other a tug attendant. The other difference, of course, is that the one earns R180 odd and the other R80 odd. Sir, let us face up to things. The situation is changing. I do not expect the gap to be closed overnight; it would be impossible to do it. The principle of closing the wage gap has been accepted, but let us stop camouflaging the position and at least give a person the dignity of the title of the job that he is doing. A fireman who is not White becomes a tug attendant (boiler) instead of being called a fireman, and yet it is the same job with exactly the same responsibilities. Not only does the non-White employee not get the same pay, but he does not get the dignity of the title of the job, although he is doing exactly the same work. Sir, you have the same situation in the case of the shunter and the train marshaller. Now that we have accepted the principle of closing the wage gap, let us give people the dignity of the title of the job that they are doing.

As far as housing is concerned, I would like to plead that with the change in the staff pattern, the allocation priorities be given attention. Housing has certain allocation priorities. I have not got the time to deal with it, but now that certain jobs are not being filled by Whites, who are being replaced in these jobs by non-Whites, the priorities for housing allocations should be adjusted accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes I have left I want to refer to the Airways and particularly to SAAFARI, the on-blink booking system. It does not go out of action very often; it happens only occasionally! But it does seem coincidental that about once out of every three times that you try to make a booking, you find that SAAFARI is on the blink and you are told, “sorry, the computer is out of action”. I do not know whether it is always a case of out of action, or whether this is a cover-up for other faults, but the fact is that the SAAFARI booking system is frequently out of order. It creates a lot of difficulties and delay for those trying to book. But the other weakness of the system—and this I believe is an important weakness—is that since the introduction of SAAFARI, there is no longer a waiting list and the Administration has no idea of how many people fail to get on to a plane. I had a letter the other day saying it is not really weekend trouble; it is only at the beginning and the end of a weekend that you have trouble, but here is a note I got the day before yesterday—

All flights ex Durban Saturday and Sunday full.

Not a single flight from Durban to Cape Town either Saturday or Sunday, and now I gather that Monday is also full. But while SAAFARI has no record, no waiting lists, the Administration has no idea of what traffic it is losing, and I suggest that the computer be talked to in its left ear and asked to incorporate another little hole somewhere in the system where you punch in the booking which the person wanted and which would have provided extra traffic, so that you can then plan your traffic properly. But you cannot plan when you do not know how much traffic you are turning away. [Time expired.]

I think I should simply begin with the hon. member for Durban Point who has just resumed his seat. After that I shall proceed to reply to the matters which were discussed here. The hon. member referred to the Sick Fund and to the investigation which was instituted. I just want to inform the hon. member that a report on the basis of the investigation instituted is already available. It is being considered at the moment and talks with reference to this report will be held between the Federal Consultive Council of the Railway Staff Associations and the Management in order to eliminate the problems which exist.

When?

Oh, as soon as possible. The talks will commence as soon as possible, for the report is already available. The hon. member also referred to bonus work. Now, I must tell the hon. member that this is something which I know quite a lot about and can talk about from experience because I have, done it myself for years in my own lifetime, for years. I am convinced that there is no better means of incentive in the world than bonus work. It is the greatest means of encouragement for anyone. I know, from personal experience, how much more one can do if one is working against the clock and if one is encouraged to do as much as possible in the time at one’s disposal. The hon. member admitted himself that the bonus system is being applied quite easily in the workshops of the Railways. That is true, but it is, in the nature of things, more difficult to do so in other places. The hon. member suggested that it should be applied in the shunting yards. I think this is perhaps a sphere of work where this would constitute a danger, because the trucks which have to be moved about could very easily be damaged as a result of working at greater speed. I mentioned in my Second Reading speech that we had conducted negotiations with the private sector to introduce a bonus system in the harbours as well, and although we could not succeed in doing so, we shall proceed, in the near future, to introduce a bonus system in the harbours as far as the officials who fall under the control of the Administration are concerned.

That was not in your speech. You just said it had been dropped.

Oh, did I not say that? Well, we intend introducing it ourselves, as far as it is possible. The hon. member also referred to the widows who may not take their children with them. This is a matter to which we could give attention.

The hon. member then referred to the wage gap which exists and requested— something in regard to which there is agreement—that the wage gap be gradually eliminated. But the hon. member conceded that this could not happen overnight, that it was a process which had to be dealt with gradually. With the latest wage adjustments, too, we made a special attempt to narrow the wage gaps. For the Whites the minimum increase was 12½%, and among the Coloureds it was 14%. Incidentally, I may just say that until quite recently the Indian workers in the Railway service were on a lower scale than the Coloureds. However, they have now been placed on the same scale as the Coloureds. In the case of Bantu the increase was 24%, as against the minimum of 12½% in the case of Whites. All this helps us to move in the direction in which the hon. member wants us to move.

But the gap is in fact becoming wider.

That may appear to be the case, but if this process is carried further, the salary scales eventually have to meet. There is no doubt about this— the salary scales have to meet eventually if this process which we have been applying during the latest salary increases is carried through to the end.

The hon. member went on to refer to the question of designations. I want to point out to the hon. member that this is a rather difficult matter. The hon. member must bear in mind that as in the past, the employment of non-Whites will in future take place in co-operation and consultation with the trade unions of the Railways. Those negotiations are sometimes of a difficult nature. It is desirable that the names of the posts be changed, as the hon. member requested, but I would rather that we did not, for the present, analyse that matter any further. I have taken cognizance of what the hon. member said.

The hon. member also referred to the SAAFARI reservation system and said that provision was not made for waiting lists. I want to say in passing that one of the problems which we are experiencing on the Airways is the question of people who do not turn up for the flight on which they have made a reservation. This is in fact a very real problem.

I was unable to mention it because my time had expired. I would in fact have said this in my next sentence.

I am mentioning this problem because I feel that it ought to receive attention. It happens so often that many people simply do not turn up for the flight on which a reservation has been made for them. Whereas the aircraft could otherwise have been full, it then departs only three-quarters full. In any event, there are a lot of vacant seats. The next day the person who had not turned up to start with comes along and casually offers the excuse that he had to attend a meeting the evening before. He then wants to make another reservation. At present there is no provision in terms of which he may be penalized in the sense that he has to pay more for his ticket. I think that we shall very definitely have to give attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Pinelands quoted a letter in regard to a gas company.

No, it was the hon. member for Sea Point.

I do not know how it is possible for such things to happen, but I think what the hon. member had in mind was to bring this matter into the open and to disclose the way in which such an adjustment in rates was being abused. I think he succeeded in doing so, and I therefore appreciate the fact that he brought the position in this regard into the open.

The hon. member then referred to the question of smoke in Table Bay harbour. I am by no means indifferent to the elimination of everything which causes pollution. I should also like to see a complete absence of smoke, if it can in any way be avoided. However, I think that we are becoming just a little oversensitive these days, particularly in regard to the question of smoke. To me smoke has always been a sign of life. Where factories have been established, one always sees smoke billowing. Consequently there is life. [Interjections.] Over the years we have had the smoke of steam locomotives, but now they are gradually being phased out. Personally I think the hon. member is becoming oversensitive. Nevertheless, by way of a reply to a question which he put, I furnished the hon. member with full details in regard to the attempt which we are making to eliminate smoke gradually from the harbour complex of Cape Town. We shall adhere as closely as possible to that programme.

The hon. member also referred to the announcement which ex-Minister Schoeman made concerning the export of coal. I want to inform the hon. member briefly that the Railways has been approached for advice, information, and so on, but apart from that the Railways is in no way committed in any respect. In regard to the last question put by the hon. member concerning the Government’s consent to such a scheme, I could also inform him that the principle in this regard has not yet been considered by the Government. The requests addressed to the Railways for information and for a statement indicating what it is capable of, and so on, are only part of a provisional study which is being made of the feasibility of such a scheme. However, the Railways does not yet have any financial or other commitment whatsoever in respect of this scheme.

The hon. member for Carletonville referred here to the train service which, according to him, has not yet been reintroduced in those areas which were afflicted by subsidences. I have been informed, however, that after this heavy rainy season, when things have returned to normal, the train service will probably be reintroduced. We have experts working all the time, investigating the desirability of reintroducing the passenger train service, and this will be done as soon as possible, if circumstances permit. Since the hon. member for Carletonville referred to it, I just want to mention that Mr. Rauch and his staff have really done pioneering work in this sphere. He is a civil engineer, a soil mechanic. The process to which the hon. member for Carletonville referred is a process whereby a hole is drilled through the soil so that an instrument may be placed therein. The instrument is called a tell-tale. If there is a movement in the earth’s crust, this telltale tells the story, and a bell rings in the signalling room. The bell indicates if there has been any movements and indicates where those movements in the earth’s crust are.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to services in the vicinity of Durban, particularly in Chatsworth and Umhlazi. He also referred to advertising material on Railway premises, and I should like to reply to that. I just want to inform him that if any complaints were to be received from any local authority with regard to the advertisement hoarding to which he referred, or in regard to any other advertisement hoarding, those complaints need only be brought to our attention and the advertisements will probably be removed.

The hon. member for Hercules furnished the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central with a very good explanation of the position in Pretoria. The problem to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred in regard to more extensive and improved facilities at the Railway station in Pretoria—T think he is rather far from home—will be for the most part solved or alleviated through the construction of the Bell Ombre station to which the hon. member for Hercules referred.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg asked for a fly-over bridge in his part of the world. The necessary attention will be given to that matter. I am not in a position now to make further details available to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the home ownership scheme. He referred to this 100% scheme in which he had allegedly found a flaw. He used a stronger term—I no longer remember what word he used; he was of the opinion, however, that the procedure which the Railways adopts here with regard to these home loans is a terrible one. I cannot altogether agree with him, for I think this home ownership scheme has already proved itself. Yesterday I furnished the particulars of the number of 100% loans which have already been made available to Railway officials. The long period during which the scheme has already been in operation and the number of homes which have already been purchased in terms of this scheme is proof in itself of how very successful it is. The hon. member must remember that loans in terms of this scheme are made available at a very low interest rate. I think the interest rate is 4%. In other words, there are great advantages attached to it. But the objection the hon. member is now making, is that people who leave the Service are penalized. In particular he singles out persons who have to leave the Service as a result of circumstances over which they have no control. There are very few such cases, but they do nevertheless occur. How can one distinguish now between the case of such a person, and that of a person who wants to leave the Service through his own doing?

If an official leaves the Service and his loan has not yet been repaid, the contract provides that the amount which he paid into the Pensions Fund and which is paid out to him on his retirement could be used to pay off the balance owing on the purchase price. If it is insufficient he must, in any case, pay the balance of the purchase price in some other way. If not, the sale is cancelled, with all the consequences which that entails. If it is not done in this way, what else could be done? What the hon. member wants, apparently, is that even if the person should retire from the Service, he should retain his proprietary rights to that house and should be allowed to occupy it and to continue to pay off the balance of the purchase price to the Railways in monthly instalments.

He was referring to those who retire for reasons of health.

But, Sir, what difference does it make whether he retires for reasons of health or whether he resigns to go elsewhere? Surely one cannot draw any distinction. The contract is there. If a person leaves the Service for any reason whatsoever, the Administration has to be covered in respect of this debt which it has incurred through purchasing a house for the official. Surely this is not such a terrible thing. It is, after all, a business transaction. I would assume, if he has already been paying off on the house for some time, and he still receives his pension money, which could contribute partially towards wiping out the balance of the debt, that he will be able to raise a loan elsewhere to cover what is still outstanding, whether it is a large amount or not. However, it really ought not to be so much that he will not be able to raise a loan. All that is asked of him when he retires is that his debt with the Administration be wiped out, after which he can take a transfer on the land. I am prepared to examine this matter in any case. If any unfairness does exist, we will try to remedy it.

The hon. member for Bethlehem said that there should be an incentive in regard to the conveyance of coal during the summer months. I suspect that the hon. member wishes to indicate in that way that the greatest demand for coal is during the winter, when the convyenace of coal creates the greatest problems. However, it is also attributable to the fact that there are, during the winter months, other goods, such as maize this year, which impose heavy burdens on the Railways. His proposal is, however, a sound and well-appreciated proposal. It indicates originality on his part, but I am fraid that there are problems involved. The greatest problem which I see in this is that there will have to be adequate storage space for coal. If coal were conveyed in large quantities to Cape Town, or anywhere else for that matter, during the summer months, it would create problems in this respect as well. The power stations usually have at most storage space for a two to three weeks’ supply. Consequently such a scheme would not entail so many advantages that it would be possible to eliminate the administrative problems of the Railways. Under the circumstances I doubt whether such a scheme is going to be at all feasible. Still, it is something to which one could nevertheless give attention.

The hon. member for Sasolburg followed up his maiden speech on Sasolburg—on the tremendous growth which is going to take place there—by asking questions in this debate in regard to the Sasolburg station. I can inform him that we will take into consideration and will investigate what he mentioned. However, he must bear in mind that the development of and the location of the station at Sasolburg forms an integral part of the larger network of activity and development in that area. In other words, we must not investigate the matter in isolation, but only in conjunction with the development which is taking place throughout the entire area.

The hon. member for Orange Grove again discussed the question of concessions for scholars and of the rates to and from resettlement areas. I think that these questions have been sufficiently discussed and that I need not say anything further about them.

The hon. member for Algoa drew our attention to the station at Despatch and also discussed harbour matters. With reference to that, and also with reference to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said in regard to the harbour at Port Elizabeth, I want to say that I recently paid a visit to Port Elizabeth, actually it was not all that recently, for it was still before I became Minister of Transport. The hon. member for Algoa went with me to visit certain places in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth. He conducted me around and showed me places which he very much wanted me to see. Inter alia, we visited the ore-loading plant, as well as the ore on the slope above the plant which has now been dismantled to make way for a new extension. I formed a very lasting impression of the disadvantages attached to that ore-loading plant. I want to state unequivocally today that I think it is in future desirable, for the sake of Port Elizabeth, to relocate that ore-loading plant or to do away with it altogether. I am aware that the dust—in fact, I experienced this myself—causes great inconvenience in that vicinity. In addition I want to say that the green light has now been given to the St. Croix scheme. When the St. Croix scheme is brought into operation I take it that the loading work which is done through the present installation will obviously be moved to St. Croix. In this way the plant in Port Elizabeth will then disappear. In regard to the Chari Malan wharf in the Port Elizabeth harbour, I want to inform the hon. member that what is being envisaged is first to dismantle the wharf on the seaward side and then on the landward side. More and better railway lines to that wharf will also be constructed, and the necessary improvements will be effected for the eventual construction of a container wharf in that area.

The hon. member for King William’s Town referred to livestock and the 60% increase in the transport rates. I want to inform the hon. member as has been stated previously, that the present rate only covers 45% of the transportation costs. The increased rate, which has been increased by 60%, will only cover 65% of the transportation costs. In other words, livestock will, even with the increased rate, still be conveyed at a great loss. If the responsible bodies feel that livestock should continue to be conveyed at a loss, we shall have to find other means of compensating the Railways for this. If not, we try to narrow that gap, in other words, to bring the rates on all goods which are at present being conveyed uneconomically, closer to economic rates according to the circumstances. However, circumstances are not all that terrible. We made a calculation with beef at a price of R1-60 per kg. At that price it means that the increased rate amounts to only 2c per kg, in other words, 2c on a value of R1-60. It is calculated that the conveyance of a slaughter animal which is worth R250 to R300 on the market today, over the longest distance in the country, viz. from Grootfontein in South-West Africa down to Cape Town, will be an additional R7. However that may be, these are the facts. I think we have thrashed out this matter sufficiently. There is hardly anything we can do about it. The hon. member for Prieska also referred to the conveyance of livestock, and also to a fly-over bridge at Prieska. I listened to him very attentively. These are pre-eminently local matters, and I shall in due course give attention to them.

The hon. member for Albany also mentioned the increased prices for livestock, and he went on to point out that agricultural lime was a mineral and that the rates there had been increased by 21%. I just want to say that we who hail from this part of the world are not really accustomed to using agricultural lime, for it is only to poor acid soil that one adds agricultural lime to sweeten it. Nevertheless, it is necessary to add agricultural lime to that kind of soil.

The hon. member referred to the valuation of livestock where the livestock conveyed by the Railways has been killed or injured and compensation has to be paid. I have already approved an increase in the valuation from R80 to R154 in the case of beef cattle and from R10 to R17 in the case of sheep and goats. These new valuations will be introduced by means of legislation early next year. I shall also give attention to the idea expressed by the hon. member, viz. that this should be done by way of regulation rather than by way of legislation. I think that there is merit in the hon. member’s proposal, for if it can be done by way of regulation, we need not wait for legislation which first has to be piloted through Parliament.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke followed up on what the hon. member for Kuruman had said. I want to tell them that the representations which they addressed to me here in regard to the integration of a railway line from Sishen up to Makwassie is rather a tall order. The hon. members must remember that the line between Pudimoe and Schweizer-Reneke has to be reconstructed completely. It is a branch line of a standard which will not in any way satisfy the standard of the through line. Consequently this branch line will have to be reconstructed completely, with the result that for all practical purposes the line from Sishen down to Makwassie will be a new one. It will also have to be electrified and the G.V.B. control system will have to be installed in order to integrate this line with the other lines in that vicinity. According to our estimate that line will cost R92 million. I want to inform the hon. members that in addition such a line will in all probability attract traffic from other lines, it will be of ously following another route. In other words, to the extent to which those lines will attract traffic from other lines, it will be to the disadvantage of the Railways in respect of these other lines, and for that reason it cannot really be considered. However, that may be, I anticipate that the Northern Cape is standing on the verge of tremendously great development. I think that we should simply keep this development in mind, and that we should examine the situation from time to time. Who knows, possibly a railway line such as that may in future become an economic proposition?

The hon. member for East London City referred to East London here. I shall at the same time reply to the hon. member for East London North who said yesterday that he expects a reply from me; that I must tell him why nothing is being done in East London. If he were to glance at the Brown Book he would see there are no fewer than 24 items for East London itself in that Book.

Those are trivial items.

No, they are not such trivial items. There are no fewer than 24 items in the Brown Book. There is an amount of R3½ million in regard to the harbour alone. I should like to refer to this further. One item is on page 157, item 1395; the following on page 160, item 1415; the following is item 1416; and then there is item 1353. This is only in respect of the harbour. Then there are a further 20 other items under the head “East London”.

What is the total amount involved?

The hon. member can look it up for himself. Apart from that there are four other items under the head “Cambridge”, which is also near to East London. Therefore I do not think that the hon. member has any great reason for complaint.

He was probably looking in the telephone address-book again.

Provision is also being made for containerization.

The hon. member for Stilfontein raised a matter yesterday in regard to a fly-over bridge in his area; this is the level crossing at Klerksdorp on the road to Boetrand, not so? This fly-over is down on the books; in other words, it is already on record, but it has not yet been given the green light. It is earmarked for elimination in terms of the provisions of the sections concerned in the Level Crossings Act, 1960, and consulting engineers have already been appointed to design this fly-over as it has to fit in with the envisaged provincial road system. After that the responsible committee will consider it to determine the priority of this fly-over. That is the information I should like to give the hon. member in this regard.

The hon. member for Parktown raised certain matters here yesterday. He asked how many reservations were being made for persons in terms of the third-class reservation scheme. He referred to the third-class reservation scheme which we now have on Fridays between Pretoria and Pietersburg. We have already said that we should like to expand that system further, which appears to be a success. The hon. member asked how many persons were being booked into a compartment. The reply is six. When reservations are made, only six are made. It goes without saying of course that when no reservations are made and the trains are full, then as many as are able to board the train.

The hon. member for Parktown also referred to the second-class reserved coaches. He said they were untidy and dirty. I just want to inform the hon. member that these second-class reserved coaches are cleaned and washed in exactly the same way as all the other coaches. I think it is simply the people who use these coaches who are a little untidy. I also want to inform the hon. member that the latest purchases of second-class reserved main line coaches in comparison with the purchase of ordinary second-class coaches is as follows: As far as the second-class reserved coaches are concerned, 215 were purchased, and as far as the second-class coaches for Whites are concerned, 410. This will give the hon. member an indication of how we are not omitting to purchase new coaches for this particular service.

The hon. member also referred to the services to Soweto. I should like to indicate to him here that, strangely enough, the number of passengers on the trains to Soweto have recently decreased. In 1970 the number of one-way passengers was 204 000 per day; in 1971 it was 199 000; in 1972 it was 197 000; and in 1973 it was again 197 000. This indicates a decrease in the number of one-way passengers a day. We are now devoting attention to this matter, and indeed, Sir, I have here a long list of undertakings on the part of the Railways with regard to the service to Soweto, but time does not allow me to give my full attention to this matter now.

Sir, the hon. member for Kempton Park referred here to the marshalling yard. I just want to say that this is one of the largest undertakings ever tackled by the Railways. The building of that marshalling yard will cost in the region of R300 million. It is a tremendously large undertaking which will entail a tremendous number of advantages for the handling of trains in that vicinity.

The hon. member for South Coast requested that we build a harbour on the South Coast, and said that he was going to ask for this every year while he remains a member of this House. Sir, that is another tall order. Richards Bay is under construction on the north coast, and now the hon. member wants a harbour on the south coast as well. Sir, there are a tremendous number of problems attached to this, and I want to ask the hon. member not to be too hopeful about this matter, for to what places are the goods going to be conveyed from his harbour? He has to have a railway line system; he has to have a hinterland which will take the goods from the harbour. But I have, nevertheless, taken cognizance of the hon. member’s request.

Sir, the hon. member for Langlaagte referred to housing and the hon. member for Durban Central to flats. I must tell him that flats are not popular with the railwayman. A committee of inquiry was instituted into housing for railway officials. The representatives of the railway officials themselves are of course consulted, and in general I can inform the hon. member that the railway officials do not regard the idea of flats sympathetically, particularly for the reason which the hon. member himself mentioned, viz. that the people have to work shifts and frequently have to sleep during the day, and also because they do want at least a little space around them in which to do a little gardening, and they do want to be away from the noise a little. Consideration is preferably being given to cluster houses, so that each can have a little space around it.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to various stations. I have already referred to Pretoria. He also referred to the harbour in Port Elizabeth, to which I have already referred.

The hon. member for East London North also referred to the train service between East London and Johannesburg. That service was partially cancelled through lack of support; the train services were reduced from six to four services per week and the trains ran on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and Saturdays. It appeared that it was not desirable to continue with this arrangement, and from December of this year it will be changed so that the trains will run on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.

Sir, I now have the available information in regard to the activities in the harbours.

†Since 1963 the department has placed in service a new tanker berth, completed in 1970, a new grain elevator and berth, and a new commercial berth adjoining the elevator berth. New facilities to be constructed are the following: a roll-on-roll-off stub for containers at the bridge end of the West Quay at a cost of R458 000; provision for this work will be made in the Estimates for 1975-’76 and the eastward extension of West Quay by 102 metres at a cost of R862 000; provision will also be made for this work in the Estimates for 1975-76.

*The hon. member for Vryheid referred to Vryheid station. For the present a relocation of this station is not being envisaged, but what is in fact being envisaged, together with the construction of the Richards Bay railway line, is the construction of a new station approximately 6,3 kilometres east of Vryheid. This appears under item 22 of the Brown Book. It will be a full-scale station for passengers, Whites and non-Whites. The hon. member also made inquiries in regard to the trucks which are being used for coal and whether these cannot be utilized to better effect on return journeys. I may just inform the hon. member that this is in fact being done, or at least, if it is not being done, the necessary permission has been granted for these to be used for loading wood. The hon. member also referred to the increased demurrage charges on trucks. The hon. member felt that this was an additional burden on the farmers, but it is not a compulsory burden. If they empty the trucks quickly, it costs nothing, and that is what we should like to see being done. Therefore, the hon. member must first help us to bring this about.

The hon. member for Boksburg referred to the compound at Delmore. He objected to those coal stoves there, and felt that there should be a change. Well, we had hoped to convert to fuel oil, but with the oil crisis we have changed our minds, and I think that for the present we will simply have to continue with these coal stoves. Perhaps we will in future find some other means of dealing with this problem.

Lastly I just want to refer briefly to the observations made here by the hon. member for Simonstown in regard to dry-docks.I want to say to the hon. member at the outset that this is not really a railway matter any more; it is in fact more of an industrial matter, but according to the information I have at my disposal the IDC is no longer interested in the construction of a dry-dock at Malagasy. I have been informed that the World Bank has also instituted an investigation there, and that the result was negative. The IDC is out of it. Here in Cape Town the IDC instituted another investigation, and it appeared that the largest dry-dock in the Cape Town harbour could take ships of approximately 220 000 tons. This is an awkward size. It is not large nor is it small and it will only take a small section of a large market. At present nothing much is really being done at Saldanha either. To tell the truth, the IDC is marking time a little in respect of Saldanha. The IDC has negotiated with shipbuilders to form a consortium for the construction of a dry-dock in Saldanha, but the proposed partners of the IDC thought that it was not a viable proposition. That is still the position at present. Mr. Verolme, to whom the hon. member referred, is still there, but he has not yet come forward with any specific proposals. That is where the matter rests at the moment. As far as the Railways are concerned, the Railways are prepared to make the dry-docks, which are being operated at a loss by the Railways, available to a consortium in the form of an industry which can be operated in conjunction with the shipbuilding industry itself. This is where the matter rests at the moment.

Sir, I think I have now replied briefly to all the questions put here, and I should like to thank the hon. members who participated in this discussion, principally in regard to matters affecting their own constituencies. I think it was a very fruitful discussion and I should like to express my appreciation for it.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Mr. Speaker, the House has been discussing the Railway Budget since Monday. As a matter of fact, we have been dealing with it for more than four days. I think I would be correct in saying that the debates took place in a particularly pleasant and informative atmosphere. It is true that here and there a pressure pipe burst and that some water spurted on to the hot coals, but I can say that the debate was a pleasant and informative one throughout.

It is also common knowledge that a small group of hon. members were the guests of the Railways Administration in the Cape Town Docks last Friday. The few hours we spent there were quite pleasant and informative. However, I do not think the fact that the Administration was such a pleasant host to us has had anything to do with the fact that the debate has been conducted in such a pleasant manner.

I think the debate was a pleasant and informative one because the hon. the Minister was prepared to respond to criticism in a very calm and collected way, whether or not there was any sound basis for such criticism. I think if we continue to conduct debates on Railway matters in such a fruitful way, it would help to support the Administration in matters which are perhaps not easily dealt with.

Having said all this about the pleasant atmosphere, there are still, after all these hours of discussion, some question marks hanging over certain matters which were raised by the hon. the Minister. I believe the first question mark hangs over what I would call the impact of the increased tariffs on the cost of living in South Africa. I know the hon. the Minister has tried to minimize the matter in that he suggested that the increased tariffs would only result in an increase of 0,5% in the cost of living. However, something the hon. the Minister overlooks, is that it is not only the actual increase which is going to have an effect, but something which will perhaps have a similar effect on the economic community in South Africa, is the psychological aspect of the matter.

I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Sea Point this afternoon when he was quoting a certain letter. There is no doubt that there are people in South Africa in the business world and otherwise— thank Heaven it is not everyone—who seize upon opportunities such as these to increase prices and to make more than a justifiable profit out of them. What is more, it is also true that the effect of this increase will in due course be felt in ever widening circles.

The hon. the Minister suggested that we might have made ourselves somewhat ridiculous by exaggerating the matter. I want to point out that our intentions were sincere, and maybe the hon. the Minister will agree with us in 12 months’ time that the impact of the increase in the tariffs has been far greater than it was thought to be at first.

Let us take as an example the question of meat. The hon. the Minister said the effect of the increase in tariffs would be that meat would cost 2c per kg more. When the consumer buys the meat, however, he will find that he will not only have to pay 2c per kg more. By that time the increase will have doubled and even trebled. However, when one goes to the butcher to complain about the large increase, the butcher will say: “But have you not heard about the increase in the Railway tariffs?” No one calculates exactly how much the increase in the price of meat should be; it is simply accepted that there should be an increase.

The butcher may not even have paid the higher tariff.

Yes, I grant the hon. member that. The butcher may not even have paid the increase, but on account of the psychological effect the increase has had on the public, he knows that he can put up the price of meat.

Something that struck this side of the House as strange, was that the hon. the Minister deemed it necessary to have this enormous increase in tariffs at a time when the whole of South Africa was asked to try to keep prices as low as possible in an attempt to fight this monster of inflation. The hon. the Minister now has a surplus of R32 million from last year. It is true that he is going to pay this surplus into the Rates Equalization Fund. It is also necessary for this Fund to be built up, but why should it be done at this stage? Why is this R32 million not used now in an attempt to keep tariffs in South Africa lower? A question mark is hanging over this entire matter. The following twelve months will show whether we are right or whether the hon. the Minister is right. However, I am afraid that the history of price increases in South Africa is going to prove that this side of the House is right. However, the question mark remains. Question marks are also hanging over the matters the hon. the Minister raised with us.

There is a question mark in regard to what he referred to as the provision of socio-economic services. For the first time the hon. the Minister came along and told us emphatically: The Railways is not meant to provide socio-economic services in South Africa. We agree with him wholeheartedly. That is a fact. The Railways is not meant to provide socio-economic services. The hon. the Minister went further and said: If such services are demanded from the Administration, either the Government or other bodies will have to ask for them and then those particular bodies or the Government will have to compensate the difference in the price. However, something the hon. the Minister is losing sight of is that he has inherited sixty years of administration in South Africa. I suggest that the Railways has, over the years, provided these socio-economic services at numerous levels and to a large extent, and one of the problems the hon. the Minister is battling with today, is this inheritance of socio-economic services which have to be provided.

What do you mean?

I shall come to that in a moment. I mean that social or economic services are being provided in that tariffs are lower than the actual cost the Railways has to pay in order to handle specific traffic. Where do we have an example of this? After all, we know that thousands of passengers use the Railways every year on a concessionary basis, or free of charge. Surely we know this. Numerous Government departments use the Railways every year—the Public Service employee and his family use the Railways. This really forms part of the salary the official receives. My argument is that it should not be expected of the Railways to bear this considerable burden of tariff concessions to passengers. As far as defence is concerned, thousands of trainees are transported by the Railways on a concessionary basis every year. The question is simply the following: Are we going to approach the Department of Defence and ask whether it is prepared to do its share to improve the position of the passenger services of South Africa? There are numerous other examples, among others the question of food and agricultural products. Where do we see any justification at all for the Railways having to deliver a product at a price which is lower than its actual cost. Except for socio-economic reasons? What other reason is there? It is a fact that we have had a new principle added during the last couple of years. We found that the Railways received certain subsidies from the State coffers in respect of specific export industries, in respect of border area development and in respect of resettlement areas. This we appreciate. My problem is that the hon. the Minister is now prepared to adopt a certain attitude on the matter and that he does not want to consider the history of the entire Railways. He does not want to admit that a mistake has been made over the years and that this mistake has to be rectified now. As a matter of fact, it is stated in the report of the Schumann Commission that tariffs have to be adjusted in course of time to fit in with the cost. This is an attempt to move away in the future from the provision of these socio-economic services by the Railways. Of course, we agree with that. However, we cannot feel satisfied about the matter and simply leave it at that.

We have the same problem as far as capital is concerned. The hon. the Minister told us that he is prepared to ask the Treasury to consider writing off a portion of the burden of interest. As we know, the capital account of the Railways now amounts to over R3 000 million. Between 95% and 100% of this capital, on which we now have to pay interest, comes from the Treasury. Sir, let us suppose the Railways is a public company, and that the capital of the Railways was raised by selling shares. The shareholder would then expect to receive a dividend. Because the money for the capital of the Railways comes from the coffers of the Treasury, you and I, Sir, the public of South Africa, are really the shareholders of the Railways, through the Government. But, Sir, do you know what we are doing? We lend the Railways R3 000 million for 60 years. We then tell the Railways: “Look, we do not mind whether you make a profit or whether you incur a loss; we want our dividend every year”. Then we go further and tell the Railways that we not only want our dividend, irrespective of whether there is a profit or a deficit; in spite of the fact that there may be a deficit, they have to provide the socio-economic services in South Africa as well. A big question mark is, to my mind, hanging over this entire matter. The hon. the Minister told me I should not worry, but I cannot understand how we can allow loans for capital purposes to accumulate over generations. I can see the day coming when it will simply be impossible even to speak in terms of redemption. The burden of interest will be incalculable. What is going to happen? In some way or other an arrangement will have to be made either for the Railways to be able to build up its own capital for new developments or for the State to render assistance in order to bring about some change or other in the methods of raising loans which are being applied at the present time.

Then I come to the question of passenger services. Over this, too, there hangs a question mark. The hon. the Minister did not satisfy us in this regard. We tried to isolate one of the problems of the Railways. We told the hon. the Minister something he ought to know, i.e. that the entire deficit is really due to the fact that the passenger service shows a deficit of more than R100 million. That is the present position. However, as a whole the Railways suffer a deficit of only R50 million. This means that the passenger services are being borne by means of cross-subsidization through the conveyance of goods, livestock and so on. We told the hon. the Minister that this state of affairs cannot continue in this way. We know passenger services are very essential, and we should like to hear from the hon. gentleman in which way he is going to deal with this enormous problem. After all, we are dealing with enormous problems in the cities at this very moment. We also know that the Driessen Committee was appointed to inquire into urban transport problems. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister what role he is prepared to play in an attempt to solve the urban traffic problems. He did not tell us anything about that. The local authorities simply do not have the capital to solve their traffic problems. As things are at the moment, they do not even have money to build roads.

The way I see matters, there are some steps that can be taken for the large-scale solution of traffic problems in South Africa. In the first place, we shall have to withdraw all motor traffic from some of our central city areas. In the second place, we shall have to decide that the passenger train is the best method for the conveyance of large numbers of passengers. Once we have decided on this, we should not only modernize or even speed up our present train services; we shall have to consider underground trains. We shall have to consider other forms of transport.

Monorail?

Yes, the monorail. In Britain they are carryingout large-scale technical-scientific investigations at the moment. Trains for urban transport are being designed which will not only be very safe, cheap and pollution-free, but which will be enormously fast and will, at the same time, be able to convey a tremendously large number of passengers. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether there is any vision of the future which he can hold out to us in this direction. This is a most difficult problem. I say again: We know that the local authorities are unable to cope with his matter, because the cost is too high. We should like the hon. gentleman to lift the curtain for us somewhat over the Driessen Report or, for that matter, the work done by the Committee if the report is not available yet.

Surely, it will be made available to you.

No, it will not be made available. Where is the Straszacker report then?

That is a different story.

When will we have the report of the Driessen Committee?

That is not in my hands, but in the hands of the Minister of Finance.

Let me put it this way to the hon. the Minister. A question mark hangs over this entire aspect of passenger transportation, simply because it shows such a tremendous loss. We should have liked to know whether the hon. gentleman has any particular vision in this regard, or whether he is able to lift the curtain a little in this respect.

There is also a question mark hanging over the Sishen-Saldanha scheme. A very great deal has already been said about this matter, but what I find regrettable—and I say this with the greatest respect—is the fact that, while the hon. the Minister came to this House and said that they had decided to make a multi-purpose line of the single-purpose line, we on this side of the House, know that a committee was appointed to inquire into this matter, something the hon. the Minister did not mention at all. The hon. the Minister said that the committee was handled by one of his colleagues.

The work of the committee is of the utmost importance for this debate and, surely, of the utmost interest for the hon. gentleman himself. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister does not want to tell us what is contained in that report. Surely, we can at least ask him to tell us. It seems to me as if we are entitled to know whether the Straszacker Committee agreed with the Government on this major decision.

As far as this scheme is concerned, we are clearly dealing with a bastard-child and, as we know, a bastard-child always causes some problems. As far as this railway is concerned, we are dealing with two authorities and, as hon. members know, one can never serve two masters. If the pattern of future negotiations is worked out properly by the Railways and Iscor, and if a conflict arises because there are differing attitudes—and this can happen quite easily—who is going to have the final say?

The Cabinet.

Yes, but the master has had his say before, and although we know what the master said, we do not know at this stage why he said it. We do not know why he said it, because we do not know what was recommended by the Committee. I think the hon. gentleman should have lifted the curtain for us a little and should have told us what considerations are applying here. I simply cannot see a matter such as this being able to make any progress as an economic and efficient project in future. At some stage or other problems are going to arise which are going to cause the hon. the Minister and also South Africa headaches.

Finally, the more I consider this matter, the more I come to the conclusion that I can see no reason at all why the Railways of South Africa did not decide initially to build this railway line itself. What earthly reason can there be? My friend next to me says I still have a few minutes left to me, which I want to use to consider this matter. The only motive Iscor had to build the railway line was because they wanted a railway line which could carry iron ore for them at tariffs which were sufficiently low to make them competitive in comparison with overseas competition. Apparently the Railways were unable to build such a low tariff railway line. Iscor was given the necessary authority to build the railway line. Now that the railway line is going to be built, together with all the planning and contracts, the Government makes it a multipurpose railway line, with all the problems, all the tariff surcharges and all the costs Iscor wanted to eliminate. Just consider the question of staff. For example, the staff will have to be paid the same salaries. Negotiations will have to be conducted and there will definitely have to be such a thing as tariff agreements. What additional benefits is Iscor going to derive from this transaction? In my humble opinion, the original motive has fallen away. In a previous debate I told the hon. the Minister’s predecessor—and I am coming back to this point—that, as far as I am concerned, it is a tragedy that a project such as the Sishen-Saldanha project cannot be undertaken by the hon. the Minister of Transport. This is a fine project, but whether it will succeed the way they are going about it now, I do not know. However, if Iscor is able to undertake that project and will continue running it under the present dispensation, I cannot see why the Railways could not do so either. If the Railways is able to tackle this project, they ought to take it over now and say: “We are going to handle this proposition and with our experience and our technical know-how we shall try to make a success of the railway line between Sishen and Saldanha”. Unless the hon. the Minister says today that he will do this, I promise you, Sir, that the time will Come for him to come back to this House and say: “The United Party was right again; we are going to take over this project”. It seems to me that this is going to be the ultimate answer.

Mr. Speaker, right at the beginning I want to congratulate the hon. member for Maitland on the spirit in which he introduced this debate, especially when I compare it with the spirit evinced by the hon. member for Durban Point when he introduced the Second Reading debate. Hon. members will recall all the “shocks” which he told us about, the shocking Budget that had been presented, etc. The manner in which this hon. member acted here this afternoon, compelled me to think of what had happened in this debate last year. Last year already the hon. member for Durban Point was one of the main speakers in this debate. He said something very interesting last year, which in effect seemed comic. He gave a whole analysis and then went on to say that the Railways needed just one thing to pull it straight, and that was a driver in Uncle Ben’s place. He said that Uncle Ben had had his day, that he could no longer be a driver, that he could no longer be the engine driver of the train. Does the hon. member remember those words? However, there is much more to what he said. He said that there was only one person in this House who could be the driver of this train and who was competent to run this large undertaking. He did not mean the hon. member for Durban Point. He did not consider himself competent to run this large undertaking. He said the only person who could run this undertaking in Uncle Ben’s place was Marais Steyn.

Everybody makes mistakes sometimes.

Now Marais Steyn is no longer there. Who is therefore the prospective driver of this train? The hon. member suggested last year that he himself was not competent to do so.

He cannot even stoke it.

It is no wonder that he has appointed the hon. member for Maitland to do so. The hon. member also went on to say that at this stage there was not even a fireman on this side of the House who had been trained to succeed Uncle Ben. He said we did not even have a decent fireman. He wanted to know who on earth on this side was competent to succeed Uncle Ben.

Where is the fireman?

What the hon. member lost sight of …

Mr. Vause Raw.

I have found out that the other side does have something in Mr. Vause Raw.

Thank you.

Do you know what you have in him? He is the man who goes tapping with the little hammer when the train steams into the station and who, after 40 years, does not know why he has been doing this. Hon. members apposite do therefore have a Railway man who can perform a task. However, the hon. member for Durban Point and the Opposition failed to take into account that on this side there was no fireman to succeed Uncle Ben but in fact an excellent mechanic. He is a person who came up from the workshops and reached the highest post, that of Minister. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate that mechanic on his brilliant performance in handling a difficult Budget. I am convinced that the man on the other side who is tapping the wheels has lost the battle.

Did you also work on the Railways?

No, I did not work on the Railways. Therefore hon. members on the opposite side should not appoint me as the driver

Vause, occasionally it is a “hot box”.

The hon. member for Maitland once again raised the matter of the rates increases in respect of the conveyance of stock, after the hon. member for Durban Point had already done so. The hon. member for Maitland said that the consumer would at least have to pay so much and so much more on this increase. I think it was, after all, stated very clearly that this increase was not being passed on to the consumer but would be absorbed by the producer. Since the last rates increase there has been a tremendous increase in the price of slaughter-stock. Now I want to suggest—and should I be wrong, hon. members opposite may point this out to me—that this increase which will have to be borne by the producer is by no means proportionate to the increase in meat prices since the last rates increases we had. I think the hon. member for Newton Park …

It went up twice in 18 months’ time.

Yes, but what was the percentage? I must ask what the percentage increase was which occurred in the price of meat over the past 18 months. The hon. member for Newton Park is a good farmer and a good agriculturist and he cannot deny what I am saying.

Has the price of meat risen by 150%?

The hon. member also referred to the socio-economic factors as far as the Railway Service was concerned. I shall deal with that later in my speech.

When a business undertaking reaches the stage where it is faced with deficits, it has to investigate the activities of its business undertaking very thoroughly. Before such a business undertaking can seize at the increase of the price of its product which must provide it with the necessary earnings, it has to take other factors into account. It can only give priority to increasing the price of its product if it is convinced that that price is lower than those of its rivals, or if it is quite unrealistically low. If that is not the case, it will have to give very serious attention to its production costs. Any businessman will tell you this. It will have to give attention to whether the administration and control of its business undertaking are effective. It will have to give attention to whether it is getting the necessary productivity from the labour in its undertaking, to whether or not it is utilizing its manpower correctly. It will have to give attention to its capital application so as to see whether this is being done correctly or incorrectly. In this way it will have to give attention to all relevant and essential financial factors before it can attend to the matter of increasing the price of its product. Sir, the railways, too, are a business undertaking which must be controlled and administered on business principles and on a business basis. In fact, the Constitution requires that this be done. But, Sir, to my mind there are, nevertheless, two basic differences between the Railways as a business undertaking and the business undertakings of the private sector. In the first place, we have this essential difference, i.e. that the Railways as a business undertaking are not orientated to profit-making—in other words, that they do not have to arrange their budget so as to yield profits in order to distribute dividends amongst their shareholders. They have a different method by which they have to distribute their dividends. But, in the second place, there is also this essential difference as far as I am concerned: The Railways are an indispensable link in the infrastructure of the country. This link formed by the Railways in the infrastructure is concerned with the weal and the woe of the economic development and the economic growth of the country. But, Sir, if we take the Railways and the role they play in the infrastructure of the country and we consider that we are dealing here with a business concern which has an income and expenditure budget of more than R1 500 million, and if we have regard to the volume of the capital investment of the Railways, then everybody will agree that the Railways have a mighty influence on the country’s economy, and because they have such a mighty influence on the country’s economy, it is, in the first place, essential—and that is why it has also been envisaged that way—that the Railways be administered on a business basis and in accordance with business principles. Sir, as far as this business undertaking is concerned, we find ourselves in a time in which we are experiencing inflation. We are faced with this mighty monster of inflation, which is a destructive monster of the economy and of the world. But we in South Africa are fortunate in that inflation has not yet cause that degree of destruction it has already caused in other parts of the world. But, Sir, the same consequences which inflation has for any business undertaking in the public sector, are applicable to the Railways as well. We must look at the rate of inflation on the one hand and, on the other hand, we must look at the economic growth rate of the country. I want to maintain, Sir, that the rate of inflation, which is caused by factors over there is no control, factors such as fuel prices, the steel price, etc., exceeds the earnings derived by the Railways from the normal growth rate of the country; and because we are faced with this situation, the Railways must give serious attention to their whole financial position so that their balance sheets may balance, and for that reason an alternative has to be found, and as it is the case with any other businessman, the hon. the Minister and the Management must analyse all the relevant factors. The Railways must also analyse whether they can save by improving their administration and control, whether the lack of effective administration and control is not pushing up its production costs; whether consideration can be given to eliminating uneconomic services. A further factor which may be considered is whether new services and new development should be postponed or cancelled as a result of financial circumstances. The Railways, which are a service-rendering undertaking, must also consider whether their service is so effective and attractive that they may derive the maximum from the service they render. If, after analysis, all these factors have been found to be positive, then only should the matter of rates be looked into. Then attention will have to be given to the readjustment of rates. This analysis, which must be made by any businessman, must also be made by the Railways and by the Minister. They have all the know-how at their command to make such an analysis. However, it is also the duty of every member of this House to make this analysis with the facts and the data at his command, and it is also the duty of the Opposition to make this analysis.

Now, what has emerged from this debate as far as these factors are concerned? I want to concede at once that the hon. member for Durban Point did ask for an inquiry in depth to be instituted. I grant that this is a proposal which came from their side, but before one proceeds to instituting an inquiry, one should take a look at what has happened in respect of these factors. One should take a look at them in the light of the knowledge the hon. members have at their command. What has emerged from this debate? In the first place, the control and the administration of the Railways were commended by that side of the House. That side of the House, by the mouth of the hon. member for Durban Point, congratulated the General Manager and his staff, and he praised their competence. In other words, there is nothing the matter with the view held by that side of the House. If the hon. members think that something is in fact wrong with it, then they did not reveal it.

Hon. members on that side also had to give attention to the elimination of uneconomic services. The Railway Management and its Minister have been giving attention to this aspect over the past year and longer in order to see whether a saving could not be effected in that way, and certain uneconomic services have been eliminated. The hon. member for Smithfield referred to this matter last night. However, from that side of the House we have had no constructive proposals with regard to the elimination of uneconomic services in order that savings may be effected in that way. On the contrary, where the Railways did curtail such services, that side of the House took advantage of the fact in order to make political capital out of it instead of praising the Railways for having curtailed such services. From that side of the House we have not had one single proposal that new services be curtailed or suspended. Consequently they are also satisfied with the new services continuing. Nor have we had from that side of the House any significant proposals aimed at improving the rendering of service in such a way that increased earnings from it would be able to serve as a substitute for the shortfall suffered by the Railways. Consequently there is no cause for their motion that an inquiry in depth take place. After all, when asking for an inquiry in depth, one must motivate it. One must motivate why it should be done. The factors which could form the subject of such an inquiry were not justified by that side of the House, and for that reason this proposal put forward by them falls away.

They also put forward a second proposal, namely the subsidizing of uneconomic services. This is the matter which was discussed by the hon. member for Maitland and to which I should like to refer. The hon. the Minister replied fully to this aspect, but I want to emphasize once again that these are not socio-economic services which are being rendered and for which no compensation is obtained from the Treasury. When socio-economic services have to be rendered, the Railways are asked to do so. For instance, this happens in emergencies such as those of last year. The department in question which, in such emergencies, asks the Railways to render socio-economic services, compensates the Railways for them.

However, there are uneconomic services which are in fact being rendered by the Railways, but these uneconomic services rendered by the Railways, the goods conveyed at uneconomic rates, do after all imply a business principle which applies especially in respect of business undertakings concentrating on rendering service. Let us take a look at the Railways as it functions in practice. We find that the Railways render uneconomic services for two reasons. One reason is that although such a service is uneconomic, it does earn some revenue. What is more, it enables the Railways to utilize their labour and equipment to the maximum. If they do not render certain of those services, labour and equipment cannot be utilized to the maximum. If that is the case, it means a total loss to the Railways. If these uneconomic services were to fall away, it would have the effect that it would not be possible for rates in respect of goods conveyed at economic rates to be kept on the lowest level. On the contrary, those rates would have to be increased further.

I agree wholeheartedly that the gap between uneconomic and economic rates should be narrowed, as was also recommended by the Schumann Commission. That has in fact been done. However, I have said that the Railways have a mighty influence on the national economy. The narrowing of the gap may only be effected in such a way that the national economy will not suffer as a result, or that there will be no disruption of the national economy. There is also a second reason why the Railways are in fact rendering uneconomic services. By way of these uneconomic services. That is why these rates may not dous contribution to the growth rate of the country. On their part the Railways, in turn, also derive advantage from such services. That is why these rates may not merely be seen as a dead loss to the Railways. They should be seen as a business principle which is being upheld here to the advantage of the Railways.

I want to conclude by saying that I do not believe that this Budget with the increase in rates will in fact have this adverse effect on the national economy which will result in disruption, especially if we have regard to the fact that in three consecutive financial years, from 1970 to 1973, the Railways showed a loss of R89 million. With only a few adjustments that loss was absorbed by the Railways and not poured into the economy. In doing so, the Railways made a mighty contribution, specifically with a view to combating inflation. This contribution made by the Railways towards combating inflation, and the advantage derived from it, ourweighs, to my mind, the disadvantage which this increase in rates holds for the national economy

Mr. Speaker, at the Committee Stage it was the Government which ran out of steam and now at the Third Reading it is the Progressive Party which has run out of steam. I can understand, however, that they have talked about the two matters in which they are interested, i.e. Black suburban traffic and mineral ore, so there was nothing left to talk about.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East started off by referring to what I had said about the hon. member for Turffontein steaming on his way to being the only person who could become Minister. I must say I thought so. He was on the track, he was moving well, he was heading for that position. Unfortunately, he became uncoupled from his political principles and had a head-on crash with those principles coming back at him. So that eliminated him from the stakes. However, after the hon. the member for Maitland’s introduction of the Third Reading debate, I think even the hon. member for Bloemfontein East will admit that we have a much better replacement and that we have very good material with which to take over, not as fireman but as driver. If I understood the hon. member for Bloemfontein East correctly, and let me not do him an injustice, he said that the tariff increases on meat, for example, could be absorbed by the producer and on other items by the manufacturer and by the businessman. He said that in the competitive field of business these increases would be absorbed. Is that correct? Well, I do not want to be the judge but there are some people who know something about commerce and industry, and in last night’s Argus the President of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce commented on the Budget. He confirmed our view on this side of the House; he confirmed that the recent rates increases would add 2% or more to the annual inflation rate. I would rather place the judgment of the president of the Chamber of Commerce above that of the hon. member for Bloemfontein East. This question of absorbing the increases is dealt with by the president of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce. I want to quote him—

which is what the hon. member for Bloemfontein East did—

It is not I who accuses the hon. member for Bloemfontein East of being a sheer lunatic; but he himself, by his own appeal, is categorized by the president of a Chamber of Commerce as being guilty of sheer lunacy. This statement on the Railway Budget concludes in this way—

This is the spiral about which we have spoken since the beginning of this debate, the cycle of inflation, higher costs, increased tariffs and more inflation. Now, at the Third Reading stage, we are back exactly where we started as far as the Government is concerned. After the hon. member for Bloemfontein East had dealt with the hon. member for Turffontein, and cracked a couple of weak jokes, the rest of his speech was devoted entirely to telling us that nothing needed to be changed. It is just the uneconomic traffic that causes the problem. Nothing else is wrong. We do not need inquiries or investigations. But he himself knows what the problem is. This debate has shown that we were correct from the start. No clue to an answer has been given from the Government benches.

I gave the hon. the Minister one and a half points in respect of the first round, the Second Reading debate. However, I did not realize how groggy he was. When I arrived home and turned on the radio, I found that he had called in reserves. He had called in the SABC to try to pull him out of the mess. They had a special programme to try to deny that what we had been saying in this debate was in fact true. The Minister had his cohorts there. They had a consumers’ representative who is, I believe, a former member of this House. How he could represent the poor consumers, I would not know. He could not represent his constituents. There was also an economist. Despite the efforts of the Minister, the help of his colleague, the Minister of National Education and the SABC, Dr. Reynders in summing up said that for many groups in South Africa the increases would have far more effect than that envisaged and announced by the Minister. So, despite calling in reserve help, I think there must have been more than one and a half points scored in the first round. But I will give the hon. the Minister another point for courtesy and for answering the appeals dealing with general queries at the Committee Stage. However, I have to take it off again for the way he backpedalled and ran away from all the difficult issues with which we are faced. He dealt with the simple ones, but he refused to face up to the real issues. Some of the major issues he did not even refer to. He did not even try to reply to them. I take the homelands issue, for instance, which I raised pertinently. I referred to the role which the Railways will or should play in the economic infrastructure of the Black homelands. I asked where it would fit in providing the infrastructure of railway and harbour facilities, and where it would fit in after a homeland had become independent. While I am on this subject hon. members know that the Chief Whip is the man who allows you to speak or not to speak, and the commission that I have to pay for this turn to speak is to make an earnest appeal on behalf of the hon. member for Griqualand East, our Chief Whip. I want to make this appeal on his behalf to the hon. the Minister who is a new Minister with a new heart. The Railway employees in the Transkei do not get the special secondment allowance which other public servants get. It is a case which has been made very well in this House before, but it was always turned down by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. Now that we have a new Minister with a new heart, I am sure that he does not want to keep the railwaymen of the Transkei on a lower level and deny them the privilege of the allowance which their colleagues in the Public Service get. I hope that the hon. the Minister will announce at the conclusion of this debate that to mark a new administration he is going to meet this request. Have I earned my speaking turn?

Yes.

The other matter on which the hon. the Minister failed to give us any answer at all was the proposal for a department or division of marine affairs. Such a department would link together matters affecting the sea. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but I say that this was one of the issues which he evaded.

On the question of urban transit, the hon. the Minister pointed a finger, fluffed around with it, but gave us no real answer on it. Now we have to wait for the Driessen Commission’s report. Surely, the Railways and Harbours Administration has been giving thought to this? Surely, we could have had some answer from the hon. the Minister?

There is one very serious matter which I have to raise with the hon. the Minister and I regret to have to do so. In the Second Reading debate I raised the question of pensions and my plea was that Railway pensioners should receive the same privilege as civil pensioners. The hon. the Minister replied that the differentiation had been made in order to bring civil pensioners and Railway pensioners onto the same standard.

Minimum standard.

Yes, the same minimum standard. He said that as the result of the differential increaase of 10% for the Railway pensioner as against R25 minimum for the civil pensioner, the Railway pensioner will receive R144 per month and the civil pensioner will receive R143 per month. In other words, the Railway pensioners will be getting R1 more than the civil pensioners. He said that these increases placed the minimum pension for Public Service pensioners and Railway pensioners on an equal basis. I do not want to accuse the hon. the Minister of deliberately misleading this House, but I think that he has been misinformed somewhere and I think that he owes the House an apology. I say this, because the hon. the Minister has taken a figure for civil pensioners which applies to one minute group which is an exception in the Public Service. It is only applicable to the group of pensioners who retired after 1 July 1973 and before 30 September 1974. Only that group, that handful, that infinitesimal number, when compared with the rest, had a minimum pension of R118 and will receive an increase of R25 per month from 1 October giving them a total pension of R143 per month. What the hon. the Minister did not disclose was that the mass of civil pensioners with the exception of this minute group had a minimum pension of R118. On 1 July 1973 they received a 10% increase bringing their total pension to R129-80 per month. With effect from October 1974 they will receive an increase of either 10% or a minimum of R25 per month—in this case it will be an increase of R25 per month—which means that they will now receive a minimum pension of R154-80 per month. In other words, the hon. the Minister led this House to believe that he was bringing the railway pensioner up to the standard of the civil pensioner. He led the railway pensioner to believe that, in fact, he was not being hard done by but that he had been ahead of the civil pensioner and was now simply being brought into line. The fact is that a civil pensioner receiving the minimum pension will receive R10-80 more from the end of this month than a railway pensioner receives, and this applies to the vast mass of the civil pensioners in South Africa, in fact everyone who falls under the Government Service pension fund. Only the small group who fall under the Provident Fund and who retired within the period from July 1973 to September 1974 reflect the figures the hon. the Minister gave this House. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us that he did not mean to create a false impression, that he did not mean to indicate that the civil pensioner was to be on the same level, and also, that he will now review the situation of the railway pensioner and will bring the minimum pension of the railway pensioner up to the minimum which the mass of civil pensioners are in fact going to receive from 1 October. If he does not do so, he will stand branded in his first year as Minister as having given certain information in reply to a plea for railway pensioners and then having left them R10 per month worse off than their co-workers who worked in the Public Service. I shall take that matter no further because I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us that he was misinformed and that he will review the position and will rectify this matter this year at the same time that the civil pensioner is to get an increase.

I now want to come to the question of productivity. This is one of the matters that has been dealt with by a number of members including the hon. the Minister himself in regard to the cost price issue which faces the Railways. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he can claim that we are really making progress when in 1960, 14 years ago, the average turn-around time of a train was 7,44 days. Today, with all the improvements, with all the new signals and the greater traction and with all the streamlining, the central traffic control, with special trucks and trucks designed for quick loading and unloading and with every improvement that has been brought about in those 14 years, it now takes 10,49 days for the turn-around of a truck. There must be something seriously wrong to create this state of affairs. The length of journey has increased by about 25% but the test is the turn-around time of trucks.

In the case of long-distance traffic, to which I want to turn for a moment, the test is whether one can attract passengers on to those trains. We have now reached the situation where it is more expensive to travel by train, first class, than to fly by South African Airways. Apart from the time factor, with bedding and meals, it is more expensive today to travel first class by train than to fly. With the pressure and tension of modern life today where time is important, the only counter-attraction the hon. the Minister can offer on the train is an attractive service so that a person will travel by train not because it is cheaper as it used to be in the good old days, but because it is attractive in that it offers a pleasant journey, comfortable surroundings, a lounge car, etc. Even as regards entertainment, we have films on overnight flights. Why could we not have some films on trains? What we need is special service to make long-distance train travel attractive. The hon. the Minister could even have hostesses on the trains. He could even negotiate with Glenda Kemp. That would fill his trains.

You could play snakes and ladders.

Yes, you could have parlour games for the children like snakes and ladders. I believe that there is a great deal that could be done to make long-distance train travel attractive and to stimulate interest in train travel. One could also encourage train travel by improving the catering. This used to be the pride of the Railways but because of the problems of obtaining catering staff, this aspect of train travel has lost some of its attraction. The small staff available is not adequate to provide the service that used to be provided. Here again the only answer is to make use of the services of non-White stewards who, after all, are employed as stewards at 95% of our hotels. Members of the White catering staff could then be employed in the capacities of supervisors and controllers. I do not have time to develop this argument further.

I am happy to say, however, that after having raised the question of the tourist motor-car concession under the Railways and Harbours Part Appropriation Bill, I received a letter on 22 May informing me that this service was uneconomic but assuring me that the matter would be investigated. It would appear that this has borne fruit and we are now to have the special car trucks attached to passenger trains. This is one of the aspects which could attract people to train travel.

In the last few minutes left to me, I should like to return to the Airways. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has arrived at a decision between the Airbus and the Tristar or any other aeroplane for the internal routes. I cannot speak about the Tristar: I have seen it but I have not flown in it. I have, however, flown on the A300 Airbus and it seems to me to have tremendous possibilities for our internal service. It carries 350 passengers and has the same fuel consumption and costs the same to run as the Boeings presently used on our internal service. In view of the fact that these aeroplanes can carry twice as many people and have the same fuel consumption as the Boeing, it seems to me in this particular day and age and particularly in view of the fuel crisis, that we should give some attention to our internal service. I hope that a decision has been arrived at and that we will not have to live indefinitely with the situation as it is at present. Virtually every time I have tried to book on an internal flight during the past three or four months I have been told that there was no seat available. This cannot go on. We must be able to provide the traffic when it is required, not necessarily at an exact hour but we should not have to wait three or four days to be able to get onto any flight at all between two destinations.

My time is almost up and I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that we welcome him as a person. We welcome his courtesy. I am afraid, however, that he has not given us the answers we required. We shall, therefore, have to do a considerable amount of teaching over the next year so that next time he comes before us in this House he may be able to give us a less gloomy picture of the transportation situation in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in the short time available to me, I should very much like to emphasize only one matter to which preference has in fact been given by that side of the House during this debate, and that is, namely, the question of productivity or planning on the Railways. The proof for this is the suggestion we received from that side that a study in depth should be made because the Railways allegedly finds itself in a crisis, a “crisis beyond repair”. Sir, everything available to us disproves this allegation that there is no proper planning, and I want to describe it without qualification as the lowest blow that has yet been meted out to the Railways and its staff.

Sir, against what does one measure planning? One measures planning or the success of planning against one’s production in relation to labour and capital in service. For me the answer to this misplaced allegation is that the productivity of the Railways had since 1963 when the index figure was 100, risen by 70 points by 1973. In this regard, therefore, the Railways has given a better performance in our State economy than any other sectors in the country. With the exception of our gold mines a greater provision of employment has taken place in all other sectors, in other words, a greater increase as far as the labour shortage is concerned; in commerce, the manufacturing industry and the Railways it was minimal too, but despite that, the Railways has this record, and the private manufacturing industry came closest to the Railways. In the second place we have the question of rationalization in the Railways as far as work method studies and work loads are concerned.

Sir, in this connection this exceptional achievement was accomplished, i.e. that the ratio of capital investment to labour per capita rose from 126,1 in 1968-’69 to 147,6 in 1972-73. Sir, these are the two most important factors in the production industry, viz. labour and capital, and the fine balance which has been struck here between the available labour and the available capital of the Railways, points to an exceptional measure of rationalization and a scientific approach to the entire situation.

Sir, since the last increase in January 1973, an appeal was made to the officials by the Administration to produce more and to be more efficient. For this purpose committees were established and incentive schemes were introduced with very good results, so much so that in 1971-’72 production was raised by the near-record percentage of 3,4, a very acceptable and fine achievement. In 1972-’73 this was increased by 2,3%. Sir, this suggestion that there is a lack of planning on the part of the Administration is unfair and undeserved and completely misplaced. Through the sound application of White labour, through the appointment of non-Whites where Whites were not available, productivity was increased, and in recent years a total of 4141 non-Whites were appointed in the various occupations: Train marshalling staff, flagmen, etc.

Sir, with this rationalization, with this study of work methods and workloading, a saving of R5 800 000 was brought about by the Administration last year, and from March to April last year, there was a further saving of R5 700 000 in Sunday time and overtime. Sir, what grounds are there for this allegation that there is a lack of planning? After all that we, as members of the Select Committee saw during our visits, and from the documents before us, it was proved beyond a doubt that planning comprises an integral part of and is built into the administration of the Railways. I think it is fair that this should be placed on record; instead of suggesting that there is a lack of planning, I think we ought to praise the planning on the Railways. I personally, on the grounds of the study I have made and my conviction and the knowledge I have, regard this enormous concern as being one of the best. I think we should congratulate them on that, and wish them everything of the best.

We come to the containerization idea that was expressed here, the planning of which has already been in progress for a number of years. This planning points to the fact that we shall find in 1978, four years from now, in a harbour such as Cape Town, that a single crane will be able to handle 12 000 tons during a 24 hour work day, which will lead to the replacement of hundreds and hundreds of staff members who have to handle the individual parcels, as well as the additional result that we are going to find an investment of R1 000 million by the shipping lines here for this purpose in four years’ time.

Furthermore, the possibility exists that the ships sailing between Europe and South Africa today, 105 of them, could be replaced by only 14 containerized ships, which will mean a saving of space in the harbours, and of staff and time, and in 101 other directions. In view of the fact that 11 countries, in which nine languages are spoken, are prepared to tackle this harbour development project in co-operation with our Railways over the next four years, it is senseless to come here with these misplaced, as the Dutch say, “taal-dernatie-stories” in connection with a lack of planning. Sir, for the sake of the record, I could not omit to raise these matters again because it is the soul and the essence of the amendment that a study in depth should be made because there is said to be a crisis beyond repair and a lack of planning on the Railways. Sir, I reject this with the contempt it deserves. I think it is a low blow.

Now I want to turn to the Minister. I have two requests. One is difficult and the other less difficult. In the Brown Book there is the earmarked spending for the station at Olifantsfontein under Heads A and B. For the first stage provision is made for an amount of just over R1 million. In view of the development taking place in the vicinity of Kempton Park and Olifantsfontein and even Clayville, this matter becomes a rather pressing one. There are many of the industrialists who are interested in developments and investments there, but they are less enthusiastic about the service the Railways is able to offer them at the moment. If I might very kindly ask, with my left hand in my right pocket, that this matter be expedited, the community and our industry in general would appreciate it very much indeed. In principle the decision has been taken. We are only making a friendly request to the Minister and asking him whether he cannot perhaps, if possible, move it up a few places on the merit list. This is the difficult request I am putting to the Minister, but he will not take it amiss because I have just praised the planning of the Railways to such an extent.

I also want to put the question whether the time has not arrived, because it is generally accepted that Johannesburg and Pretoria will link up within 20 or 25 years, for consideration to be given to the establishment of a line for the less densely populated area between Johannesburg and Pretoria, running, say, from Brits, one of our border areas, through these less densely populated areas, and linking up with Clayville or Langlaagte. Such a railway line would serve a very good purpose 20 years hence. If such a project were tackled now, it would require a far smaller capital investment because there are as yet no urban properties that will have to be expropriated at high cost.

In regard to the disposition of the Administration and their sound planning, what I said was not without foundation. With such a direct link between a border area and our industrial areas, especially if there are few stations, the transport of labour will perhaps take place as rapidly and efficiently as the transport between Soweto and Langlaagte takes place today. In addition it will bring about an enormous saving in housing and so on. I therefore think it is reasonable to make a friendly request that we should consider this matter in good time. The alternative use of this line will be that it will serve as a railway bypass around Johannesburg. Traffic will be able to flow along that line from Tarlton or Magaliesberg to Clayville. The real reason for this request is, however, that an infrastructure has already been created in the vicinity of the Lanseria airport.

That infrastructure could very easily be extended so that it will, in the foreseeable future, be able to emulate the pattern of Kempton Park. In view of this, I think it is high time we gave attention to establishing the necessary rail links between Clayville and Johannesburg and Clayville and Pretoria, because it will be necessary if the infrastructure is to develop there in the way we would like it to develop. As I have said, the link could now be brought about at much less capital expense than would be the case if we were only to do it in ten to 15 years’ time.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a repetition in this debate of the phenomenon we have had before, i.e. an attempt by the Opposition to create a certain atmosphere by advancing all kinds of arguments. In this case they have tried to create an atmosphere unfavourable to the hon. the Minister of Transport. However, they have not produced a single positive idea.

Where have you been?

I have been here all the time and I heard the remarks made by the hon. member for Maitland on socio-economic services to be provided by the Railways. That attempt did not succeed, however, and the hon. member was very adequately answered by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East.

Accordingly I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East. In the first place there is the statement that the Railways is a business enterprise which should be run according to business principles. However, the Railways is also an essential link in the country’s infrastructure and has a powerful influence on the national economy. Therefore, the Railways should be run in such a way as not to disrupt the national economy. I want to refer in particular to an aspect mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East as well, namely the introduction of new services as a means by which the efficient functioning of the Railways may be improved still further.

As an example of such a new service I want to refer to the position in the Southern Cape. According to a report published by a sub-committee of the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council in consequence of a regional study undertaken in the Southern Cape last year, that part of the country has not progressed beyond the agricultural stage and is in a state of economic under-development. I am fully aware of the fact— and I concur with it—that the tourist potential of this region is probably its greatest natural asset and should be developed and exploited to the fullest extent. It is also true that large-scale industrialization—particularly the kind which involves the so-called “dirty” industries—may damage the very natural attraction which we rightly prize. The fact is, however, that the people of the Southern Cape cannot be expected just to guard and preserve the natural beauty of the surroundings to be enjoyed by the inlanders for a few weeks or months every year, while for the rest of the year the people of the Southern Cape have to endure relative poverty. It was for this reason that the Southern Cape Development Association was deeply disappointed by the fact that the above-mentioned report by the subcommittee contained no recommendation whatsoever in regard to the future expansion and encouragement of industrial development, particularly since, according to the report itself, the regional study showed that on the whole the region possessed a well-developed infrastructure. According to this report the average industrial enterprise in the Southern Cape is considerably smaller and less profitable than is the case elsewhere in the country. And then comes the significant part—I quote from the report (translation):

This is what is said in the report. I quote further from this report (translation)—

and I want to emphasize this—

This is the recommendation of the subcommittee—

Representations have been made since 1926 for the construction of a railway line between Le Roux station and Beaufort West, but up to date the authorities have been unable to find any justification for the construction of such a railway line. In 1969 the General Manager of the Railways indicated that the cost of the proposed railway connection between Le Roux station and Beaufort West would amount to approximately R11 million in respect of a distance of 90 miles. He added that such a connection was not required for departmental purposes.

However, it seems that no real survey has ever been made of the traffic potential of the area which would be served by this proposed railway line. For that reason I now want to appeal to the hon. the Minister for such an in-depth investigation to be conducted in order really to determine that potential, in view of the standpoint that by exploiting the full potential of such an area, the efficiency of the Railways as a business enterprise could also be improved.

In connection with economic justification I want to allege that it is not realistic to expect the freight to be available before the transport facilities have been provided. My standpoint is that once the service has been provided it will most certainly be utilized. It is very difficult to ascertain the actual potential if there is no such service in existence. Only when the service has been provided and may be utilized, can the actual potential be ascertained.

I have already referred to the Mossel Bay harbour. The fact is that any development in the Southern Cape is closely bound up with the harbour and the harbour facilities at Mossel Bay.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 87.

Mr. Speaker, this is the last speech that will be delivered during the Railway Budget debate. As you will realize, this has been a great experience to me, particularly since it was the first time that I have handled a Railway Budget. As I have said before, I am very conscious of the responsibility resting on me as the Minister responsible for this railway organization. The South African Railways, the ups and downs of which we have been discussing in the course of this week, and for which we have to approve this Budget in order to enable it to continue functioning until the end of this financial year, is the largest organization in South Africa, probably one of the largest in the world. I doubt whether there is any other organization in existence as vast and extensive as the South African Railways. For that reason the discussions we have had here are of vital importance for our country and cur people, and particularly for the 231 000 people employed by the Railways. When one thinks of 231 000 people, of whom more than 100 000 are Whites—-there are more than 100 000 Bantu as well; the rest are Coloured people and Indians—and one thinks of their dependants, one may imagine how many thousands of people are indirectly dependent on the Railways and its activities. Then one may imagine the great part played by the Railways in the national economy, not only by the service it provides, but also by means of the indirect influence it has on the economy through the purchasing power of those 231 000 employees. But it is important, too, that the South African Railways provides a service which is indispensable to the survival of our country.

From the nature of the case, the Railways in South Africa has to be protected, unlike the railway organizations in so many parts of the world, partly because we are aware of the fact that in other countries of the world, where the railways have been in private hands, they have either ceased to exist or they have come to a sorry pass financially, as a result of which they are unable to provide the necessary services. In addition, we know that because of our geographical structure and the long distances that have to be covered, the Railways is an indispensable part of our economy and it must be maintained as such. That is why one appreciates the fact that Railway matters are discussed in such a responsible manner in this House, the highest assembly in the country.

I should like to reply to a few points raised during the Third Reading stage, but before proceeding to do so, I should just like to mention the fact that certain points were raised during the Committee Stage to which I was prevented from replying by the limited time available to me. Then there were some other points which, because of their nature, did not in my opinion merit a discussion during the Committee Stage. However, I should like to give the assurance that as far as it is humanly possible for the Administration and for myself, we shall by way of correspondence furnish further replies to those points that have been raised here and to which I have not personally replied or responded during the discussion.

As regards the points that have been raised so far this evening, I want to begin by closing the door very firmly on my discussion of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. I made an honest attempt yesterday to furnish adequate replies as far as it lay in my power, to the problems raised by several members in this House.