Mr. Speaker, there was a departure from normal tradition in the hon. the Minister’s presentation of the Budget which has passed almost unnoticed but to which I would like to refer. I am referring to the use of both official languages in the same speech. Instead of alternating, we have had the use of both official languages in the same speech and I want to say that I welcome this step. This is an innovation which we support and although it is a departure from tradition, we believe that it is one which was justified.

You are an observant young man.

The second point to which I want to refer is that since presenting his Budget to this House last year, the post of the assistant to the hon. the Minister, that of Deputy Minister of Transport, has been abolished. This means that a greater load is now being placed upon the hon. the Minister. I want to say that when I myself look around at the talent that was available, I do not blame the hon. the Prime Minister for having abolished the post. I think that the hon. the Minister is far better off taking everything on himself. It does, however, mean additional work and we will look to the hon. the Minister to carry this double burden.

*My first reaction to the Budget last Wednesday remains completely unchanged. This Budget is a drab and unimaginative Budget. There is not one single idea which bears testimony to a new vision. There is not even a R50 item in the Brown Book which indicates that we have something new here, that there are any new ideas here, that the Railways are going to embark on a new course. However, there are two remarkable items I may mention. The one is a new pipeline from Durban to Johannesburg for oil products, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister why that pipeline was not constructed from Richards Bay to Johannesburg. We were told that the large oil tankers were going to use Richards Bay. Why were those pipelines therefore not constructed from Richards Bay? In that way we would be able to eliminate the installation at Durban, to get rid of the pollution taking place there and place the whole matter under proper control.

The second large amount which appears in the Budget, is in respect of the purchase of new aircraft. The hon. the Minister is unable to tell us at this stage what type of aircraft they are going to be although the amount has been earmarked for aircraft. Except for these two new items, the pipeline and the aircraft only a little was added here and there—the erection of an umbrella roof at some or other place, a toilet room, new equipment and general improvements here and there. As far as new items are concerned, there is, however, nothing of any importance. Large amounts of money for rolling stock and harbours. For Richards Bay, for example, the amount is more than R100 million. However, these are only additions to the existing scheme; this is additional. I have looked for something which would bear witness to a new way of thinking as far as the activities of the Railways are concerned.

Before proceeding with the analysis, I also have to refer to the fact that this Budget does not help the Railway pensioner at all. The working person, the person who is able to better his position and who is able to work a few hours overtime, the person who is able to attain a higher position, may be able to keep pace with the increasing cost of living, but this the pensioner cannot do. He has a fixed income. Even if it is not possible to increase salaries, the Government has a responsibility towards the pensioner. Some of them do receive the 2% increase, but not all of them do; only some of them do. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that all Railway pensioners should receive an annual increase of 10% to enable them to keep pace with the rising cost of living. Fifteen per cent would be more realistic, but I do not want to make too high a demand on the hon. the Minister. All I am asking is for something to be done for the pensioner to give him a chance to keep up as far as the rising cost of living is concerned. There are also some of the Railway officials who do not receive any incentive for increased productivity from this Budget. I want to analyse it a little further later on.

One is always able to learn something. Firstly, I want to consider in which way the Nationalist Party, when it was in opposition, approached the whole matter of Railways and Harbours.

That was a long time ago.

I know it was a long time ago. However, I thought I could learn from history, from the manner in which the Nationalist Party Opposition of those days approached their responsibility towards this service and the country. I did some searching and found an official document, an official document drawn up by Mr. J. J. Hayward, M.P., and published by the Information Service of the Nationalist Party—at the time the HNP, the Herenigde Nasionale Party. In this pamphlet one reads (translation)—

Sir, after I had read this pamphlet, I decided that if I were to quote from it, South Africa would be so shocked that it would be better if I hid it away in the dark, shameless past of the Nationalist Party. But Sir, there are a few interesting things I want to refer to. I want to refer to the attitude of that side of the House, as an Opposition, adopted towards expenditure. This is what they said with reference to the United Party Government (translation)—

Recklessly, Sir! Mr. Speaker, one of the other accusations levelled was the following (translation)—

Sir, what an accusation! Wasting of money; millions of pounds spent on harbour works and that in support of the war effort! Sir, we shall later come back to the harbours and these millions which were spent by the United Party Government. I also want to quote what they had to say about a new post that was created at the time (translation)—

The United Party Government has created a completely new post, that of Chief Superintendent (parliamentary) at a salary of £1 600 per annum.

In this way the United Party recklessly wasted the money of the taxpayer! But, Sir, there is another side to the coin and this, strange enough, is important, because in those days, as far as I know, there were no such phenomenons as the Reformists, and so on. After referring to the negrophiles and the liberalists, they quoted what was said by Mr. Sturrock in the Assembly and they quoted the Hansard column (translation)—

Sir, this party made its point of view clear as long ago as 1943. I want to repeat today that, after 32 years, we still adhere to that policy, i.e. that all South Africans should be used in the service of the Railways. I want to repeat what I said on Wednesday, and that is that where this Government does the right thing we shall give them our full support. Sir, just consider what a shocking thing the United Party was supposed to have done—I quote from Hansard (column 2299), what was said by Mr. Sturrock—

Sir, after 33 years I say again that we welcome the fact that this Minister and his Administration, after all these years, are doing the things the United Party did in 1943. We congratulate them. It is a matter of better late than never. We shall continue to support them for as long as they are taking these forward steps.

†Mr. Speaker, let me now come back to the specifics of this Budget. Last year we dealt with long-term planning. We called for an inquiry, a call which was rejected in very strong terms by the hon. the Minister. We called for a full inquiry into planning and the co-ordination of the South African Railways. The hon. the Minister, echoed by officials, said that there was no need for this at all; that all the planning that was necessary was taking place; that they were prepared to talk individually to individuals and organizations and that there was no need for an inquiry. Sir, this was only in September last year. Imagine my amazement when I read on 27 February that the General Manager of Railways had called for the establishment of a top-level planning body representing all sections of the economy to analyse major development projects and suggest priorities to the Cabinet. Was that not what we suggested last year, Sir? We suggested an inquiry into the co-ordination and planning of the Railways. I would refer the hon. the Minister to Column 3549 of the debate in September last year, where I specifically suggested that the Railway Board could be abandoned in its present form and that it could become a planning organization, a planning organization which I visualize as a body co-ordinating the Railways, commerce, industry, mining, finance, with planning experts and specialist advisers in different fields serving on it. Here we have a body which is ready-made to act as a planning and co-ordinating body. But when we suggested it last year, it was nonsense; now we find that it is a necessary requirement; that it is essential that we should have some such planning body to deal with shortages, scarcity of capital, priorities, etc., etc. Sir, as I said a little earlier, it takes time, but eventually some of our ideas do get through. I wonder whether we would lose much through that reconstruction. I have here the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, the latest one, for the year ended 31 December 1973. Except for the first chapter, which dealt with meetings of the board, and two paragraphs which dealt with disciplinary appeals, the whole of the rest of this report was simply a repetition of what one could read in the General Manager’s report; it dealt with the carrying capacity of the Railways, the Operating section, Electrification, Airways, Finances, etc. This is all already in the General Manager’s report. Why not convert this board from a duplicate rubber-stamp, or an advisory body to the Minister, into a real planning organization? Sir, 500 copies of this report were published and they were sold at R3-35 each. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how many copies of this report were sold at R3-35. I am prepared to take a bet that outside of relatives or friends and a few organizations which had to have the report, it was not a Government bestseller.

Mr. Speaker, this question of planning is one in respect of which we do not seem to be on the same wavelength as the hon. the Minister. I am not talking now of the specific planning of a project, of the plans or the drawings of a station or a building or a specific plan for a harbour. I am talking of the broader spectrum; I am talking of the overall planning. Sir, the hon. the Minister in his Budget Speech this year repeated that the role of the S.A. Railways and Harbours was to provide an efficient infrastructure, an efficient transport system, and he emphasized that its welfare was determined by the economy. We, Sir, try to have a broader approach; we try to look beyond the mere meeting of specific demands. I want to be fair. Within the hon. the Minister’s perimeter progress has been made. Mechanization, modernization, new methods, better labour utilization—all these things have happened, and we congratulate the department on it. On would expect it. I want to say that there is an outstanding Management available to the Minister and to the department. There are people with the ability and the qualifications to keep the Railways up to date in most of these fields. So I am not criticizing the detail; I am looking at the broader picture. I say that whilst within the perimeter of merely being a service there have been improvements, we believe that it should go beyond that. Let them be fair too, even in this planning I think the United Party can claim some contribution. In the use of labour I have shown how way back from 1943 this has been the approach of the United Party. Then there is harbour control. Last year the hon. the Minister said in this House—

That was in September 1974, but on 4 December, in the General Manager’s report on page 61, we find the following—

The concept here is one of divorcing harbour activities from the cargo in the sheds. A little later a port director was appointed, totally responsible for the running of the port.

But it is the same as the Airways.

Last year there was absolutely no valid argument for any divorcing of the harbours. Yet within six months we find a port director, port managers and a Nasionale Raadgewende Komitee to co-ordinate all interests affected. In the Minister’s speech last week we heard of—

In other words, what we pleaded for, not necessarily the breaking away under a separate port authority, but the divorcing of control to a specialized administration has taken place; in all material respects in the day to day running that has happened. There are other examples, which I do not have time to follow up, Sir, but to return to this idea of the overall role. I want to put our attitude very clearly by moving the following amendment—

1. (a) it fails to reveal an appreciation by the Government of the role of the South African Railways as the dynamic in the development of South Africa and of Southern Africa as a whole; and
2. (b) it fails to stimulate morale or provide incentives to productivity for many grades of employees or adequately to compensate pensioners in the light of the ever-escalating cost of living,”.

This sets out our approach, Sir, the Railways and Harbours as the dynamic for growth. The question is what ought our objective to be. Is it simply to meet the demand, simply to be able to meet traffic demands, or is it to lead? Are the Railways to be the instigator, the leader of growth and development, or are they to follow along behind?

I want to give two examples, Mr. Speaker. I want to say at once that the Administration is bound by Government policy, which provides these two examples. One of the major development projects in South Africa, with far-reaching social and economic implications, is the Sishen-Saldanha development scheme, which includes a railway and a harbour. And yet here, in a major economic scheme, the S.A. Railways and Harbours are not even participating. It is essentially a rail and a harbour undertaking, and this illustrates what I mean. Are the Railways to be seen as a dynamic, or simply as a follower, as an also-ran? Here, in a field which is essentially their own field, they have been bypassed and pushed to one side. I believe it is unthinkable, if the Railways are to play their part as a dynamic of development, that this should have been possible. Now contrast this with Richards Bay, where the Railways are playing their part, and where this year R116 million is being injected into all the aspects of that work as a dynamic to development. This is what we mean by being the dynamic. Here the Railways have not been shunted aside as they were in the case of Saldanha. Here they were the instigators, the initiators, of growth and were not simply the “agterryers”. You only need to look at the railway map of South Africa, Mr. Speaker, to see that wherever there is railway development there is economic development. Or is it vice versa? That is the issue. That is the question posed by our amendment, whether railway development has followed economic development or whether it has initiated1 it. When you look at the railway map for the rest of Southern Africa, Capricorn Africa, you see the true potential of the part the Railways could play. Starting in South Africa, they could become the base for an integrated transport system throughout Southern Africa. When you look at the vast empty spaces on the map you think of the vast potential that lies there. Bearing this in mind. I hope I am making myself clear when I say that we see the Railways as the dynamic and not merely as the follower. But. Sir, the Railways are toothless and powerless because the Railways live on a hand to mouth basis. They are dependent for their existence on 2% of 20% of traffic—the high-rated traffic. A variation of 1% or 2% in high-rated traffic can make the difference between profit and loss on the Railways. That is the degree of sensitivity of the Railways economy. They can be crippled by a temporary economic slow-down. The harbours can clog up if Iscor imports steel. Ten per cent of the imports over the last year have been steel in Durban, enough to have a serious effect on the harbour. That harbour can jam up if a neighbouring port goes on the blink. This is all part of Government policy—this making of the Railways so dependent on a very finely tuned traffic pattern.

Another factor, of course, is the capital structure. Other speakers will deal with this aspect. When you think that we have R3 228 million of interest-bearing capital investment and only R472 million of non-interest-bearing capital investment, then you realize the burden placed on the Administration. This is a field at which we have to look. If other State utilities need development, then the State buys shares and it can off-set those shares against the depreciation of its assets. There is a balance. Every time the Railways have spent R1 of capital since 1910 that capital has remained for ever an interest burden on the Railway user. Things bought for our grandfathers and long out of operation are still part of the capital burden, the interest burden on the Railway user. Because of this situation, the Railways are unable to really move out. They travel with half empty trains, because they cannot afford to gamble because passenger traffic is carried at a loss. The balance is so fine that they cannot play with this.

Why cannot we have in South Africa the same sort of thing as in Europe like the “eurailpass,” a ticket where for some £90 odd one can travel anywhere on the European rail service for 15 days? For £117 one can buy a ticket to travel anywhere within a period of 21 days. Australia is also introducing this system, a pass with which you can travel anywhere on the Australian Railways. But we cannot risk such imaginative ideas. We have an air-hotel tour, but this is about the only thing, apart from special trains and special tour parties. I believe there are so many things we could do if we really wanted to go out and look for business, if we were not perpetually looking at this fine balance of whether we can afford it or not.

We appreciate that the hon. the Minister has had problems. Other speakers on this side will deal with many of them, problems with capital and staff. I want to deal with only one other aspect, viz. some of the things—I want to put it fairly strongly—

Mr. “Angazi”.

Mr. W. V. RAW. Yes, Mr. I-do-not-know. How correct the hon. member is. So we find all sorts of excuses. We have some reasons, but also a lot of excuses. I want to refer to the hon. the Minister’s speech where he said that part of the problem in our harbours was the unforeseen volume of cargo. I quote the following:

He then goes on to say what they are. But this is hiding the facts. The hon. the Minister has taken a valley, a low point in traffic, and has compared it with the highest point and then tried to indicate this as his problem. One does not compare a low point with a high point to get a true picture. This is what I call trying to put one across on us. It is not a true presentation of a graph or of a growth factor. I do not have time to deal with it, but other members will. However, this is the sort of thing that we do not like.

We are told of the tremendous delay due to the weather and that 3 128 crane hours have been lost in Durban as a result. I totalled up how many cranes there are in Durban and found there were 200, which means 15,6 hours, i.e. less than two shifts lost when allocated per crane. This is a responsible Parliament and we do not have to bluff each other with globular figures that give the impression that rain has held up the working, has slowed up ships—in fact, has held everything back. … [Interjection.] We find that the hon. the Minister laid great stress on planning in the harbours last year. This year, however, he says that he has no reliable information, “geen betroubare inligting”. One year he says that there is good planning, the next year he says that he has no reliable information—none whatsoever. He says—

They do not need it.

He says they do not need it! They plan without any reliable statistics; no wonder we have delays, holdups and messes. They are upset by steel imports by a Government organization. Surely the Government tells itself what it is planning to do. We understand that the delay in Durban harbour is between one and two days. Is that correct?

Seventeen days.

No, we were told that it was an average of between one and two days. The hon. the Minister nods his head —that is the delay. I want him to tell this House and South Africa why the Government allows the Conference lines to make a congestion surcharge which will run into some R80 million over a full year because of congestion when the average delay is between one and two days. Who is bluffing whom? The Conference lines? I believe that it might well be. I hope that the hon. the Minister will make this very clear indeed, because R80 million more out of the taxpayers’ pockets could have given us an awful lot more work on harbours and railways. So one can go on, but my time is running out.

I want to refer very briefly to the two-shift system, which was “impossible” a year ago and which is now working perfectly. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in this regard, because one group has been left out of this. I was accused of claiming that railwaymen were dishonest when I said that if you paid them a decent basic wage, overtime would not be needed. What is happening now is exactly what we proposed. The railwayman who is working on the two-shift system is getting three hours “free overtime” and in eight hours is doing the same as he was doing in 12 hours, because when you work 12 hours a day you are too darn tired to continue at pressure but when you work eight hours a day, you can do a full day’s work. That system is working, but the floating staff has been left out in the cold. In order to keep up with this two-shift system, the floating staff are still working a 48-hour week compared with the 40-hour week for quay staff, plus the 15 hours free overtime they are getting. I ask the hon. the Minister to put the floating staff on to the same shift basis, namely 40 hours per week, so that they can play their part and not be the people carrying the burden for nothing. Other speakers will develop our case; my time has run out.

You have said nothing yet.

I hope that those hon. members who say that I have raised nothing yet will be able to give us their vision of the role of the Railways, whether it is to be a follower, a supplier of services, or whether it is to be the dynamic which will lead South Africa and ultimately Southern Africa to its true development potential and to its true future.

Mr. Speaker, it has just transpired that the hon. member for Durban Point had no point to make and now I am expected to react to that. The only thing we heard from the hon. member was that there was a lack of something new in respect of planning and the Railway Budget. I see in that nothing but a sly projection of an obsession and a complex, because I know of a specific group to whose ranks nothing new has been added but from whose ranks a lot has been taken away. I am referring to the ranks of the United Party, the official Opposition. The hon. member made a condescending remark which I find very interesting. He said an increase in rates of only 1 % or 2% in respect of certain commodities determined whether the Railways was run on a profitable or non-profitable basis. The poor hon. member has forgotten, however, that on previous occasions in this House he was one of the strongest opponents of increases in rates. How is one to understand and comprehend the logic and the reasoning of that party? If hon. members will permit me, I want to repeat that the hon. member for Durban Point stood up without any point to make while the bugger-all behind him flourished.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “bugger-all”.

I abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and withdraw it.

As far as the Railways is concerned in contrast to the United Party, we are concerned with a giant in the South African economy and in the South African set-up. This giant is the South African Railways. This giant has proved, as is evident from reports and facts before us, that it is able to cope with all the work it is offered. It has proved itself as an institution which sees to the interests of its staff, both White and non-White, as well as an institution which is able to adapt itself to the demands of a rapidly developing world. This, in the true sense of the word, is in fact what we are concerned with this afternoon. As against this we heard from the hon. member about a stumbling mule on his way to nowhere, wandering about aimlessly, purposelessly and with a total lack of direction. This is something which is typical and symbolic of that party, i.e. a stumbling, scraggy mule heading straight for the desert. We heard the very same story once more this afternoon, one I know by heart by this time, i.e. the refrain, that the Budget and its planning were hopeless and that the poor pensioner was suffering so many hardships. That is what we heard. To my mind these people learn so slowly and so badly. I can recall what we heard from the predecessor of the hon. member in this House in the year 1969. He said the Budget was hopeless, so much so that it was not worthwhile presenting it to this House; the planning was hopeless and “Why be so petty with pensioners?” etc. I am referring to Hansard of 10 March 1969 (column 2189) and earlier debates, in other words exactly five years ago and longer today. So it is old fare that is being dished up here today.

How right we were!

We shall come to the question of how right you were. I repeat that to my mind they learn rather slowly and are becoming boring now. The predecessor of the hon. member for Durban Point in the position of main speaker of the Opposition in this debate did at least learn a little bit. I corrected him slightly in the same debate on 10 March 1969 with regard to his faulty remarks concerning the Budget. After all, the Budget forms part and parcel of planning and is its basis. Budgeting, financing and execution are the soul of planning. We heard that the Budget was hopeless and that it was not worthwhile presenting it to this House. I pointed out to the predecessor of the hon. member for Durban Point in 1969 that it was generally accepted in the business world in South African and throughout the world today that, where a Budget showed a difference of plus 5 % or minus 5 % in the business world, it was regarded as a good Budget. Where there was a difference of 2%, the budget was regarded as a perfect budget.

But what story did we hear here? The Minister had announced that he was budgeting for a surplus of something exceeding R7,08 million. Since there now is a surplus exceeding R30 million this allegedly was such a black sin, such a swindle. They asked how efficient people could possibly go about things in this way. If one has regard to the fact that the turnover of the Railways according to the Budget amounted to R2 630 million for the past year, it appears that the hon. the Minister’s so-called blunder comes to exactly 0,72%. So it is a spot-on Budget, a 100% Budget. And yet those hon. members come along and wax lyrical about the Budget being ridiculous, haphazard and hopeless. Really, we are long past that stage! This makes me feel discouraged this afternoon. A former member for Yeoville is sitting with us now. He listened when I spoke to him five years ago. That is why he is sitting on our side of the House today and in a very respected bench. The second and present hon. member for Yeoville also left the official Opposition. So what can one expect from that party when it comes to an argument such as this which concerns scientific and professional standpoints?

The second refrain, one we know well, was: “Why be so petty with the pensioners? ” In this regard, too, they gave a somewhat incorrect and slanted representation of the truth. They waxed lyrical about the increase of 2% while food prices in particular had increased by 20% and the cost of living in general had increased by from 14% to 15%. They went on to speak of the meagre, piggardly concession of 2% per year to the pensioners. They said it was an offence and a sin.

Only to certain pensioners.

I object to the United Party dragging this sensitive and emotional matter of pensioners, of people no longer able to hit back through the application of energy, across the floor of this House in this manner for the sake of political gain. I think the time has arrived for the hon. members on the opposite side to grow up also as far as this is concerned. After all, they know that we have every sympathy with the pensioners. On behalf of this side of the House I want to say to the pensioners that we are only too aware of the difficult times, which they, in common with all of us, are experiencing, and I want to ask them to be patient and to trust the Government and this Minister. As he did in the past, he will see to the interests of the pensioners in his own time. After all, adjustments have been made very regularly. When salary increases take place, the interests of the pensioners are seen to as well. There is not only the 2% of this year. On several occasions these pensioners received increases of 10% and 15% so as to assist them to make ends meet. I want to repeat that in my opinion it is unreasonable and indeed a pity that the Opposition adopted this standpoint in this regard. If it is taken into consideration that a pensioner or an annuitant who left the service of the Railways in October 1958 received an increase of 131% up to 1974—the ordinary 2% plus the adjustments that were effected from time to time—and that during the same period according to the statistics of the Reserve Bank, the cost of living rose by only 83 %, in other words a difference of 50% in favour of the pensioner, why make this unreasonable, unjust and unaccountable dig? These pensioners are people who deserve our respect and sympathy. They are also people who have up to now received the hand of friendship of this Government in regard to Railway matters. It is no wonder that that party, while it adopts this standpoint in connection with Budgets and policy, had the experience they did in its most recent history. They cannot even budget for their own matters; they cannot even place the right evaluation on the will of the electorate of South Africa. Then they wish to join in the conversation in this company! I think it is a pity. I recall what D. F. Malherbe said in connection with something else (translation), “How I am made to suffer till the small hours of the morning”, and I add, by the ineffectiveness of an opposition party in the politics of South Africa.

There was a further accusation that was made in connection with the pensioner. It was said that the pensioner was not receiving anything of this unforeseen surplus of more than R30 million, because it was going to the Rates Equalization Fund. They said it was going to the Rates Equalization Fund and the Railway worker who had worked for it would not be getting any of it. I still recall how they exclaimed with clenched fists in the past, “What are you doing now?” When it was necessary in the past to use the Rates Equalization Fund so as to avoid increases in rates, and also, indirectly, in respect of salary increases for the Railway workers, the Opposition asked us, “What are you doing now?” They said this Rates Equalization Fund was the premium, the insurance policy of the Railway official, that we were making it bankrupt and that we were not allowed to do that. They said it was a swindle. Now the hon. Minister comes along and says that since the Rates Equalization Fund has a balance of just over R2 million, he is going to pay the surplus of R30 million into that fund, and now he is being reproached on that score. Now it is a sin whereas in the past their main plea was that this Rates Equalization Fund be kept as strong as possible. How they change their standpoint, and not only their standpoint, as far as policy is concerned. To me this seems to hold good of their arguments as well, hour after hour and day after day. Small wonder things are going with them as they do. I recall the days when they told us to implement the recommendations of the Schumann Commission to the effect that certain categories of traffic had to pay for themselves. They also said that the Railways was no welfare organization and that we should subsidize some of these things from State revenue. Arguments like these are still well-known to us. As though subsidies and support from the State Revenue Fund does not come out of the pocket of the taxpayer too! These are strange arguments which hold no water.

Sir, the Railways is generally accepted today as being the biggest single employer in this country, and we cannot but speak with great praise of its policy in connection with incentives, training and increasing productivity. Reference has already been made here to what the Railways did to increase the productivity of officials and the productivity of this institution as a whole. Sir, the staff of the Railways numbered 187 000 in 1948; in 1958 it numbered 231 000, and from 1958 to 1974 there was no improvement; they could not even make up backlog, but in spite of this the Railways probably is one of the few institutions in the country that is able to boast of having succeeded, through proper planning, through the mechanization of certain of their labour activities, through the introduction of computers, through the simplification of working methods, etc., in increasing productivity by approximately 2,5% per annum from 1958 to 1974. Sir, I ask the Opposition speakers, in their superficial cleverness, to give us in this debate a better example of efficiency. Sir, these are facts that can be checked. The Opposition makes the ridiculous accusation that there is no building up of morale; that there is no incentive to higher productivity.

In certain grades.

Sir, the hon. member made that statement; he must not try to qualify it now. The salaries of the officials increased from R109 million to R610 million from 1948 to 1974. Per capita the salaries of White officials increased from R2 973 in 1968 to R4 635 in 1974. Sir, in United Party time it was R910 per annum—500% less.

What was the pound worth at that time?

And then those hon. members want to put in a word!

That is a poor comparison.

When they are in power we accused them of wasting money. They obviously did not spend a great deal of money on improving the position of the staff, but they did try to waste money in other respects, for example, on the Hex River tunnel that was never built.

Which is now going to cost a hundred times as much to build.

The difference is that we can afford it now. Sir, apart from the improvement of salaries that took place, the conditions of service of the staff were improved as well; the grades were improved; salaried status was awarded to station masters, signalmen, drivers, constables and sergeants, etc., and this improved their leave and other benefits in that they came on to the salaried payroll from the wage schedule. Sir, in view of the shortage of staff the Railways took other measures as well to meet this problem. Inter alia, it replaced Whites by non-Whites. We are aware of the fact that there are 4 500 non-Whites today who replaced Whites in approximately 40 different grades in the railway service. Sir, this is a realistic, practical policy testifying to planning, adaptability and a progressive view. Since a shortage of White employees existed, to the detriment of the Railways, other schemes were also implemented to meet this problem. This was done by employing non-White workers in White jobs temporarily with the approval, assistance and co-operation of the staff associations concerned. This policy is being implemented very strictly and Whites are not replaced by non-Whites without the approval of the staff associations concerned, and at head office a job allocation committee has been established to see to these matters. We have peace and harmony and prosperity for the sake of higher productivity. Other schemes have also been put into operation, such as assistant artisans’ schemes, train marshallers’, schemes, trackmen’s schemes, sorters’ schemes, in which connection 7 300 non-Whites have also been employed in jobs in which there was a shortage of White workers. And what impresses me. Sir, is that as far as these non-White employees are concerned, they, too, have now received a compulsory pension scheme. This is a further development of the compulsory saving scheme of several years ago, and now only casual labourers and foreign Bantu are excluded therefrom. In this connection the Administration contributes to the scheme on a rand-for-rand basis. This policy testifies to insight, good relations, goodwill and the creation of security in the ranks of the labour force of the Railways. Here we may just refer to the employment of women as well. As many as 1 000 women have already been appointed to jobs, such as checkers, crane drivers, constables, ticket examiners, etc., something which is meeting this problem with good results.

Then there is harbour handling. The hon. member said there had been no growth and nothing new, but we have taken cognizance of the fact that with the exception of East London there has been an increase of more than 50% in goods handled in all harbours. In Lourenço Marques there has been a decrease of 40% and in East London the increase has been 44,6%. Is this not something new? Is this not growth? Is this not development? Is this not proof of an endeavour to render service? You know, Mr. Speaker, in the days of the United Party Government one could still speak of the “Railways”, the “Railways” that could be covered with a khaki blanket on which was printed in bold letters “Please do not tamper with or open this” because “Remember there is a war on”. But we are long past that stage.

I said at the outset that we were concerned with a giant, a giant which made itself felt in more than one respect in the economy of this country. Sir, we need to quote only a few examples to prove this. We learnt from the reports that the record number of 591 million passengers were transported by the South African Railways this year. If this number of passengers were to stand shoulder to shoulder in one line, they would encircle the earth four times, and if one considers the distances these passengers were transported, it means that we could have taken 20 000 people to the moon and back. That is achievement. That is growth. It gives us an indication of what the activities are with which we are concerned. It is not an organization that is shrinking as the United Party is doing and from which nothing new emanates. The Railways as a whole is new, and its growth determines its newness and its youth—its growth and not its stagnation, as is the case with that party.

The goods transported amounted to 119 million tons. This means, if one wants to express it in volume, that we could have loaded the houses of a whole city like Cape Town on a train and transported them. This is what the South African Railways did during the past year. If we had loaded all of this, it would, have given us a train 90 000 km in length. If the rolling stock owned by the Railways to render this service were to be coupled, it would give one a train stretching from Johannesburg to Cape Town. This is the giant we are concerned with. It is not a beetle—I nearly said something else—like that party. We are concerned here with a virile and extremely large organization. The South, African Railways is also one of the largest suppliers of working capital in the economy of South Africa. Its funds, it surpluses, the money in its funds such as the Reserve Fund, the Savings Fund, the Superannuation Fund, the Betterment Fund and the Rates Equalization Fund, is invested with the Public Debt Commissioners, from whom Government departments may raise loans. This giant I am speaking of is one of the largest suppliers of finance capital in this country. There is as much as R925 million in these funds at present. This is the giant we are concerned with, and this is the contribution this organization makes in South Africa. In addition, the South African Railways is one of the largest markets for local industries. Seventy-five per cent of its needs are supplied by South African industries. Last year the Railways spent an amount of R277 million on purchases alone. I compare this to R37 million in United Party time. That R277 million means more than our export trade to Japan, the United States and Canada. As a trading partner the Railways, which forms part and parcel of our national economy, is just as important to us today as three foreign countries. This is the giant we are concerned with.

The Railways supplies nearly 10% of our national income. In 1971 it was R1 202 million, and of that the Railways handled more than 62%, or R746 million. It is the only country in the world in which the Railways’ proposition of the transport activities of a particular country is still showing the potential to grow and is not decreasing rapidly. It is generally known throughout the world today that in these transport activities the proportion of the Railways as opposed to the rest is decreasing. apart from the financing problems and capital shortages they experience. With the energy problem here in our country, it will not apply to our Railways for a long time to come, as rail transport remains the most effective means of transport, especially over the long distances we find in our country. Sir, this gives one hope and faith as far as the future is concerned.

I have said the Railways is the largest single employer in South Africa. If the dependants of the 231 000 railway officials are taken into account, it means that the Railways is accepting responsibility for ¾ million inhabitants of South Africa, and is supporting them. This is not something small; this is not something unimportant; it is not indicative of an institution which can exist and survive without planning. I repeat: We must expose to public contempt this strange projection of a small party which it wants to apply to large institutions such as the S.A.R. and H. The South African Railways is responsible today for the maintenance and the employment of one out of every ten White inhabitants of South Africa. This is the giant I have referred to and with which we are concerned; it is indeed something to be justly proud of. Regarding this giant there is planning. We know of its planning section which occupies itself with physical planning, economic planning, with statistics and cost accounting, etc. The Minister said he needed no other sources of information, because he had his own department. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in the parliamentary hierarchy, the hon. member for Witwatersberg is second in order of importance as far as railway matters are concerned. First there is the hon. the Minister and he is followed by the hon. member for Witwatersberg as chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. I hope the hon. member does not take offence if I put him in second place. I know that he was very upset the other day when someone said that he was second in line for the post of Commissioner-General.

I do not know what the hon. member expected. The hon. the Prime Minister should have appointed three people simultaneously, I suppose, and then have let them draw lots. In any case, I hope he does not take offence. The hon. member spoke about the previous hon. member for Yeoville and said: “Look where he is sitting now!” I just want to tell him that he listened very carefully to his speech. I do not want to be derogatory, but if he convinced the former hon. member for Yeoville with that sort of speech, then that hon. member must have known very little about the Railways. Therefore, I do not believe that that was the case. Nevertheless I want to ask the hon. member a question. He says the Railways is the only enterprise of its kind in the world whose share of the transport market of the country, in comparison with other countries, is not declining. It is difficult for me to understand how the hon. member arrived at that conclusion. I asked the hon. the Minister recently whether he had the statistics to establish this position. Why did I ask the question? Because a few months ago the Genera] Manager of the Railways said the very opposite to what the hon. member said today. The General Manager said that the share of the Railways is in fact declining, if I understood correctly. I do not want to be emphatic about this because I might be making a mistake, but that is how I can remember his speech. Then I asked the hon. the Minister what the Railways’ share of the transport market of South Africa was. He said he did not know, but the hon. member for Witwatersberg, the second in line, knows. I really do not know where he got that from. I have trouble with the hon. member.

He says that we were opposed to the rate increases. Of course we were and we are certainly not trying to escape that. Surely the hon. member knows why we were opposed to them, viz. because we felt that in a situation of high inflationary pressure it would be fatal to increase the rates. The hon. the Minister said at the time that it would only bring about an increase of ½% in the cost of living. We said that it would be more, and I am convinced that it did in fact mean an increase of far more than in the cost of living of South Africans.

The hon. member also said that the Railways could convey all the carriage it was offered. Now I wonder whether I can be of any assistance to the hon. member in respect of what we mean when we say that the Railways must take the lead and not merely follow on behind. We see the matter in this light: A general store sells sugar or coffee; a supermarket also sells these commodities. However, one goes to a general store and they sell to you; a supermarket is just the opposite. If one is not careful, one does not only buy sugar, but coffee as well. The Railways must sell transport and must not wait for someone to come and buy it. The item which the Railway puts on the market, viz. its transport services, must be such that it can sell them to the public of South Africa and does not have to sit still and wait for people to buy from them.

The hon. member also made a great fuss about the fact that we say that pensioners are struggling. However, the hon. member admits it himself. We are sitting here with almost R30 million, which could in the end be almost R40 million. Can we not help those few thousand people from that source? It is not a political matter. How many voters are involved here? There is no prospect of an election. This is not the Langlaagte R60 million now. We are pleading for a few thousand people who are really struggling and the hon. member agrees. Why does he make such a drama of nothing? Why does he not rather say he agrees? Then at least he will be doing a good thing.

The hon. gentleman tells us that we regard this surplus as deception. Now I want to tell the hon. member that I never know whether I should laugh, or cry about a surplus—I regard it with mixed feelings. I do not think that there is much reason to clap hands about the R30 million. Perhaps we could have applauded if the hon. the Minister had come out exactly even. However, R30 million is a considerable amount.

However, we must also remember that a few months ago the hon. the Minister pushed up the rates from 5% to 60%. Perhaps we should be grateful that the hon. gentleman has not raised the rates again. Perhaps we should be even more grateful when we bear in mind that these rates were pushed up as late as 1 November. Suppose he had pushed them up with effect from 1 April 1974—just think of the millions we would then have had to pay. That is another reason for being grateful. So one must count one’s blessings, even if one does not feel very happy about a surplus of R30 million.

There is another matter on which I want to pause a moment. Last year the hon. member for Parow in particular spoke very well indeed about it. He said that the increases last year were not made operative because more money was needed, but because an attempt was being made to implement the recommendations of the Schumann Commission. The Schumann Commission said that we must try to bring the transport rate closer to the actual transport cost. That is what the recommendation was. This time we hear nothing of this necessity. No one is saying a word about it. Note, suddenly, it is no longer necessary to implement that commission’s report.

Another adjustment was made last year.

Yes, but wait. A body such as the Railways—and now I want the hon. member for Parow to listen carefully—which plans ahead and has to have vision, cannot use “stop-go” methods: On one occasion one applies it and the next one does not. One cannot apply this only when one needs money.

Does the hon. member want an adjustment every year?

If the Railways want to plan ahead, they will have to look at the matter correctly and say that they will create a situation over the next ten to 15 years in which this organization’s rates and actual cost figures will be brought as close as possible to each other. The public must be informed of this. The House must also be informed of this. The dealer and the consumer outside must be put in a position which will enable them to know precisely where they will stand in ten years’ time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, with all due respect, Sir, my time is very limited.

I can foresee that a time will come when the Railways will try to make specific rates equal to actual costs, but will be unable to do so. As an example I can mention the rate on livestock. The earlier rate was pushed up by 60% and even now only 65% of the cost is being covered. I cannot imagine that a time will come when the Railways will charge a rate for livestock which will cover the total cost, and that people will be satisfied with it.

In the second place there is the question of passengers who are conveyed at a loss of R100 million per year. If we should try to phase in the recommendations of the Schumann Commission, we shall reach a stage when we shall find that we are no longer able to raise the passenger fares for South African consumers any further. Even if one were to go out of one’s way to implement the recommendations of the Schumann Commission, one would still find many cases where the Railways will simply be forced to convey specific items at a loss.

What I am asking, is that the Railways should ascertain that position as soon as possible. I do not think that the Railways should be expected to provide socio-economic services in South Africa. Now I am not repeating my own words. That is not a United Party view, but that of the hon. the Minister of Transport. The sooner we reach the point where we know precisely where the Railways stands in respect of every transport matter and the sooner we know what the loss is that it is suffering as a result, the better it will be for the Railways. Then we can go to the hon. the Minister of Finance—the hon. the Minister of Transport said that he would do this—and say that we cannot go on like this any longer and that if he does not help us, we will find ourselves in trouble with the position in which we shall then be. As soon as we possibly can, we must try to obtain clarity about the implementation of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission. I say again that we must stop using the Schumann Commission’s report as a pretext whenever we need money. We must take the nation into our confidence and plan ahead and we must stop hanging the Schumann Commission report over the head of the consumer like a sword of Damocles, a sword which is allowed to fall only when extra money is reeded.

Do you want adjustments every year?

I now want to refer to another matter.

No, the hon. member will not say it.

I am sorry, I did not hear.

I just want the hon. member to tell us whether he wants us to have adjustments every year in order to implement the recommendations of the Schumann Commission.

I am very pleased the hon. member asked me that question. I should rather see that we make slight adjustments every year over a period of 15 years in respect of which the nation is informed ..

Increases?

Yes, increases in respect of which the nation has been informed. I should rather see that than see that we have to make sudden and unexpected shocking adjustments as was done on the last occasion. That is what I advocate. Put us in the position where we know where we are. The Railways should take the lead.

There is another matter in respect of which the Railways can take the lead if it wants to be a dynamic enterprise. This problem has already been discussed and the hon. member for Witwatersberg will say that we are reviving old disputes, but we shall not get any further like that. The thorniest problem for an urban resident today is the tremendous transport problem which we are experiencing in the urban complexes. This problem is becoming increasingly serious year after year. It is a problem which requires deep consideration and it must be handled expeditiously because we know that each year which passes will cost us millions extra to do what might require a whole new transport scheme from us. It requires no imagination to realize what the position will be if we do not do something now. Our cities are literally being strangled by motor cars today. Every year more roads and more freeways are being built, and every year the cost involved in the building of those roads is increased. Every year it brings about increasing pollution and the amount of fuel which is consumed every year increases all the time and that in itself is already a crisis. We also face the familiar fact that the more roads one builds the quicker those roads are filled, and one simply cannot keep ahead. It is a sort of “traffic Parkinson’s Law”.

What will the position be in 25 years time when many of us may still be here? At that stage the population of South Africa will have doubled to almost 50 million, of which almost 75% will be concentrated in the urban complexes. Can we imagine how great the problems will then be? The hon. member for Witwatersberg said that the Railways now conveys almost 600 million passengers per year. Only four years ago the Railways only conveyed 500 million passengers. This means that an additional 100 million passengers have been conveyed by the Railways within four years. If we apply the trend which we had over the past four years over the period of 25 years, we shall come up against the situation that the Railways may be required to convey 1 000 million passengers per year, while those who use motor cars will continue doing so unabated. Have hon. members ever thought what the position would be in the cities if the motor car user were to be discouraged from using his motor car and encouraged to use the Railways so that the bottlenecks might be alleviated? Have hon. members ever thought about the ten thousands of millions of extra passengers there will be as a result of this? Where do we stand in respect of these matters. We hear a great deal from the Railways and we know that the Railways are not keen to become involved in this matter, because they suffer losses. I am not very happy about the question of losses. I am not unhappy because there are losses, but I am unhappy about the extent of those losses. We know that there are losses, but we also know that there are thousands of people who make use of the Railways free of charge; we know that there are people who work for the Railways and for various departments who make use of the Railways every year free of charge. I have nothing against that …

You are making the same speech as you did last year.

Yes, but I did not get answers to these matters at that time. I hope the hon. member will answer this time.

Will he answer this time?

I ask again: How many people are involved in this? It is essential that we know. I also want to know what the amount is that is involved in this. I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister to ascertain these numbers and amounts and to see that the costs are correctly allocated by the passenger service. The costs which are incurred by letting a shunter go on holiday every year, are passed on to the passengers. Those costs are not met by his own section. Here is a situation which must be rectified before we can ascertain a true figure of the losses and passenger transport. As I have said the Railways will have to play their role if they want to be known as a dynamic enterprise in South Africa. The Railways must accept this role with alacrity.

I want to come to another matter in connection with which the Railways have done very little. I am still referring to urban transport. Let us take the question of the distribution of working hours. The hon. member for Parow raised this matter a few years ago. As long ago as 1969 a commission dealt with this matter, but only now, after five years, we hear that close attention is being given to the matter. In the meantime an excellent means of helping the Railways at rush hours has been ignored. I want to know why this has been delayed for so long. I think that this state of affairs is not good enough for an organization such as the Railways.

There are other matters in connection with which the action of the Railways is also not good enough. We know that a Driessen Commission on urban transport has been appointed. We know that the report of that commission has appeared and is being given attention somewhere, but definitely not in this Budget. I think this is pre-eminently a matter which ought to enjoy attention in the Budget. The Railways must play a leading role in respect of urban transport. This is a matter which intimately affects thousands of commuters and motorists. These people must be involved in the matter and informed timeously. If one can succeed in getting the enthusiastic co-operation of people who are involved, so much the better. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is being done in this connection Has the time not arrived for him to inform this House and the nation outside and to tell them that he as Minister of Transport is prepared to take the lead in this thorny matter with courageous advance planning? His advance planning must indeed be so courageous that he can involve the public of South Africa with enthusiasm in his plans, so that the public will be keen to participate in any plan with which the hon. the Minister might come forward. After all, that is how one acts if one is keen on the matter.

Let us look at whether the Railways are giving the necessary guidance in other fields. I think there is another matter about which the Railways are far too humble, viz. the question of labour, about which a few words have already been said. As the largest single employer in the sphere of labour in South Africa, the Railways, who employ more than 230 million workers, ought to play a leading role in the labour market.

230 000.

I beg your pardon. In the Railways one must be on one’s toes to be able to distinguish between the millions and the thousands. Sometimes one cannot help a slip of the tongue. The Railways employ 231 000 workers, to be precise. On a previous occasion I told the hon. the Minister’s predecessor that a particular labour pattern had been recognized in the Railways for years.

You have been saying that for many years.

The hon. the Minister of Transport, Mr. Schoeman, stood up and asked me: “What pattern are you talking about?” He “switched me off”, if I may use this term. At that time I did not go further into this argument, but if one does not simply want to score debating points, everyone will admit that for many years a particular labour pattern has existed in South Africa as far as the ratio of the number of Whites to the number of non-Whites in the service is concerned. Thus one finds that in 1960, 110 000 Whites and 108 000 non-Whites were employed. Ten years later, in 1970, 111 000 Whites and 111 000 non-Whites were employed. This is a pattern which has remained static and which has never changed. It is a pattern which has remained the same for all the years, in the Railways and nowhere else. It indicates an abnormal situation. It is a pattern which has not been maintained by natural laws, for example the laws of economics. The position has been maintained artificially by socio-political forces in South Africa, in spite of the fact that innumerable appeals have emanated from the hon. the Minister and his predecessor and the Management, that the Railways were experiencing a tremendous shortage of manpower, especially in the bread-and-butter categories.

It is well-known that changing times have brought changes. Well, now we have had a change. I just want to say that I am one of the people who have pleaded for this change for years. Therefore I am glad that it has taken place. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that although I am known in politics as a verkrampte, I shall be the last one to make political propaganda out of this development. I say this because I believe that it is one of the best things which can happen in our country. Therefore I say that the Railways are hiding their light under a bushel. The change takes place with the co-operation of every trade union in the Railways. What is more, not a single White loses his job, and no White man has lost his White identity nor has his wife or child lost theirs. This is what I like about this change. There was universal approval of this change, and here is a good lesson, not only for the Railways, but for the whole of South Africa. I once said to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor that if there was one thing which I held against him, it was that he began this matter and that he, as senior Minister in the Cabinet of South Africa, never sold this matter to his fellow-Cabinet members. I hope the time will not arrive when I shall have to say this to the hon. the Minister as well. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is engaged in something fine, something which has even fired the imagination of the trade unions. That is how a job should be tackled. Let us listen to what Mr. Johan Benade, Chief Secretary of the Federal Council of the Railway staff has to say. I quote from an article which puts the matter as follows (translation):

How often have we not said this in this House? However, there have only been smiles when we have said it. Mr. Benade went on to say:

Here we have a man who is at the head of a large federation of work unions. He speaks with enthusiasm about the matter. Now I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are glad that this is taking place, because it is happening both to the advantage of the human element and on the economic level. We have always said: There is no more expensive time than overtime. It is expensive for the people who have to work overtime and also expensive in the economic set-up. How glad am I that the days are past when my National friends on the other side asked, “Do you want overtime abolished?” They wanted me to say “yes” so that they could make propaganda from that. I state my standpoint unequivocally and it is also the standpoint of this side of the House: Overtime, to the extent to which the Railways make use of it, is an absurdity. It is an expensive service which is given.

One cannot abolish it.

If we cannot abolish it, then we must reduce it to what is absolutely essential. Do not tell me that the worker cannot get by without it. Sir, I say it is a crying shame if an employee of the biggest organization in South Africa has to say that he must rely on overtime to be able to live. I say that we must reduce overtime to a minimum, and I shall tell the hon. member how it can be done. Let us look at the figures. The hon. member for Durban Point told us about the men, White and non-White, who worked 12 hours a day in Durban harbour, a shift of eight hours and four hours’ overtime, if my facts are correct. Suddenly they were told, apparently because they could not make the grade as far as productivity was concerned, “Forget about the four hours’ overtime; work your normal shift of eight hours; we shall pay you for 12 hours’ work, but then you must work faster”. And what happened when that overtime was abolished? The men’s wages remained the same, but their productivity increased by 35%. Sir, is it not time for that attitude to be adopted over a wider front than just the harbour front? Should we not extend it to the Railways in its full scope of activities? Sir, I know that there has been a shortage of White workers throughout the years. But in South Africa there is no shortage of non-White workers. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider this matter very seriously; I ask him to look at the amount which is paid annually for overtime and to say, “If I cannot get a White worker, then rather than go on to the slippery slope of overtime. I will be prepared to appoint a non-White to do this work.” Sir, let us look at the position. In 1974 R57 million was spent on overtime; that does not include Sunday time. Sir, that is the equivalent of the salaries of 15 000 White workers for a full year. If we cannot get White workers, why do we not appoint 15 000 non-Whites? In this way we can get rid of overtime. It has been proved in the harbours of Durban. Cape Town and Port Elizabeth that overtime is expensive time for the Railways. Let us get rid of it. The hon. the Minister has already opened the doors and given a new dimension to the labour market in South Africa. He will never again be able to or want to close the doors since the adjustment work has been done by responsible people in a correct pro-South African way. It is a policy which we fully support. But I say to the hon. the Minister that he must also look to the economy; that he has nothing which he need fear, because he has the assurance that on this side he has a party—the hon. member for Waterberg may scoff and say what he likes about a party which is small in numbers—which is responsible, a party which will not exploit for political gain, a step which meets with our full approval, as such steps have been exploited in the past by other people. Therefore I say that the hon. gentleman has nothing to fear. In the interests of all workers in South Africa, White and non-White, and in the interests of the Railways of South Africa, the largest single employer, the great artery of the economy, the hon. the Minister, if he wants to create a dynamic image, must now open the doors and look at the human and the economic factors and say, “We have an answer for the whole Railway and Harbour service and not only for the few harbours which we have”.

The hon. member for Maitland made quite a long speech. I should just like to react to three of the points which he raised. He referred to Railway planning, but only in general terms; he also attacked it in general terms. The hon. member kept on referring to “urban transportation”. I think the hon. member should understand very clearly that urban transportation is the responsibility of the municipalities and local authorities. Inter-city transportation is the task of the Railways, and not urban transportation, for that is the task of the municipalities.

Then, towards the end of his speech, the hon. member dealt with overtime and said —it will be recorded in Hansard; he also represents Railway voters and they will get hold of that Hansard—that overtime work should be abolished. He was discussing overtime for Whites and when an hon. member cornered him on this point, he said “to a minimum”. But did you hear, Sir, what he said towards the end of his speech? He said that in its place, non-Whites should be introduced; abolish overtime for Whites, and introduce non-Whites to render that overtime service; take away the overtime of the Whites, and put non-Whites in its place to do the overtime work of the Whites.

Sir, I should like to return to the hon. member for Durban Point. I hope he will grant me just a moment. The hon. member for Durban Point thinks that the Railway Board could simply be abolished and should be replaced by a general planning council. Am I correct? This is a body, if I understood him correctly, which should apparently be made up outside the service. Am I still correct? I see the hon. member is nodding affirmatively. Am I also correct when I ask the member whether he means by that that other departments will be represented on that council, and perhaps private bodies as well? Very well, Sir. Now I want to put it in this way: The hon. member for Durban Point comes here this afternoon and puts forward a motion of no-confidence in the General Manager and his top men, implying that they are not competent enough to be able to perform in future the same task and the task which he envisages, tasks which they did in fact perform in the past. But apart from that it is also an absurd suggestion to make. The hon. member must tell me now: If there should be such a planning council, under whom should it fall? Surely it cannot fall under the Minister of Railways. It might have to fall under another Minister.

Why?

Why? How can you now constitute a body which consists of various bodies outside the Railways if it has to fall under that Minister? Surely it is then no longer the Minister’s function. Surely it is a council completely outside the Minister’s domain. Now we can just see how ill-conceived that plan of the hon. member is.

May I put a question?

No. You had your chance, and I replied to your statement.

No, you did not.

The two hon. members of the Opposition who have spoken up to now, really had to use a magnifying glass to look for criticism to level at the Minister’s Budget speech. There was very little criticism to level at it. They also used a magnifying glass to look for criticism to level at the Railway Administration in general. Sir. I read the comments in the newspapers, the English,-language and Afrikaans-language newspapers, and truly the comment there was very positive. For that reason I realize that the task of the Opposition in criticizing this Budget is a very difficult one. In this regard these two hon. members put me so much in mind of the old tale which we probably all know, of Don Quixote who without purpose and without any success charged an illusion and you need not have any doubts about who the attendant of this Don Quixote was. [Interjections.]

Every inhabitant of South Africa, from whatever political party he may be, and of whatever population group he may be a member, ought to appreciate the Railways as our national conveyor and the cornerstone of our country’s transportation system. Sir, it is a challenging and stimulating task of the S.A. Railways and Harbours to be able to meet its obligations and perform its task through a variety of services. Per rail, per road, through the gateways of our harbours, by air and even underground, where the pipelines have been laid, a constant stream of passengers, raw materials, manufactured goods, agricultural produce and livestock is being conveyed throughout the length and breadth of our country and even beyond our borders. This Herculean task is not the task of one person, or even the task of a group of persons gathered round a person such as the General Manager, although, there may be these as well. Sir, it is the task of and for thousands of loyal workers who co-operate harmoniously and in an inspired manner to carry out an enormous task. It requires vision, sound judgment, consultation, efficiency, skill, careful planning, penetrating research and competence, which can only be obtained through combining human resourcefulness to establish one integrated whole i.e. the Railway service. In this unity the talents of many individuals are combined and developed through study and research so that meaningful labour can be derived from them and so that the country can be provided with an effective transportation service.

Sir, I should like to express a few ideas in regard to the staff. At the end of the report year, i.e. the year ending March 1974, the number of employees in all sections of the industry was 231 610. This represents an increase of 1,2% over the previous year. Of these 109 502 were Whites, and 122 108 were non-Whites. In comparison with the previous year the non-White staff increased by 4 219, while the White staff decreased by 1 571. It is logical that there will be constant resignations from such a large staff corps, and that there will also be a large number of such resignations. I always find the resignations and re-employment which occurs on the Railways very interesting. During the period 16.12.1973 to 15.12.1974 —this is a calender year—the number of resignations in the case of White staff was 15 984. This represents approximately 14,5% of the total number of White staff members on 31.3.1974. For the corresponding period —and this is very interesting—there were 18 479 applications for re-employment, 2 500 more than had resigned the previous year. Sir, these applications were made by employees who had resigned in previous years as well, and not only from those resigned in the past. Of that large group the Administration re-employed only 6 843. The Administration therefore re-employed only 37% of the people who had previously been employed on the Railways. From this information I extract two important facts. The first fact is that there is a strong desire among former Railway servants, even if it is after a period of many years, to return to the Railways as employer. In the second place it provides evidence of the strict selection which the Administration applies in the employment of persons, but pre-eminently of the selectiveness displayed by the Railway Administration in the reemployment of former Railway servants. They are not taken on again because the Railway Administration knows that they were unstable in their work, the fact that more applications for re-employment were received from former Railway servants than there were resignations during the calendar year, gives the lie to the allegation which we frequently hear on the part of the Opposition, of dissatisfaction among Railway servants.

Usually poor remuneration, unsatisfactory working conditions, excessive overtime—the hon. member for Maitland has in fact referred to overtime work again now—excessive demands made on employees and the unfair application of disciplinary measures are advanced by the Opposition as reasons for the resignations. This afternoon we have been offered another one in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. The Administration has allegedly failed to stimulate the morale of many grades of employees. This, then, is also advanced as a reason for people resigning from the Service. Those whose reasons for resignation have any real substance, are definitely minimal. Those who resigned as a result of the reasons advanced by the opposition are only the unstable characters who cannot last out or stay on with any employer. It is they whom we usually label as rolling stones.

The question arises why those ex-servants wish to return if the Railways is supposedly such an unsympathetic and callous employer. Those persons who resigned from the Service and applied for a second or even a third time for re-employment found that they could not find an Utopia elsewhere. They had realized in the meantime that the Railways offered greater stability than any other employer, that the Railways offered regular increases, a livable wage and opportunities for inservice training to enable them to occupy better positions later on and earn higher salaries. They realized that they have housing benefits, pay fair rents, have opportunites to acquire their own homes, and many other examples. In addition there are constant improvements to the salary structure and the status of work groups, apart from the ordinary salary increases. I should like to refer in particular to what the hon. member for Witwatersberg also mentioned, i.e. the recent granting of salaried status to workmen. Arising out of many years of representations by the staff associations, and inter alia, in view of the shortage of graded staff, salaried status was recently granted to station foremen, signalmen, trained staff, artisans and sergeants and constables in the Railway Police. Attendant on this were the higher overtime and Sunday time scales which were introduced for them, and then we can also conclude from that that these persons will receive higher pensions when they retire from the Service. It must also be borne in mind that they will of course, as a result of higher salaries, also make increased payments in the form of pension and sick fund contributions.

I have just referred to housing for Railway officials. This is probably a matter on which both sides of this House agree. We can also join in advocating more housing and an increased contribution to the various schemes. The matter of housing is also raised here annually, and as he also did last year, the hon. the Minister usually furnishes a very full reply in this regard. Last year I expressed the opinion, with reference to previous observations made by the General Manager before the Select Committee, that the pension fund could also be applied to support the housing scheme. The hon. the Minister announced last year, in reply to the Second Reading Debate, that a new housing scheme would come into operation. It would be supplementary to the already existing housing scheme. According to this scheme funds are made available by means of a loan from the home ownership fund on the basis of the servant’s personal membership of the pension fund, at an interest rate which is charged from time to time on home-ownership schemes. In addition to that a loan for the balance is provided from the pension fund at a rate at which the pension fund earns interest elsewhere. In his Budget Speech last year the hon. the Minister announced that this scheme would come into operation on 1 April 1975. This scheme will definitely contribute to making more houses available. It will also be known as the housing scheme with pension funds. I believe that all railway servants, and particularly those who do not yet own their own homes, are very pleased about this additional housing scheme. I should like to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister for having announced this scheme, and also to the General Manager who suggested the idea.

The S. A. Railways places a particularly high premium on good housing for its employees. As far as this matter is concerned, it far surpasses most other employers. If other major employers had followed the same pattern in the past, we would today have had far more people who owned their own homes. The Management feels convinced that if the railway servant has good accommodation, he has nothing further to feel concerned about in this particular sphere, and will also be a happy, positive and in particular a very productive employee. Particularly in these times of labour shortage, great priority is being given to the productivity of the employee. The ideal of owning one’s own home is shared by all the officials on the Railways. It is as a result of this that there is such a tremendous demand for houses and that tremendous amounts of money are being drawn from the various housing schemes. We are familiar with the various schemes which are being applied, and I do not want to refer to them. I should like to furnish this House with a few statistics which will be a clear reflection of how extensive the efforts on the part of the Administration are, and how serious it considers this matter to be.

In respect of the 100% home-ownership scheme a total of 665 loans to the amount of R12,2 million were granted between 1 April 1974 and 30 November 1974—these are the latest statistics I have at my disposal. Since the introduction of this scheme on 1 April 1956 a total of 21 417 properties to the amount of R173,7 million have already been purchased. The Railway officials, and particularly prospective home owners under this scheme, appreciate it very much indeed that the maximum allowance for a loan under this scheme, according to the statement of the hon. the Minister in his Budget Speech has been increased as from June 1974 from R17 000 to R22 000. We come now to the 10% homeownership scheme. Between 1 April 1974 and 30 November 1974 a total of 376 properties to the amount of R0,875 million were purchased. According to this scheme 10% of the purchase price of the house is guaranteed by the Administration while the Railway servants may negotiate a loan in respect of the balance from a financing body such as a building society. We know only too well that funds are not at present in abundant supply at building societies and other financial institutions. For that reason the number of 376 properties which has been purchased does not appear to be very impressive. However, if it is emphasized that an amount of R22,2 million has been appropriated from the fund since the introduction of the scheme on 1 April 1956 for the purchase of 17 816 properties, the picture definitely becomes a more impressive one. Naturally one is able to conclude that 100% scheme will for the present be far more popular among Railway officials, particularly because of the higher loan maximum.

Since approximately 50% of the White staff of the Railways are accommodated department ally, I should just like to say a few words about this type of accommodation. Of the staff accommodated departmentally approximately 90% are married persons. Unmarried persons are usually accommodated in hostels and communal dwellings. Since the 1948-’49 financial year a total of 15 570 departmental houses have been built or purchased for an amount of R114,8 million. On 30 November 1974 a total of 24 458 houses were available to staff members. We learned with pleasure from the Budget that an amount of R10 million will be made available for the construction of 400 departmental houses. If one were to add together the number of houses constructed and the number of houses made available for Railway officials —I mentioned the figures—we would see that this amounts to the large number of 63 691 dwelling units. We in this country as such may, on the whole, feel very proud of this achievement of the SA.. Railways. In addition we can tender thanks to the Administration for the special attention they are giving to good accommodation for officials.

In amplification of what I have already said, I want to refer to the housing of non-White staff. On 1 April 1973 a housing scheme was introduced for the Coloured staff. Fifty loans involving a total amount of R348 000 have already been counted. With the introduction on 16 December last year of pension schemes for non-Whites, which include Indians it also became possible for Indian employees to participate in a home-ownership scheme. This scheme was established on the same basis as that for the Coloureds. Indian staff members shall have completed a period of at least five years’ service before they may qualify for a loan. I also want to mention the fact that the greatest percentage of non-Whites are of course being provided with departmental accommodation. I want to emphasize that the accommodation of servants, whether they are Whites or non-White is always of very great importance.

In conclusion I should like to deal with a few local matters, since I may not be afforded an opportunity of raising these matters during the Committee Stage. A few years ago I mentioned in this House that the inhabitants of the vicinity near the mechanical workshops at Koedoespoort, outside Pretoria, had complained about the smoke from the furnaces at the steel foundry. I also conducted a correspondence in regard to this matter. I am now particularly pleased to ascertain from the annual report that a new smoke arrestor has been fitted to the two electric-arc furnaces at the steel foundry and has been put into operation. This is apparently the first step which will be taken in this regard to eliminate atmospheric pollution. Although I no longer represent that constituency, I believe that those inhabitants will take cognizance of this with considerable gratitude.

At present I represent the Gezina constituency. The large shunting works at Capitol Park are located in the middle of that constituency. It is in the middle of residential areas. Apart from the tremendous noise caused by the shunting, there is also the vast amount of smoke this produces. Most of the locomotives in use there are steam locomotives. I receive a great many complaints about this matter. For that reason I am sincerely grateful to see in the annual report that various tests have been carried out with shunting locomotives to prevent black smoke and that instruments have been fitted in order to prevent it. However, only a small number of locomotives have been equipped in this way. I should like to address a request to the Minister and the Administration to the effect that the instruments eliminating the black smoke be fitted to al! those locomotives as soon as possible.

In the Budget Speech the hon. the Minister also referred in general terms to the proposed new railway line which is to be constructed in the Tswana homeland north of Pretoria between Wintersnes and Mabopane. Attendant upon that is the development of the railway station at Belle Ombre and of the accompanying railway network. The Minister did in fact mention that efforts are being made to expedite the details in regard to the planning, but I should just like to point out that this project was approved as long ago as 1973 and that it was regarded as a top priority development to bring alleviation in the road traffic of hundreds of buses conveying thousands of employees from the areas of Ga Rankuwa, Mabopane and Wintersnes to Pretoria and back. The traffic, i.e. the hundreds of buses and thousands of other vehicles flowing daily through Wonderboom Poort, is becoming so congested that the roads simply cannot bear it any more. This traffic flows right through my constituency. Consequently I receive regular inquiries in regard to the provision of a train service. On this occasion I should like to ask the hon. the Minister and the Administration to give particular preference to this project because it has become imperative for us in Pretoria that this matter be expedited.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gezina has seen fit to condemn my colleague for having suggested that the Railways should do away with overtime. I would like to ask him why he reacts in this way. Is it because he knows that there are thousands of employees on the Railways who cannot survive without having to work 12 or more hours per day? Surely this is an indictment of the Management of the S.A.R. in regard to its employment patterns and policies that so many employees have to work overtime in order to survive. I would like to ask him why this is necessary. If what the hon. member for Witwatersberg said regarding the increase in productivity is correct, why are these employees not enjoying the benefit of this increase in productivity by being enabled to earn a decent wage and not having to work overtime? We also heard the hon. member for Witwatersberg wax eloquent about the size of the S.A.R. He told us how big it was and that because it was so big it must of necessity have excellent planning operations and so forth. I want to suggest that the question of its planning being the best does not necessarily follow from the fact that the S.A.R. is a very large organization. I believe that many hon. members on that side tend to become complacent because they use figures and statistics which make them feel that everything in the garden is rosy. It was because of this fact that the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned certain figures that had been quoted by the hon. the Minister which lead us to believe that somebody was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I want particularly to deal with this in detail this afternoon.

In spite of all that has been said we hear continual reports about the tremendous delays at our ports. As recently as last week there were dozens of ships waiting outside our ports. We hear of possible coal shortages during this coming winter because the Railways can't cope. We hear of higher surcharges now reaching 40% because of the delays at our ports. However, we hear from the hon. the Minister, as the hon. member for Durban Point also said, that most of these problems are as a result of the phenomenal growth in general cargo carried during the period 1972 to 1974. For instance, he said that Durban had an increased throughput of general cargo of 69,8% over this two year period. I appreciate that these are the facts but I certainly do not believe that they are all the facts. This will become clear later on when I go into details in this regard. What is being done to alleviate the situation at our ports in South Africa today? Excluding for a moment the massive capital development programme that is being put into effect in our harbours we find that it was only in 1974 that it was decided to introduce the two-shift system for handling general cargo at Port Elizabeth. This system was introduced early this year in Durban. Because of the success of this two-shift system we now hear that it is proposed to introduce a three-shift system in our harbours. This fact and the reported increase in labour productivity are presented to us as if this were a radical, new approach towards achieving higher productivity in respect of labour. Surely this is a basic concept? Surely there are hundreds of businesses and industries throughout the country which have been using the shift system for years and years? I believe that this basic concept should have been fed into the computers of the Railway planning team as long as ten years ago. If this had been done, it would have proved that at that time, in 1964, all our existing harbours in South Africa had a capacity of 1,62 million tons of general cargo which could be handled per month. This was on a two-shift basis. Had they investigated the possibility of a three-shift basis they would have found that the existing harbours in 1964 had a capacity of 2.4 million tons per month. This would have been the position using a night-to-day shift productivity factor of 80%. When one considers that the average monthly throughput of all our harbours in 1974 was only 1,6 million tons one is entitled to ask why the multi-shift concept was not planned ten years ago. Surely growth figures indicated a need for this? Surely one or two berths at Durban, for instance, should have been commenced on a shift basis years ago so that the people there could build up the experience which is required to ensure acceptable productivity levels for this type of work? We are led to believe that the department had planned to introduce this scheme a number of years ago but we also believe that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor would not accept these plans. I say therefore that the Government is to blame for the present chaotic situation which exists in our harbours today. We are told that one of the reasons for not introducing this system earlier was because stevedores and commerce objected to shift work. This was used as a reason for not introducing the system earlier. I find this extremely difficult to accept. Here we have a Government which had no qualms at all in using strong-arm tactics to move thousands of people from one side of the country to the other. Here we have a Government which locks up people without trial for months on end all in the furtherance of its ideologies. Yet it backs down from seeing and doing its duty in the interests of our South African economy because of objections from mere businessmen. No, Sir, the Government should have foreseen this and it should have seen to it that there was sound forward planning at that time, which should have and could have prevented the chaos which we now have. Sir, it is no good the Government giving us lame excuses at this stage. It is a fact that today the two-shift system is being employed in our harbours, and I believe that this should have been done years ago. I am correct in this because the Minister’s own figures clearly indicate that there has been a lack of forward planning in this regard. As far back as January 1964, 330 000 tons of general cargo was moved through Durban which is our largest and most congested port. Six years later, in 1970, a total on 515 000 tons was moved through Durban during January. This was an increase of 56,1% in six years, which gives an average annual increase of 9,35%.

Why are you angry about it?

In June 1964, for instance, Durban handled 360 000 tons of general cargo; in June 1970, six years later, it handled 580 000 tons of general cargo. This was an increase over the six years of 61.1%, which gives an average annual increase of 10,2%. Sir, I firmly believe that these growth indicators over this six-year period were known to the Government, and I believe that they should have been used five years ago. Surely there should have been planning to meet the growth during the period 1970 to 1974. If the planning of the harbour had been done along the lines of these known growth trends, then the Durban harbour would have been planned to handle 708 000 tons by January 1 974. In fact. Sir, a total of 710 000 tons of cargo was handled, which is a mere 2 000 tons more than the tonnage that should have been foreseen way back in 1970 as the through-put in Durban in January 1974. And what did we experience in fact in January 1974? We had congested harbours. If they had used the June growth rate figures for that six-year period, they would have found that Durban should have had a capacity of 816 000 tons by June 1974. The actual cargo moved during that month was 780 000 tons. Sir, the figures which are available to us show a clear cyclic pattern and could and should have been used to avoid the chaotic situation which exists in our harbours today. Sir, it does nothing to instil confidence in us to have the Minister telling us that the major reason for this delay was the phenomenal growth in cargo handled in the Durban harbour during the 1972-’74 period, when the general cargo increased by 69,8%, especially since we know, as the hon. member for Durban Point has mentioned, that these figures were taken from the cyclic low year of 1972 to the cyclic peak year of 1974. What he did not tell us, Sir, was that the average growth from the peak year of 1971 to the peak year of 1974 was only an average of 9% per annum. This compares very favourably with the growth during the six-year growth period from 1964 to 1970 of 9.35% per annum. Be that as it may—and I am sure there are many hon. members on that side of the House who will say that it is all very well being wise after the event —I would like to look at what is being done at present and what the plans are for the future. We have heard a tremendous amount about Richards Bay. This is a dynamic project. It will create a growth point in Zululand which is needed there, and I for one would not for one minute criticize this particular project, but I want to make it quite clear that this project was originally planned to handle bulk cargoes and mostly coal. Now we hear that this harbour is also going to handle general cargo, which means that this cargo must be diverted either from Lourenço Marques or from Durban. Yet we find that at Durban there are millions of rands being spent on No. 2 pier, all for the introduction of containerization by 1979. Here again. I should like to make it quite clear that I like containerization. As an engineer, it is very clear to me that ships are going to be turned around in a much shorter period, that there will be efficient handling of goods and cargo and that this will save a great deal of labour. But we are also told by the hon. the Minister that by 1979 70% of the general cargo handled in our ports will be handled in containers. No Sir, if we project an increase in general cargo traffic handled at our ports at a rate of 10% per annum from this year through to 1979, we will find that by 1979 we are going to have an average monthly tonnage moving through all our ports of 2,24 million tons. From the figures given to us by the hon. the Minister, 1,57 million tons is going to be handled in containers and it is going to be handled on new quays which are now being built in our harbours. Therefore the balance of all our general cargo, averaging 670 000 tons per month in 1979, will be handled in the conventional manner and with our existing harbour facilities. When one considers that last year, in 1974, all harbours handled, with existing facilities, 1.55 million tons per month and that as far back as 1964 850 000 tons of general cargo were being handled a month, one wonders what our harbours are going to look like in 1979 when they are handling only 670 000 tons of general cargo a month. And this is excluding any diversion of traffic from Durban to Richards Bay. Are we going to see large portions of our harbours becoming redundant, and if so, what forward planning is there in this regard? I ask these questions. Sir, because when one travels the world one can see harbours which are dying for various reasons.

What also bothers me is this question of labour. At present we are being told that one crane gang of approximately 15 men can handle on average 14 tons of general cargo per hour. We are also told that one mobile container crane can handle 200 tons of general cargo an hour. This is 14 times greater than the amount handled by existing cranes and by the existing labour force What I would like to know is what the expected reduction in the labour force is going to be. I refer now to the labour force presently handling general cargo. Using my calculations, with this equipment I can visualize a reduction of 70% in the labour being used to handle general cargo. This will mean that seven out of ten men will be redundant. But the question I should like to ask is whether we will see these reductions. Will the taxpayer enjoy the benefit of this mechanization? Over the last few years especially we have seen hundreds of thousands of rands being injected into modernizing and improving the facilities of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. I have nothing against this, but I believe all of us would like to be assured that as we become more capital-intensive there will be a commensurate increase in labour productivity. I ask these questions because I am particularly concerned with an article which appears in the General Manager’s report on page 112. Here we see a photograph of a model of a hostel which is to be built at Umlazi. This hotel will house 9 000 Bantu employees and it is going to cost R14 million. What I would like to ask, in view of the questions I have put so far, is where these people will be working, and what they will be doing, bearing in mind all the mechanization, all the containerization equipment on which we will have spent money by that time in Durban, all the bulk cargoes which will be handled, and the diversion of cargoes to Richards Bay. Surely there should be a reduction of labour in this particular respect.

Having said that, I should like to say that I condemn this concept of housing 9 000 men in a single complex. We have heard so much of late about the need for healthy and proper housing for our Black people and yet we find this Government perpetuating what I believe to be a basically wrong concept of labour employment and labour housing. Only last week in the very chamber we had a snap debate on the unrest which occurred at a colliery in Natal, resulting in the death of 30 people and the destruction of many hostels at that particular colliery. Surely we must now be planning to move away from migratory labour and towards permanent employment and towards housing our labour in decent homes where they can have their wives and families round them. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, right here this afternoon, to stop work on this project immediately until the matter has been fully investigated.

In my speech so far I have attempted to show that there is a need for long-term strategic planning, and that the Government has failed in this regard. I have also attempted to show that in spite of the capital expenditure in spite of the attempts that are being made to alleviate the bottlenecks at our harbours by the two-shift system and so on, progress has been poor. I believe I am correct in this because only last week we saw report after report in our newspapers about the congestion at our harbours. We saw headlines such as the following: “Vessels take longer to turn around”; “Fewer ships but a longer wait”; “Rail jams can result in coal crisis”, etc. I believe that this bears out what we have been saying for quite some time and especially what we said in this debate last year when we called for an inquiry to look into the overall needs and the economics and organization of transportation in South Africa. So far the Government has ignored this, and yet the Government has continued to expand its facilities. The Railway Budget, as has been said this afternoon, is one of the biggest in the world.

I should like now to proceed in more detail to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. He moved that we reject this Budget because it “fails to reveal an appreciation by the Government of the role the South African Railways has as the dynamic in the development of South Africa and Southern Africa as a whole.” The amendment goes on to refer to the fact that there should be a stimulus to morale and incentives to productivity amongst our workers. The Oxford dictionary defines the word “dynamic” as “the energizing or motive force”. We submit this amendment this afternoon because we recognize and acknowledge the size of the Railways Administration and its power in the South African economy. It can be the energizing and motive force for progress and prosperity in South Africa and Southern Africa. We believe that South Africa is on the threshold of the open door to its ultimate destiny, i.e. being the powerhouse of Capricorn Africa. The development of South Africa is essential for the ultimate security of all our people and for the ultimate prosperity of all the people in Southern Africa. An essential factor in this development is transport and communication. Because of this we believe that this debate will clearly identify the size of the South African Railways. We believe that it has spare capacity and that this capacity could be used in the interests of promoting the progress and prosperity of the people of Capricorn Africa. We can see the challenge very clearly and we believe that it is our responsibility to our people and to the people of Capricorn Africa to cross this threshold and to get on with the job. We cannot vacillate. We firmly believe that this is the opportune time and we also believe that the Prime Minister has sensed this. We believe that he has timed his move to détente extremely accurately and clearly. He has done so at a time when the world’s economic position favours such détente, when the burgeoning problems of Africa, with its expanding populations and rising aspirations, are taxing our neighbouring states as never before in their history This is taking place at a time when our own Black South Africans are emerging from peasant culture into that of an industrialized society, at a time when our own technology and economic position, relative to Africa and to the world, is favourable for such action and also at a time when the previously acceptable attitudes in respect of labour, remuneration, status and position must be altered to accommodate the economic and social emancipation of our Black fellow South Africans. Now is the time for action and not for shilly-shallying with outdated philosophies. We have all seen the Government in recent weeks battling with this dilemma, the dilemma of some of its leaders who realize the present-day needs of our great nation and who are being held back by the bigoted views of some of their more verkrampte colleagues.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Railway debate.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I feel I must say this because we find in a recent news report that 13 000 Blacks are now working in White jobs. I am just trying to indicate to hon. members that there is a reluctance on the part of the Government and some of its members to get on and to do the job which we quite clearly see needs to be done. There are some hon. members in this House who have said that job reservation will be disposed of over their dead bodies. But then this hon. Minister informs us, and we read it every day, that more and more Blacks are taking over the jobs of Whites. It is not just those of shunters; the thin edge of the wedge is already in the trades and in administrative jobs. Because of this I want to ask whether it is not time for all of us to get rid of these old hang-ups of the past. Is it not time we acknowledged the reality of South Africa and of Africa as a whole? Is it not time we accepted the challenge of Africa, which I believe is our responsibility? I believe we should dump all these out-of-date philosophies which still persist on certain benches on that side of the House. I believe we have to get on with the job and I believe this is the time to do so. We also believe that the S.A. Railways should be the dynamic, the energizing and motive force to spearhead the progress of Capricorn Africa into the future. The reasons for such a plan are very clear for all of us to see. In the Railways we have a work force of 232 000 people, which is almost equally divided between Black and White Here we have an organization with a network of branches which extend into every village of South Africa and which has daily contact with millions of Blacks and Whites throughout the length and breadth of our country. The Railways has daily contact with commerce and industry who want to and in fact have to move forward if they are to survive, and whom we believe should be led by the S.A. Railways and Harbours. The Railways has a Budget so large that its actions have a major effect on the economy and the lives and the way of life of all who come into contact with it and especially on the lives of its 232 000 employees. It may be asked what we suggest. Firstly we believe that the department must accept its competitive position in the South African economy and must plan to maintain its role, as the hon. member for Durban Point has said, as the leader in all its activities which affect the progress and prosperity of Capricorn Africa. Secondly, there should be an extremely high-level planning committee— this has already been called for by the General Manager himself—which has as one of its main and top priorities the progress and prosperity of all people in Southern Africa. Thirdly, there must be a review of all systems in operation. I have tried to indicate this afternoon how we are battling with antiquated ideas and that when we find something supposedly new we make a great song and dance about it even though this has been done every day for many years in many other businesses. It is essential for us to ensure that the Railways are up to date and efficient and are making the best use of their men and machinery. Fourthly, there must be a review of the roles of the White and the Black workers on the S.A. Railways so as to ensure that there is no discrimination in regard to opportunity and reward. This means an unequivocal acceptance of the principles of there being dignity in labour, of equal opportunity for all and of equal pay for equal work and responsibility.

Fifthly, we believe that this power of the S.A. Railways—of its men, of its productive capacity, of its technology and its experience—should be offered to our neighbouring States on a basis of mutual cooperation and assistance and in the interest of the security, economy and economic well-being of all our people. This is the challenge which we on this side of the House see facing an industrialized Capricorn Africa. Which other organization is better placed and more ideally motivated to take up this challenge than the dynamic S.A. Railways Administration?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the alleged delay in the Durban harbour. The other day the hon. member had the opportunity of paying a visit to Durban with the Select Committee, where we had the opportunity to take a look and where the cause of those delays was very clearly stated to us. However, they are making an exception of the few ships that lay there a long time. The hon. member does not put it to this House that it is not only the Railways that are responsible for the landing of those goods. He does not put it to the House that private enterprise, industry, also has obligations as regards the loading and offloading of ships. He does not put it to the House that those people are also responsible for the delays. He forgets to tell the House that the documentation of the cargo is not always properly done. Those things he does not mention; he conceals them. That hon. member had the opportunity to go in, accompanied by a pilot, and see what a mess is unloaded from a ship which one is unable to identify because there is no tag on the goods. Consequently one does not know what the contents were or where the goods have to be sent. However, nothing is said about those things. The hon. member does not mention the circumstances and conditions prevailing as a result of the turning away of ships from Lourenço Marques to Durban and other South African ports. Those things are not mentioned. The hon. member knows that it was estimated originally that 400 000 tons of steel would be imported and that in the past year we have received altogether 900 000 tons. The hon. member, being a practical engineer, ought to know what a difficult and slow process it is to offload steel. It cannot simply be taken and thrown down. The steel has to be offloaded plate by plate and section by section. However, the hon. member does not refer to all these things.

The people who are now maintaining that we had done no planning are the people who foresaw no future for South Africa in 1970. I want to come back to the hon. member for Maitland. Last year, when we wanted to narrow the gap between the low-rated and the high-rated traffic, the hon. members on the other side of the House had the opportunity of agreeing with us. However, at the time they wanted to be popular with the voters and consequently they voted against high rates. Now, however, they come and moan about it. The hon. member for Maitland admitted today that we should increase the rates annually. However, has that hon. member ever considered what it would involve if the rates were to be adjusted annually? Does the hon. member realize the administrative burden that would be placed on every clerk at every station and in every office if the rates were to be changed every year?

You do it with general taxes.

The hon. member does not know what this involves. He must let me show him in my free time all this involves. For every item that is invoiced, the rate must be calculated. [Interjections.]

Order!

If one were to have to make those adjustments every year, one would be placing an enormous administrative burden on the Railways. Probably the hon. member does not want adjustments to be made in a year in which there is a surplus. Last year the hon. member advanced the argument that the Railways should transport people gratis. Surely the hon. the Minister provided him with a very clear reply then, namely that there were certain concessions which the Railways received from other departments. The customs and excise concessions are an example and they need not pay certain taxes. Now the hon. member is maintaining that the Railways would have been better off if they had had that revenue. This is the kind of argument they employ from time to time as it suits them.

However, I want to come back to the speech by the hon. member for Durban Point. To my regret he is not in the House at the moment. One really does not know whether one should always take the hon. member seriously. However, I have decided that there is no one better able to interpret the role of a clown than the hon. member. He is the person who always has to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for that party. Now that it has become evident that there will be a surplus of about R28,7 million this year, the hon. member is the first to agitate for us to pay higher salaries and higher wages and for us to pay the pensioners more as well. We are all sympathetic towards the pensioners, but surely we know that there are bodies that see to those matters. Last year, when we introduced higher rates, when we proposed that the low rated traffic be increased by almost 20% and the high-rated traffic by 5%, it was those hon. members who opposed it. Now that there is a surplus, they want to come and skim it off the table. Those hon. members always want to be popular and that is the reason why they are such a disintegrated party. Actually they are not a party because they fall between two stools; they run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. That is why they look as they do.

What does Waterberg say?

Hon. members need not concern themselves about Waterberg. I now come to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He praised detente and what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing. Why did that hon. member not have the courage to do what Mr. Harry Scwarz did in the No Confidence Debate? [Interjections.] Those hon. members would do well to leave the issue of salaries, wages and pensions in the capable hands of the General Manager, his staff and the staff associations. We know that they have handled the matter properly in the past and that they will continue to do so in the future. I want to know how seriously we should take what the hon. member for Durban Point has said in this House.

Last year, when the hon. the Minister provided us with a survey of the activities of the year 1973-’74, he said that we were experiencing sound economic growth and sound economic conditions and that at that stage expected the surplus to be not R7,8 million, but well over R38 million. The hon. the Minister said that in spite of the sound economic conditions he expected a levelling out. He said that he expected that owing to the increased salaries, the increased prices of steel and the increased prices of fuel, we would have to expect the Railways revenue to be about 12,7% higher. What did the hon. member for Durban Point do? He threw up his hands and reproached the hon. the Minister by saying that if the economic situation remained so favourable, then he was living in a fool’s paradise if he were to budget for a surplus of R3,2 million for the year ahead. The hon. member for Durban Point said that the Railways was facing a crisis. That is the accusation he made. He asked the hon. the Minister whether the hon. the Minister would again sell his investments at a loss as in the past if there were to be an economic slow-down. He accused the Minister of dealing the Rates Equalization Fund a knock-out blow. In addition he accused the Minister of having plundered the Renewals Fund and of not having made sufficient provision for depreciation. How seriously then, must we …

Who said that? Marais Steyn?

It was that hon. member. Hon. members might as well go and read the speeches he made last year. Now that there is a surplus, they want to come and skim off the cream. There is only one place to deposit that surplus. In terms of our constitution it must be deposited in the Rates Equalization Fund. After all, they are the people who are continually accusing us of having annihilated that Fund, I think it is necessary for us to stop a moment at this point and take a look at the Rates Equalization Fund. In 1962 we had R22 million in that Fund. Over the period 1962 to 1966 we deposited R33 million in it, but over the same period we paid R35 million in salaries. The next year we withdrew R14 million owing to a deficit. In the years from 1964 to 1970 we deposited R36 million and withdrew R13 million, but on 1 April 1968 we paid out R43 million in salary increases. In 1970-’71 R27 million was deposited, but on 1 June 1970 we paid out R64 million in increased salaries. During the period 1971 to 1974 things did not go so well. During that period we withdrew R89 million, please note on 1 January 1973 we paid out R100 million in salary increases. Last year we deposited R33 million in the Fund, but on 1 July 1974 we again paid out salary increases of R111 million. In the years mentioned, therefore, a total of R129 million has been deposited in the Fund, R116 million has been withdrawn in respect of deficits and over R354 million has been paid out in salary increases.

Looking at the state of the fund, we see that if this surplus of R28 million which we expect is deposited in the Fund on 31 March, we shall have a favourable balance of R63 million. This, then, is the so-called annihilated and plundered Fund! It is evident that the Fund will be much higher at that stage than it has been in many years. Let us take a brief look at where the R25 million surplus we are expecting in the 1974-’75 financial year comes from. Let us dwell for a moment on this point and consider from where we are expecting that extra revenue that has boosted our surplus from R3 million to R28 million. As far as the Railways are concerned, R4 million accrued from passenger traffic and R4 million from goods traffic. R2 million accrued from rent and storage fees, and R8,6 million from miscellaneous. Analysing the “miscellaneous”, one finds that R4 million of it comprises one-third more wharfage from the harbours. This is in consequence of the increased value of imports. From the period April to December 1974, imports rose by 54% and the value of exports rose by 43% over the same period. Then, too, there was an increase of R1,7 million in demurrage on trucks. I find it disturbing that we should have an increased income in respect of demurrage on trucks. We should much rather have seen those trucks being utilized to the full, enabling us to earn money from transporting freight rather than from demurrage on those trucks. When one makes this analysis, one sees that the Railways had earned approximately R8 million more than was originally estimated. In the case of the Airways, R20 million more was earned than had originally been estimated. One also finds that the expenditure over that period rose by about the same amount. In other words, the Airways balanced out. The pipeline—this is one of the things they want to separate from the Railways—provided us with an extra R9 million. In the same way the harbours provided us with an extra R8 million in wharfage. This is where the extra R25 million came from which enables us to have a surplus of R28 million at the end of this financial year. It is very clear that this additional revenue has accrued from harbour revenue and pipelines and that the Railways only made a minor contribution to this surplus. If we bear in mind that a revenue of R1 556 000 000 was originally estimated, and that an extra R25 million was collected, then it is very clear that the estimated Budget hit the bullseye, that it was as close as possible to the truth. I say that this constitutes proof that the hon. the Minister budgeted correctly last year, and was not living in a fool’s paradise. It was that party that was living in a fool’s paradise. The accusation made by the hon. member for Durban Point that the Railways was experiencing a crisis, was the biggest lot of nonsense because our Railways are nowhere near a crisis. I say that what is striking when one considers the present Budget—so far no one has referred to this—is that we should be grateful that an additional amount of R30 million is being deposited in the Betterment Fund. The amount was R40 million last year and consequently is virtually being doubled. I say that this is something to be taken note of in this Budget. We must also take note of the fact that a further amount of R9½ million is being set aside in respect of depreciation This is a very healthy sign. What I like about this additional amount of R30 million is the fact that one is defraying one’s capital expenditure on a cash basis. This combats inflation.

I referred to this fund that is supposedly being plundered. At the moment there is an amount of R165 million in the Renewals Fund. This was the balance of the fund on 30 November 1974. Does that look like a fund that has been plundered? Another striking item in the Budget is the fact that the interest rate that will have to be paid is R47 million more. The hon. member for Maitland referred to this. This is not disturbing. Last year the hon. the Minister told us that if we were to compare this with our revenue we should find that it came to about 13,8% of the revenue and that over the past 15 years, interest has varied between 12,9% and 14,8% of revenue. Consequently this is entirely realistic. Let us take a look at our expenditure, namely Head No. 5—Expenditure. R43 million in respect of traffic, and vehicle running expenses. There is an additional amount of R41 million for working on the Airways. This is the additional expenditure we must look at in this Budget.

Now we have had the accusation made by the Opposition that this National Party, the Government, and the Railways in particular are shortsighted as far as their planning is concerned. On what does the Opposition base that accusation? I am sorry the hon. member for Durban Point is not present. He said that the capital programme for 1972-’73 amounted to R250 million and that in 1975-’76 it amounted to R526 million. In other words, the capital programme has doubled over a period of four years. But consider in how ridiculous a fashion he measures this. He states that the capital programme for 1963-’64 was R126 million and in 1972-’73 it was R250 million. Consequently the capital programme doubled over a period of 10 years, whereas it has now doubled over a period of four years. I say that it is ridiculous to come to such a conclusion. Those are the words he used last Wednesday. He said: “The planning came all in one rush.” He went on to say: “There was no far-sighted planning.” The Railways are shortsighted in their planning! He also said: “I say it is no planning when suddenly out of the blue increases are thrown in.” I say, what an idiotic (“sottig”) attack to make on the Government!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “idiotic” (“sottig”).

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I say that this is really ridiculous. To come and state, on those grounds, that the Railways is short-sighted as far as planning is concerned, is absolutely ridiculous. We all know about the price increases that have taken place from 1972 to 1975. We all know how prices have risen. I want to give the hon. member for Durban Point an example. He would have done well to have done some homework. In 1963 we purchased 53 electric locomotives. They cost R6,3 million; in 1972-’73 they cost R10 million, and now they cost R18 million. A thousand DZ-type dropside bogeys cost R3,8 million. In 1973-’74 they cost almost R7 million, and in 1975-’76 they cost R10 million. The Railways network, as the hon. member for Witwatersberg said, has not stood still like something one can cover with a tarpaulin. No, the Railways network has expanded tremendously since 1962. Just consider the capital investment in the Railways. On 31 March 1965 it came to about R1 900 million and now it comes to R3 700 million. One will, of course, have to make far greater provision for capital works and improvements. That is precisely what we are doing, but now, suddenly, this is not enough. On the one hand one is attacked because one has not made sufficient provision for replacement, for improvements and for capital works, and on the other the accusation is levelled that there is no planning. Sir, how can one argue with people like that? The figures I am quoting here prove conclusively that we have not been shortsighted in our planning; these figures refute that argument by hon. members opposite out of hand. They come along with these attacks, but why do they not tell the world at large and the man in the street about the achievements of the Railways? Surely they could give the Railways credit where credit is due now and again.

We do sometimes say favourable things about the Railways.

I should like to hear that. The hon. member will be given the opportunity to do so. Sir, I think that we all have reason to be proud of the Railways. Just consider how much is transported by the Railways in a single day in passengers and goods. Every 24 hours, 6 300 trains run, of which 3 445 are goods trains and 2 855 are passenger trains. They transport 1 600 000 passengers and over 400 000 tons of goods daily. Surely this is an achievement we can be proud of. If there had not been proper planning, would the Railways have been able to transport these passengers and these goods? Take the Airways. We have a fleet of 31 aircraft, which maintain 166 scheduled internal, overseas and regional flights, with a total carrying capacity of 10 160 passengers. Surely, Sir, this is something we have reason to be proud of; it is something we can tell the world with pride.

They are jealous.

Sir, I was in Germany recently and there I was told by a German: “When I fly to South Africa, I prefer to fly by the South African Airways; I even prefer it to my own Airways, Lufthansa.” Sir, it is things like these that we can be proud of.

Let us go further and consider our harbours, in which hon. members opposite are so disappointed. Sir, 55 ships are handled daily. Over 100 000 tons are landed daily, and over 80 000 tons are shipped.

Sir, I have referred to a few of the problems; I have referred to the delays that take place owing to circumstances beyond the control of the Railways. The hon. member referred to the stevedores. Surely we know what the problems have been in this regard; we know that the stevedores went on strike at one stage; that is nothing new, but now the hon. member wants to blame the Railways because those people went on strike. This was something that was beyond the control of the Railways. The Railways was not to blame for the strike; on the contrary, we are grateful that the Railways stepped in and solved the problem by means of a two-shift system. When they have adequate staff, I am convinced that we shall not only maintain the two-shift system in full operation but that we shall even be able to introduce a three-shift system.

Sir, look at our road transport service. We see fine luxury buses transporting tourists daily across the length and breadth of South Africa, Sixty-six thousand passengers and more than 12 000 tons of goods are transported daily. Then there is our pipeline system. New capital must be made available for additional pipelines. Thirty-seven million ton-litres are pumped daily. Now I ask: Who performs this daily task? These things, these massive figures I have mentioned here, who is it who performs this daily task? This daily task is performed by a labour force of 230 000 people. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that he is concerned because we are building a hostel in which we shall accommodate Bantu because, he asked, what would we do with them in the future? He maintains that when we have containerization we shall have to dismiss seven out of every ten of them. Now I ask you, Sir, what reason does he have to be concerned about that? Surely we know that we can accommodate those people. The Railways has expanded over the past ten years. Mechanization and automation has taken place and yet the number of staff has only varied by 3,1%. I therefore see no danger that these things he is so concerned about, will occur. These are matters which do not worry me in the least.

However, there is one matter on which I want to dwell for a moment. It is a matter which applies particularly, perhaps, to the Vaal triangle and surroundings. I refer specifically to the South Sotho Bantu territory. It is a fact that the people who live there, the South Sothos, constitute the fifth largest ethnic group among the Bantu peoples in South Africa. Those people live in a very small homeland, that will have difficulty in becoming viable. Consequently they will always be dependent on employment in South Africa. Today I want to make an earnest plea to the hon. the Minister to consider whether an investigation could not be made into the construction of a decent, high-speed railway link between that area and the Vaal triangle. Excessive distances are not involved. I even foresee that by means of modern transport we could take them home to their homelands, perhaps not every day, but every week. This would solve a cardinal problem for us, because then we should not have to accommodate them in our cities. Perhaps this should be linked to the development of the other homelands. Of course the Railways will have to create the infrastructure and they will have to play the most important part in this regard. I want to make an earnest plea here that we consider establishing an umbrella committee representing the Railways, Planning and Bantu Administration to investigate this entire matter of transport to and from the homelands.

Mr. Speaker, to deal with the last point made by the hon. member who has just sat down, I think there is already a committee in existence which deals with the conveyance of non-Whites from their homelands to their places of work. It is, therefore, not necessary for him to plead for another committee to be established when there is one established already for that particular purpose.

The hon. member practically supports our amendment, that we need a much more dynamic outlook. The hon. member reminds me of a boxer who rushes into the ring and blindly throws punches all over the show without knowing what he is going to hit. All he knows is that he has to throw punches. Does he realize, Sir, that the objective in this debate is for the Opposition to level constructive criticism at the Budget which has been presented to us? We are fully aware of what is taking place in South Africa. We do not need to be read a homily on what the Railway Administration achieves in South Africa. We have a very excellent General Manager’s report, for which the General Manager is always commended because it is a very clear and explicit statement, and we do not need to travel abroad to know what good things take place in our country. But nevertheless we have a responsibility, and that is to place certain issues before the hon. the Minister and the country, issues which we feel should be dealt with by the Government. Let me remind him further that a bad policy usually results in losses and surpluses occur despite the bad policies of a Government. Our objective is to deal with the policy of the Government, not with the actual achievements of the Railways which we know all about and which are presented to us from year to year. We have for years pleaded for an improvement in the position of pensioners. Many of our pleas have been accepted. Ideas which we have put have been found acceptable to the Government. We have continually lodged pleas for an improvement in the position of the lower grades. In this inflationary system in which we live, and with the general increase in the cost of living over the years, we have indicated that it is necessary to watch the lowest grades. In this House, on many an occasion, I have lodged pleas for this. The hon. member for Durban Point is justified in coming along, in the interests of those people, to lodge a plea for them to ensure that something is said in Parliament on behalf of these people who, unfortunately, are often completely voiceless except that they may possibly have representatives who may or may not put their case before the House.

There is nothing to criticize in what the hon. member for Durban Point has said. He has tried to analyse the Budget as well as hon members on the other side have tried to do. However, at the same time he has also talked about those real factors which mean so much in the life of the community and which mean so much realistically to human beings.

I want to deal with another matter which I find of great interest and which I think is important to deal with today. I notice something in the General Manager’s report which I can use as an introduction to this particular discussion. It is stated that the capital amount spent on the construction of new lines during the year under review in the report was R28,8 million. In respect of existing lines it was R183,7 million. However, we shall focus our attention on the fact that over that year, 1973-’74, the total spent throughout the country on the provision of new lines was R28,8 million. During 1973 an issue was raised, in the course of the Budget speech, by the hon. the Minister. He pointed out that it was essential—following a report which he had obtained from the Railway Board, a copy of which I have here and which I have studied—to bring about the satisfactory and efficient conveyance of the large number of non-Whites, who have been settled in the Tswana Homeland north of Pretoria, from the homeland to their place of employment to the north of Pretoria and in Pretoria itself. He pointed out that it was essential to commence almost immediately on this work and that eventually it would, involve an expenditure of R70 million. He further repeated what was stated in the report of the Railway Board, i.e. that this work would be completed within approximately four years. This was in the year 1973.

Thereafter legislation was brought before the House in the form of a Railway Construction Bill in which authority was sought from the House to proceed with this particular work. Authority was requested to spend the money necessary to construct the proposed line. The hon. the Deputy Minister introduced the Bill and stated that an eventual sum of about R62,4 million would be required. He gave specific sums. For example, about R20 million was required for the building of an electrified double line of railway approximately 20 km in length, about R15 million for the building of another link line and approximately R20 million for the building of another set of lines. It seemed that the Administration contemplated spending about R50 million on the building of the lines, with additional money being required for other facilities and equipment to provide the necessary rail transport. The main centre for which the lines would be built was the township of Mabopane in Bophuthatswana where there were at that time, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister, 45 000 people resident, and an additional 112 000 people living close by in the adjoining areas. He also said that it was expected that by the year 1978 there would be a total of 500 000 people. In fact, it is already believed, with some authority in certain quarters that that area has now approximately 300 000 inhabitants. Apparently this was a matter of great urgency, because not only was it the subject of a Bill introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister at the time, but it was very well supported both on this side of the House and the other side. Some of the speakers seemed to know a little more about the matter because they were closer to the scene of operations. Although the hon. member for Gezina, who comes from the Pretoria area, spoke this afternoon, he never made any reference at all to this particular matter of which I am going to give a little more detail in a moment. The hon. the Deputy Minister went so far as to say in 1973:

He was using these very strong words in reply to a speech by the hon. member for Hercules. That was really a “kragdadige” statement from the hon. the Deputy Minister, one which is almost in line with our amendment. At that time it was also pointed out that a great number of people were travelling from these homelands by buses and other forms of private transport. In fact, I think 5 000 were travelling in private conveyances and another 15 000 or 20 000 in public transport. This was creating considerable over-crowding on the roads constituting a very grave danger. According to a statement made at the time it also caused enormous congestion. “To my mind this is something which we should try and avoid in the interests of both the Whites and the Bantu”, the hon. the member for Hercules said on 11 June 1973 Hansard, Vol. 44, col. 8784. He went on to say:

He continues along these lines. If the hon. the Minister would read this column he would realize that the hon. member was pointing out a state of affairs which could possibly lead to some acute and very serious situations by virtue of this form of road traffic and the lack of proper rail facilities prevailing. This would also lead to serious disruptions, etc. What do we actually find is the position? One realizes why there was almost a sense of panic at the time because here was the first big homeland, virtually on the perimeter of a big city like Pretoria a bare 20 km away, with big townships being built there as model townships for the world to see. This is a very commendable pursuit which we on this side of the House supported. It was essential to enable the orderly movement of workers to take place so that the Government could at least, to some extent, be able to justify the policy it had undertaken. It is interesting to see what actually occurred during that period. In those two years the electrified double line of railway, which was to run between Winternest near Pretoria North and Mabopane for the conveyance of Bantu employed in the Pretoria area and which, was to cost R20 million, already had approximately R10 200 spent on it up to 31 March 1975. In the present Estimates provision is made to spend for the year 1975/76 R451 000, which means that after 1976, in the next Budget for 1976-77 and onwards, provisions will have to be made to handle a balance of R19 286 200. With regard to the other issue, which is part of this whole complex of building a line for the conveyance of workers, involving as it does the building of a new station at Belle Ombré which would cost about R15 million, the position is the following: The estimated cost is R15 026 100. Up to 31 March 1975 R35 800 had been spent. Estimated expenditure for 1975-76 is an amount of R135 000, making up a total of R170 900 and leaving R14 855 200 to be dealt with from 1976-77 onwards. Now one comes to the remaining portion, the Hercules/Winternest section which is estimated to cost R16 047 600. Spending up to 31 March 1975 will be R1 100 and the estimated 1975-76 expenditure R111 600, making a total of R112 700 and leaving a balance of R15 934 900 to be provided from 1975-76 onwards. We therefore find that a considerable balance to be allocated for future years from the next Budget to meet this serious situation—I do not use those words. I quote them from Hansard and the knowledge of hon. members who represent that part of the world, from the knowledge which the hon. the Minister has, from the report of the Railway Board, and from the policy of the Government which we know is to enable this form of conveyance to take place efficiently—if not rapidly, at least efficiently. We find that the balance which is to be allocated for future years to be spent for the purpose will be R50 076 300. There will of course be additional works or equipment which will bring the figure up to the originally estimated amount of R62,4 million and which the hon. the then Minister thought at the time would perhaps reach R70 million. Look at this against the background of having spent R28 million in 1973-74 for all the new lines right throughout South Africa. What is the State going to do about it? How can they ever manage to get through all this money and be able to accomplish what was regarded as an urgent matter to be completed within four years when we are already almost at the beginning of the third of those four years and our total expenditure amounts to only R711 000 out of a total amount of nearly R52 million? I ask the hon. the Minister—we are not blaming anybody—merely to explain this matter to us. He is the man who runs the department and formulates policy. We have to come to him as he is the policymaker. When the hon. the Minister asks for the money, the Opposition is only too willing to fall in with these plans because they realize that it is necessary to provide expenditure for this particular essential service. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark stated that we make allegations which do not count and advance ideas which do not matter. We criticize increases in tariffs and when we see surpluses we indicate to the Government how the money should be spent. In other words, he suggests that we indulge in wild talk. Will the hon. the Minister please give us an answer on this particular issue?

I also want to raise the question of Soweto. I see that there is a reference to the provision of certain improvements in, I think, the signalling section. There are certain new works which have to be completed in order to improve the services at Chanador Junction. I do not think that sufficient attention is being paid to one of the most vital and important problems facing the country.

When I studied these figures, I was really intensely surprised to find that we had a passing reference to this particular issue in the hon. the Minister’s Budget. Listen to the irony of it—

Included in this project is the proposed new line to be provided. He quotes the very words: “Between Winternest and Mabopane and the new station for non-Whites Belle Ombre on the associated railway network.” When this matter was raised some years ago, I think it was in 1971 or 1972, the importance of dealing with this particular aspect was pointed out to the then hon. Minister. People in Pretoria, the industrial complex, the residential complex and the city commercial complex were very much concerned about this. A new experiment was being embarked upon and one wanted to know what would be the effect and result of it. Then a speaker on this side of the House who happens to come from the Witwatersrand was accused of poking his nose into areas which did not concern him. Someone on the Government side said: What do you know about this area? Why are you asking these questions? There is no particular motive but it is part and parcel of the whole overall picture. For years we have complained about the problems at Soweto and for years we have said that we in this country must rely on the emergence—it is now an accepted fact in Government circles—of the tremendous pool of non-White labour which we have had in reserve for many, many years. The time has come where we can follow no other course and in order to meet that position we need tremendous planning. I realize that we need tremendous planning to provide for containerization. We talked about containerization five years ago. We know that it is necessary to plan in order to enlarge the harbours of our country. We know it is important to plan for better bogies. Incidentally, I see that some very fine discoveries have been made by engineers of our staff with regard to bogies. It is necessary to plan for all these things but above all and despite the fact that it may be a tremendous undertaking it is necessary to plan for other vital factors. Perhaps the most vital factor in the whole country is the question of proper and efficient conveyance and the question of getting people to work in time and bringing them back home as soon as possible because the whole question of labour peace rests on this factor. Most of our unrest starts with the irritations that are caused among workers who have to earn their daily bread. I do not want to go through the gamut of people who have to get up at 3 o’clock in the morning and who get home at 8 o’clock or 9 o’clock in the evening because we have discussed this ad nauseam. There is no hon. member in this House who does not know of this problem and who does not understand it thoroughly. What we are concerned about is that there should be proper planning on a realistic scale. Perhaps the hon. the Minister had no right to make a statement that this could be done in four years. Perhaps he had no right to say that this project needed the highest priority. Perhaps he had no right to say that he would leave no stone unturned. Nevertheless he said it. We as members of the Opposition as well as all hon. members of Parliament and the whole country must accept what has been placed before us. We must accept that the hon. the Minister is aware of what he says, that he is aware of what he promises and that he is aware of what he undertakes. We on this side of the House are not running the department; it is the hon. the Minister who dictates and directs the policy. It is principally along those lines that I feel we can answer the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark quite easily. I could spend another hour telling the hon. member many of the silly things that he said. Anyone can give a mass of figures. I can spend the whole allocation of time for this Budget analysing the figures for him as well. We have done that dozens and dozens of times. From year to year, however, there are certain occasions when matters of realism and matters of the day must be discussed. Those are the things that count and those are the things we have been tackling. We are concerned about the forward planning of the Republic of South Africa. We are concerned about our relationships abroad. We are concerned about what our Railways can do as far as Mozambique, Angola, Malawi and Zambia are concerned because we know that communications are a vital factor in any form of détente between countries. Do we not know what has happened in Europe and do we not know what has happened in other parts of the world? Communications are the most vital public relations factor in all our relationships with peoples and nations and that is why we have moved an amendment of this nature. We do not move an amendment of this nature to be destructive but we bring it to indicate what our viewpoint is, to indicate how we see the picture and to show what our approach is. We do not frame the Budget and we do not present the Budget, but we do give a point of view in regard to the Budget. We give a point of view as to what the vision for the future should be. This is the road that we have trodden in the debate today and we believe this road is a sound one, a responsible one and one to which the country should pay attention.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppe, who has just resumed his seat, referred to an isolated complex or project. I am not going to try to react to that, but I am sure that reference will be made to it on a later occasion.

I find it very interesting that right at the start of his speech the hon. member for Durban Point should have referred to a National Party information document dated 1943. When we on this side of the House refer to the time when the United Party was in power, we are always told that that was really many years ago. This afternoon, however, the hon. member referred to a report dated 1943 dealing, inter alia, with the appointment of a Superintendent (Parliamentary) by the then Minister, Mr. Sturrock. I called for the Hansard of 1943 to find out exactly what had occurred. It is of interest that as soon as I opened the book, I came upon a question asked in 1943, viz. what was the wage paid to casual tradesmen in the service of the Administration at Kaserne, Johannesburg. Secondly, the question was asked what privileges these people enjoyed as casual tradesmen. The reply to the first question was 2/10¾d. … [Interjections.] The additional benefits they enjoyed were 12 days paid leave after 12 months uninterrupted service. I looked up the appointment of the Superintendent to ascertain what all this involved. It was very interesting. The first argument concerned the post of the Secretary of the Railway Service Commission. The Minister at the time was in an awkward situation because a salary of £1 200 per annum was attached to this post. Eventually the Railways Board convened and decided hat the post was not worth more than £735. They reduced the salary accordingly. After a month the salary was raised to £840. It then appeared that a certain person had been groomed for that post and had to be pushed into it. Subsequently the matter of the Superintendent (Parliamentary) was raised. It is amazing that a maximum salary of £1 000 per annum was attached to the post of Superintendent (Parliamentary). I want to quote from Hansard of 27 April 1943 (Vol. 43, col. 6410).

But your pamphlet was wrong.

I quote—

In other words, for more than 20 years there were no salary increases in regard to that post. What happened then, was that an additional post with a maximum salary of £1 600 per annum was created. Mr. Haywood, a member of Parliament at that time, had the following to say in that connection (Hansard, vol. 46, col. 6411)—

This is apart from the normal post that was created. This is what happened after the maximum salary attached to the other post had remained unaltered for 20 years.

I delved a little further into the year 1943 —I am taking the liberty of discussing this —and I found it interesting to look at the salary scale that appeared in the 1943 General Manager’s report. The maximum salary for a senior clerk was £525. I want to give the Opposition the opportunity to tell me what depreciation in the value of money has been since 1943. Is it 50%, or 70%? Just mention he figure.

Was that the year when Minister-to-be Ben Schoeman wanted to nationalize the mines?

The salary for the corresponding post is R6 400 per annum today as against R1 100 in 1943. The party on that side of the House came up with a motion this year in the Other Place—we might as well have a little humour—introduced by the hon. Senator Scheepers, in which she pleaded for the rights of women. The hon. member for Houghton also introduced a similar motion in the House. Senator Scheepers referred to the injustice done to women today under this Government. Then I looked at the difference between the salaries of the married and the unmarried railway worker. This was in respect of the lowest grade railway worker whose salary was recently placed on a minimum scale of R200 by the Government. That is when he is no longer being trained. The unmarried man in this category received he amount of 7/6d, per day in 1943 and the married man received 8/6d, per day. That is what that side of the House paid these people, and to them women were worth 1/-.

I think that there are few occasions on which one can take stock of the S.A. Railways more effectively than during this very debate on the Railway Budget. It is logical for there to be criticism in this debate. One believes that it is also the occasion on which to express appreciation for services rendered. When we take stock of the S.A. Railways and Harbours in all its facets in this way, it is as well that we should take note of how the international world regards the S.A. Railways today. It is also as well to consider what the railway official of today thinks of this organization. It is also very important to determine what South Africa must do about the S.A. Railways. How are we going to utilize the Railways and how are we going to relieve the burden of this organization. The S.A. Railways is known internationally today as one of the leading organizations entrusted with transport and transport development. There are a number of instances of practical proof of this and I should like to refer to them.

It is not only in South Africa that the General Manager, Mr. Loubser, is consulted as the authority on transport, but as General Manager of the S.A. Railways he receives invitations from virtually every continent each year to lecture on transport and transport affairs here in South Africa. We as South Africans are proud of the fact that in 1973, the General Manager had to give a lecture on transport and transport development in West Germany. This gives one pleasure and it is gratifying to be able to say that he was able to address that congress in its own language, German.

How does international transport see South Africa? I want to refer to the periodical International Railway Journal. In a survey carried out recently, they announced that the S.A. Railway Budget for 1975-’76 was the highest in the world. In doing so they made a very important admission in regard to this expenditure by linking it to the striving for preparedness. I have before me the January edition of the International Railway Journal and in it the chief editor, Mr. John Levett, states the following—

He goes on to say—

Then there is the appreciation for the fact that the S.A. Railways give its engineers and developers the opportunity to set the pace in international transport, too. This pronouncement in International Railway Journal makes us as South Africans proud of this institution of ours. Sir, I also want to say that it gives one pleasure to read what the Railway official himself thinks of this organization. The saying “once a Railwayman, always a Railwayman” is well-known, and this saying attests to a greater degree of pride than is immediately obvious. On one occasion I heard our respected former Speaker, Mr. Klopper, saying that he, too, was a Railwayman to his fingertips, because once a Railwayman, always a Railwayman. But I think that I recently heard one of the most interesting references to this sense of unity from the present Minister of Transport, who referred in conversation to “my staff association” after all the years that have passed since his retirement from the Railway service. Consequently one realizes that there is truth, after all, in this proud saying, “Once a Railwayman, always a Railwayman”. I detect further proof of the pride of the Railway officials in their preparation and presentation of reports.

I can only describe the Railways’ Annual Report for the report year 1973-’74 that appeared last week, as a prestige edition. In my opinion the S.A. Railways has succeeded in publishing this edition as not only a report for national consumption, but also as a report concerning South Africa and the economy of South Africa and also development in South Africa. Sir, other reports, too, such as that provided to members of the Select Committee on the occasion of their visit to Durban harbour also testify to his pride on the part of the Railwayman. This is an outstanding report that was neatly prepared and speedily supplied and is one of which any organization could be proud. Sir, we also express our appreciation in this House of these extremely impressive and extremely comprehensive reports prepared by the S.A. Railways, often speedily but also, as a rule, with total dedication in order that it may be a prestige publication. In passing, Sir, those of us who take an interest in photography want to compliment the Railways on the photographs that appeared in this year’s S.A. Railways Report. They are photographs of the highest quality. When one goes on to consider the pride that has developed within the community of Railway officials, one also takes note of the fact that during the past ten years the labour market has remained constant within 3,1%, while the ton kilometres carried by of the S.A. Railways have increased by 45% as against 55% for all services. This represents an increase in production of 2,2% per annum. Here again we have appreciation for the pace set by the Railways in this sphere as well.

Sir, in my opinion the debate on this Railway Budget should, for the most part, be concerned with the question of how effectively we utilize the S.A. Railways and how effectively it may be developed through correct utilization. I think that the time has come for people to get away from the old and petty approach that the Railways are there to transport parcels and cream cans and post, or even that persons have the right to receive a consignment of from 4 kg to 440 metric tons within two days after it has been sent. Sir, the S.A. Railways had developed in such, a way that it is one of the cardinal factors in the development of the South African and the Southern African domestic economy. It is the Railways, too, which, more than any other factor, determines the expansion of the existing infra-structure in South, Africa. It is only when the movement on the rail way lines is analysed that one really grasps the role played by this organization in the domestic economy. Sir, I made a few calculations and found that on average, either a passenger train or a goods train departs from a station in the Republic every 15 seconds. When one calculates the various amounts in terms of this same period of 15 seconds, one finds that the revenue earned in this period of 15 seconds amounts to approximately R180. But then we must also bear in mind that approximately the same amount of R180 is expended every 15 seconds by the Railways. The programme of expenditure for 1975-’76 provides for the expenditure of about R2,4 million per day on capital and replacement requirements. When one makes a survey on what is spent on consumer goods and other items which this expanded transport already requires, one finds that in this brief period of 15 seconds, too, this expenditure amounts to R80. Now it is true that the statutory instruction to the Railways is to perform its task of transportation at the lowest possible cost. Although scientifically speaking, it is difficult to make justifiable international comparisons, the average revenue per ton kilometre, which is indicative of the cost, of the S.A. Railways is substantially lower than in countries such as Britain, Germany, France and Spain. In spite of these relatively low rates, more than one-tenth of the national income is earned from transport activities. The S.A. Railways is responsible for R746 million of the national income, or 62,1 % of the transport section. This percentage also indicates that despite growing competition and rivalry, the S.A. Railways continues to retain its share in the transport activities of South Africa.

Since the claim is made that the S.A. Railways represents one of the most important activities of the national economy, it is necessary for us to have a look at the local expenditure of this organization, and as a consumer the Railways also serves as a market for virtually every sector of the South African economy, because approximately 76% of all supplies are purchased locally. In 1974 this expenditure amounted to almost R280 million, which is more than the total exports to Japan, West Germany and the U.S.A, put together. But ever greater demands will be made on the S.A. Railways in the future, and although facilities are provided at the maximum rate, the rate at which loan funds can be made available, and this position continues to improve, the pressure will continue and there is every justification for the expenditure of these large amounts of which we have taken cognizance this year. It is also clear that the project will continue to demand enormous capital expenditure in the future. Now it is true that the Administration does not rely solely on the provision of capital assets in order to meet the demand; it also acts positively in order to find solutions to the many bottlenecks. But because the success of future development will depend on the way in which this development can be synchronized in all the various spheres—and when I say that this development must be synchronized, then I am not only referring to the development within the S.A. Railways, but to the synchronization of the total development in South Africa—it is of cardinal importance that the S.A. Railways should be borne in mind to a greater extent in the future when planning is done by the various sectors. I do not doubt for a moment that the S.A. Railways will be able to bear the responsibility of a growing South African structure in the future, but is probably asking too much, to expect the S.A. Railways to accept all responsibility in crisis situations that cannot be foreseen as well, and to absorb everything when there are complaints in this regard. A certain percentage of deviation from the normal growth is planned for, but when situations such as the closing of the Mozambique harbours develop, simultaneously with unexpected fertilizer imports, and all this with in the framework of the energy crisis, then we cannot expect all the responsibility and all the mistakes to be laid at the door of the S.A. Railways. The planning section of the Railways plays a key role in the domestic economy and it is this very section that takes the initiative in co-ordinating the various projects, and it also works very closely with them to such an extent that I believe the S.A. Railways, more than any other organization in the country, can claim to be aware of economic activities. That is why it is necessary for there to be greater co-operation in South Africa, whether in the field of agriculture, mining, building the textile industry or the motor industry. South Africa has become too big to suffer as the result of artificial shortages that have to be supplemented artificially within a short period. In the past, South Africa was to a very great extent crisis-free, as far as the provision of various commodities was concerned. Possibly this freedom from crises resulted in the failure to grasp the value of timely stockpiling on one hand, and regular supply to markets on the other. These problems can so easily lead to exploitation of one sector by another. We appreciate the timely warnings that have been sounded in recent months in respect of this timely planning. As long ago as last year, in his Budget speech, the hon. the Minister pleaded for a greater degree of cooperation, inter alia in the sphere of the improved utilization of trucks. He pleaded for the improved utilization of these trucks through improved loading and off-loading methods. This year the Minister made a further appeal for co-operation. I quote from the Budget speech (page 69)—

One also appreciates the fact that guidelines are being laid down with a view to the invitation to various bodies to strive towards greater co-operation and co-ordination. The private sector and the semi-State institutions will have to link up with the Railways management to a greater extent in the future. On the occasion of the opening of the annual meeting of the Federal Consultative Council of Staff Associations on 26 February this year, the General Manager of the Railways made a strong appeal for this co-ordination. I quote what Mr. Loubser said on 26 February (translation)—

It is clear that we in South Africa will have to realize that the valueless and the valuable may no longer be taken together but these priorities will have to be carefully determined and that the projects will have to be tackled in logical sequence in the interests of South Africa. In times of problems, avoidable problems must be avoided. When there is a lack of co-operation in this respect, avoidable problems cannot be avoided in these times. Uncoordinated action, which is the result of a lack of overall planning, often gives rise to crisis situations. At a juncture at which South Africa faces the rest of the world with many plus factors in its favour, it will pay our country and our people to benefit the Republic as much as possible by means of co-operation and overall planning. Only this timely planning can put South Africa on a par with world structures at the international level. Increasing expenditure by the authorities on the South African infrastructure is taking place and this will stimulate the economy enormously. It must be borne in mind that this stimulus will also filter through to the S.A. Railways. This imposes a tremendous task on the S.A. Railways and Harbours. How ever, it also imposes an obligation on the private sector to gear itself to make the best use of this in the interests of the country. Possibly now is the time for all sectors to accept the responsibility of bringing about movement when the accommodation is available. Possibly, too, the custom of criticizing the S.A. Railways in and out of season for bottlenecks for which the S.A. Railways cannot carry the responsibility, should also cease. It is true that in the past the S.A. Railways has often had to serve as a shock absorber. It has occurred in the past that because it is such an enormous organization of tremendous scope, the Railways has had to make its sacrifices, owing to inflation or inflationary tendencies by transporting certain freight at an uneconomic rate for a long period, by postponing increases for officials or by having developments take place at a slower pace. In consequence of the development in South Africa the Railways, operating as it does on an economic basis, can no longer be a shock absorber in this way for the sake of other sectors and groups of people. A great deal is being said and written about the population explosion and, on the other hand, about the provision of food as well. Reference is so often made to the problems of providing food, but very seldom to the transportation of that food. I am sure that the S.A. Railways will also honour its responsibility to transport this food, which may be a source of strength to us in the future in the sphere of sound relations and in the sphere of sound nutrition. The Railways will provide an efficient transport service in the future in the interests of the country, but it deserves the support, the co-operation and the consideration of everyone, because if the Railways enjoys this co-operation and consideration, it will be efficient, as we all want it to be.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethlehem made a strange speech. He started to prove the point made by the hon. member for Durban Point when he quoted certain things from a rather ancient pamphlet issued by the Nationalist Party. The passages quoted by the hon. member for Bethlehem from Hansard, I believe, firmly prove that there are certain variations of the truth in the pamphlet which was issued about the Railways at that time. I thank the hon. member most sincerely for proving this. The rest of the hon. member’s speech is remarkably close to the amendment moved by this side of the House. He extended congratulations and said he was proud of the General Manager of the S.A. Railways. We are also proud of him and we believe he is doing a wonderful job. He spoke of research into new bogies and of centralized traffic control. We appreciate that. He said the Railways should cut out small parcels and consignments, but on this point I must disagree with him entirely. If this aspect of the operations of the Railways is well run, I believe it can be run at a profit. The hon. member represents a farming area and should realize that many of the small parcels and consignments are spares for essential agricultural and construction machinery. This cannot be cut out by the Railways because it is absolutely essential to the economy of South Africa that these small parcels and consignments should continue to be conveyed. Then, of course, the hon. member became positive again and talked about the total development of South Africa. He said that the Railways had to act as a shock absorber in times of crises. He mentioned Mozambique and the fertilizer imports that had to take place as a result of the fuel crisis. It really sounded as though he was speaking in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. He asked for overall planning and for logical priorities and this, in full, is what we are asking for. We believe that the Railways are the artery of South Africa and Southern Africa and that that artery is essential to the well-being of the overall economic state of the whole of this subcontinent. We believe that the Railways can play an important part, not only in our internal affairs within our multinational society, but also in our external relations with our neighbours of various races and nations. If this artery of the Railways is running efficiently, economically and is continuously spreading its further arteries to the subcontinent, there will be a mutual pride between all the peoples of Southern Africa in this great asset in the economy of everyone. This is the belief of this side of the House and this is what we mean when we speak about a new dynamic, that there should be some forward-looking in the Railways. That is why I appreciate it when the hon. the member for Bethlehem spoke about overall planning between departments. I believe that the Railways can play as important a role in our human relationships in Southern Africa as all the diplomacy carried out by the Department of Foreign Affairs and I say this without deprecating the Department of Foreign Affairs. I believe that this is an economic factor that connects us all physically to one economy. We cannot get away from this.

There are other matters I would like to raise in this debate. We were very pleased to note that the commercial section and the operating section of the Railways are being welded into one section. That is something exceptionally positive and we feel that we should—as we have always done—give credit where credit is due.

There has been a certain amount of prevarication as to the delays in Durban harbour. I believe that there must be a way of overcoming the problem. I have a very good friend in one of the shipping lines —an officer—to whom I bade farewell in Cape Town one week only to meet him again the following week in Port Elizabeth. I asked him what he was doing there as I thought he was going to Durban. He said that he had been to Durban to show his nose, but that he had come back to offload in Port Elizabeth before going to Durban to load again.

Was that after he had loaded in Durban the first time?

No, without going into Durban harbour. This is a South African shipping line. I believe that you cannot book by radio ahead of time; you may be shipwrecked or delayed along the line. As a result of this the practice amongst shipping lines at the present time is to proceed for example from Cape Town to Durban, show their nose, book their berth, come back to Port Elizabeth to offload and then proceed back to Durban. This is a complete waste of fuel.

Is this Safmarine?

This is Safmarine. It is a complete waste of fuel. The same thing is happening in Algoa Bay where ships go to East London to show their noses and then go to Algoa Bay, Port Elizabeth, to offload. There must be a better way of rationalizing this. The General Manager of the Railways has overcome many things with centralized control and I think he should have a look at this. We cannot have ships running up and down the coast. This is a waste of fuel because they have to run around and wait to get into port. This is a fact and I believe that this should be gone into.

There is another matter which may possibly appear to be a small one. With the advent of centralized control, there are going to be stations and sidings and houses which will become redundant and no longer be required by the Railways. I wonder whether any planning has been done in conjuction with Community Development— there is a general shortage of housing and buildings throughout the country— to ensure that these buildings are put to positive use or at least are not allowed to decay and go to ruin as certain railway villages or houses have been allowed to do in the past. In the past in the Eastern Cape, for instance, certain lines were relaid and many houses in Cathcart stood empty for years until better use was found for them. The whole village of the old Kommadagga became redundant. I believe that these places—if it should arise because of centralization and because of the relaying of lines—could be used to very good effect by Community Development in housing aged people in a community. This is a perpetual need in this country. I believe that this is also something to which the Railways could give attention so that there need not be a wastage of good and useful buildings. It is a known fact that when the Railways build houses or buildings they build substantial houses and buildings.

Then I want to refer to the question of the scholars’ ticket concessions which were withdrawn last year. Apparently very good reasons were given for this, but I wish to raise the matter again. On 13 February this year a letter in this connection appeared in The Argus, signed by a parent in Muizenberg. I believe that these concessions should be restored to some extent especially on suburban lines. This lady says that any family with say three or four schoolchildren must find the increasing costs very heavy and difficult to bear. She also feels that it is a waste of paper and labour if one compares the issue of one ticket per pupil per term to the issue of one ticket per pupil per day. She says that it is exceptionally difficult for the Railway officials who sell the tickets to meet the demand at peak hours. We do feel—and we complained about this at the time when the facility was removed—that this concession should be restored.

Then I wish to refer to a major question which I raised the other day with the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, namely the supply of coal to the country in general. We are seriously concerned about the supply of coal and one sees headlines to this effect in some newspapers. The Natal Mercury of 4 March, which I have before me, has a front-page article with the heading: “Rail jams can lead to coal crisis”. The gentleman who was interviewed, Mr. Allen Sealey of Rand Mines and chairman of the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association, said:

He went on to say:

This is a very serious position. The hon. the Minister confirmed this in his reply to me and he said that they were trying to overcome it by sending open trucks down to Natal carrying goods and sending them back loaded with coal. This is not all. When the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was asked about this a few days before I put my question to the hon. the Minister of Transport, viz. on 4 March, he replied that the oil crisis was putting pressure on production. He said that there were problems in recruiting staff for the mines and that the general growth rate and a good agricultural season had put pressure on the Railways. Furthermore, he said that the floods had caused problems. The final paragraph of the hon. the Minister’s reply is, I think, significant. I quote—

That does not quite seem to meet Mr. Sealey’s statement which he made to the Natal Mercury on the same day. When I read through the memorandum by the Minister of Transport I was quite inintrigued to find that the revenue obtained from coal had in fact dropped by approximately R1 million since 1969-’70. The figures appear on page 20. I became even more worried. I noticed in Addendum No. 20 to the General Manager’s Report, “Tonnages of principal commodities railed”, that the tonnage in respect of local coal and coke had dropped again between 1972-’73 and 1973-’74. It dropped by 4 228 tons, which admittedly is not very much. One would think that at a time of a fuel crisis when the energy produced from coal is used more and more to meet the country’s demands, every effort would be made to move our coal and anthracite faster. If one looks at the figures for coal production in Addendum No. 21, one notes that the total coal production has steadily increased from approximately 48 million tons in 1965 to 62 million tons in 1973. However, if one looks at the succeeding scale which deals with coal and coke despatched from the provinces, one finds that there has been a decrease of the coal despatched from 29 million tons in 1964-’65 to 26 million tons in 1973-’74. There must be something wrong there. There must be some way of explaning this. Has road haulage taken up the differences? Is it because it is no longer being transported to power stations? Surely, if the production of coal has increased to such an extent, the Railways must commensurately move a larger tonnage of coal? Surely, if there is a fuel and energy crisis in this country and we are trying to cut down on the use of petroleum products, oil products, by using more coal, every effort should be made to increases the movement of coal and anthracite rather than admit to the fact that it is getting less, which is precisely what the figures in these schedules do.

That Government always goes backwards.

I believe that this is very serious and that the Railways must make every possible effort to overcome this because winter is just around the corner. Autumn leaves are beginning to fall in Cape Town already and very soon it is going to be too late and we shall experience another winter crisis.

Then there will be an election around the corner too.

It will be a very cold election then. The same thing once happened in Britain, too.

I will leave the question of coal and anthracite there. It is a very serious matter which we believe will receive the due attention of the hon. the Minister and of the General Manager of the Railways. I want to talk about another matter. Part of our amendment deals with certain categories of staff. I want to say that all the Railwaymen I have met have a very high regard for the General Manager of the Railways. I think he can be proud of the fact that he is a highly respected gentleman among his staff. There are some categories of Railwaymen in the lower grades however who suffer immensely, even when there are adequate increases. I shall never forget a little incident that happened some time ago while I was travelling by car. Mr. Schoeman, the predecessor of the present Minister, had just granted fairly substantial increases to the Railwaymen. I called in at a small café, having just heard of these increases over the radio. There were a number of Railwaymen in the café.

*I told them: “Congratulations, you have now received a salary increase.” Then they asked me: “What were the tariff increases?” Hon. members will remember that the tariffs were increased by the same percentage as the salaries. The men in the café then told me: “What is the use of getting an increase like this, for within two months that increase will have been completely wiped out by the 20% tariff increase, because this is just going to push up our cost of living again.”

Surely you can do better that that.

No, that is quite true. The Railwaymen told me so themselves.

†Mr. Speaker, this is something which happens perpetually. It is a vicious circle. When salaries and wages are increased— we often plead for this and I think we should—we should be very careful about increasing tariffs to such an extent that they counterbalance completely the increase in the salaries and wages of the staff. This is an area where there should be closer planning not only in relation to the question of staff but in relation to the financial position throughout the country. Let me say that tariffs affect the farming community immensely. They are affecting the farming community to such an extent at the moment that if one lives at the coast—where I do in the Eastern Province—one cannot afford to buy lucerne from the northern provinces or from Oudtshoorn. The rail tariff is so high that it amounts to the same price that one pays for one’s lucerne. One therefore has to pay double for it. There must be a way of moving this commodity at a lower price. Either this or we will have to revert to road transport with the resultant increase in fuel consumption. Tomorrow the hon. member for Newton Park will mention various other matters to indicate how the Railways can be used more efficiently and more economically in the agricultural sector.

Mr. Speaker, the main theme of our story today is this: We must keep developing the Railways, we must keep moving them forward in the interests of our economy. The question of the Railways being the jugular vein of our economy is a very important one. I want to make a very sincere appeal to the hon. the Minister. I want to tell him that there are areas in this country where it is not possible to guarantee a railway line but where such a line is absolutely important in the interests of growth in a particular area in order to create jobs and to keep a damper on our population explosion. The Railways must assist in this. I do not say that the Railways should do this without a guarantee. I think that the hon. the Minister should approach the Cabinet for a guarantee, especially from his colleague there on his left. I have pleaded in this House with the former Minister of Transport for a line from Grahamstown through Peddie to King William’s Town to assist in the development of the Ciskei. I have done this many times in the past. The answer I have always received from the Minister, however, is: Who will guarantee this line? I believe that the hon. the Minister should not ask the people of Grahamstown or the people of King William’s Town to guarantee the line. He should ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development or the hon. the Minister of Finance or the hon. the Prime Minister to guarantee the line in the interests of development in South Africa. This area is lagging behind because there is no development there and yet there are many people there needing work. There is the possibility that such a line could become economic. I believe that there are probably many areas all over the country where this sort of thing could be done. I know that for many years there were pleas for the Sishen-Saldanha Bay line to be built and eventually it was built. However, it was not built by the S.A. Railways. It had to be built by Iscor. I believe that this is where overall planning comes in. It should not only be the hon. the Minister of Transport who is involved in this. It should involve the whole Cabinet and the Government. They should say to the hon. the Minister of Transport: We need a line through here. There is the hon. the Minister of Planning looking very interested in what I am saying. I think he agrees with me. I believe that this is a matter where a Cabinet should say: There has been an appeal for a line in a particular area. Let us look at the picture and find out whether it can be developed. Is it perhaps needed by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development for the development of homeland industries? Is it needed by the hon. the Minister of Planning for the development of a growth point or an industrial belt? This sort of thing should be planned from the point of view of the whole Government. That is how the overall planning should be done and not just from the point of view of whether the S.A. Railways are going to operate economically or not. That is the appeal from this side of the House. This is how the Railways can be a dynamic force in the development of Southern Africa. You cannot operate them in isolation. I can understand, from the managerial point of view, that one likes to run this thing as a business, but from the Governmental point of view—and we must remember that the Railway Administration is a Government department— there has to be an overall picture which takes into account every aspect, such as the development of new lines, new systems and new communications, of this great system which is the lifeblood of South Africa. Sir, I want to make this appeal very seriously, because I believe it is very, very important. Then I want to make a further appeal to the hon. the Minister. In the city of Grahamstown there is an industrial area. I do not know what went wrong with the planning there. I do not believe that the Railway Administration was consulted when the industrial area was declared, because there is no rail connection to the industrial area. There was once a spur line that went up to the military camp. It was constructed during the war. That spur line was subsequently removed, I believe, without thought to the future, because that spur line could have connected fairly easily with the Grahamstown industrial area as it is today. We sit at the moment with an industrial area set out in Grahamstown, with no rail connection whatsoever and no possibility at this stage of getting a rail connection. The city of Grahamstown cannot afford to provide that facility. I believe that there will have to be some assistance either at Cabinet level or from the S.A. Railways to provide a rail connection to that industrial area. The reaction of industrialists when they look at the area is to say, “What is the good of it? I must have a siding.” Of course, the unfortunate thing—and I wonder whether I should say it very loudly —is that in the overall planning we built the gaol where the industrial site should be and the industrial site where the gaol should be.

That is the local authority.

Sir, these are difficulties that arise in the overall planning and it emphasizes the need for far better overall planning in the overall picture of South Africa.

Then, Sir, whilst perhaps this matter does not fall under the Railways Department at this stage, although it did originally, we would like to hear what is going to happen about St. Croix. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us when he replies to the debate as to whether there are any new developments in connection with St. Croix; whether this is likely to start fairly soon; whether there are any possible delays …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I have not got the time to answer questions. We would like to know whether that scheme is likely to get off the ground during the coming year. I believe that it is important to our economy in the Eastern Cape to know these things. The hon. the Minister is looking very wise and I have an idea that he has something to tell us. It would be appreciated if, when he replies to this debate, he would tell us what the position is. The hon. member for Tygervallei can put his question now.

I wanted to ask the hon. member whether he had nothing to say about the Hex River Tunnel.

I should very much like to talk about the Hex River tunnel, but it is not situated in my constituency.

And it is being built at the moment.

And, as my hon. friend says, it is being built at the moment. Perhaps the hon. member can discuss it himself at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion the hon. member for Albany is probably one of the most honest members on that side of the House, and for that reason he is a very good barometer in respect of the criticism which is being levelled at this Budget. It was clear to us all that the hon. member for Albany moved away from the Budget as such. He had to make a speech in some way or another in order to make up time, and so he pecked here and he pecked there like a chicken. But because he is an honest member …

Order! The hon. member may not imply that other members are not honest.

Then I withdraw it, and I apologize to the other hon. members for the allegation I made against them. [Interjections.] The hon. member could not disguise the fact that there is really no criticism to level at this budget. He discussed the coal crisis, but I am convinced that the hon. member knows that he cannot lay the entire problem in regard to coal at the door of the Railways. After all, there are other sectors as well which deal with coal, and I want to predict here that when the Economic Affairs Vote is being discussed hon. members on that side, and possibly even the same hon. member, will lay all the blame for the coal crisis at the door of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

The hon. member also had complaints in regard to rates, but he and the hon. member for Maitland, who in my opinion made a very good speech, contradicted one another. The hon. member for Maitland said last year, and he repeated this in his speech this afternoon, that the Railways is not an institution that has to render a socioeconomic service. Do you agree with that?

Yes.

The hon. member says he agrees with that. The Railways is not in a position to render a socio-economic service. But the hon. member for Albany reproached the Minister because they have to pay so dearly for the conveyance of their lucerne. Surely that cannot be reconciled with what the hon. member for Maitland advocated. Indeed, the hon. member for Maitland requested that rates should gradually be increased each year and surely the rates on lucerne will inter alia then be increased as well. I want to suggest that the hon. member for Albany and the hon. member for Maitland should first settle this principle among themselves before laying accusations at the door of the hon. the Minister. Sir, it is interesting to take note of the discussions as they took place during this debate and during the debate last year. Last year the Opposition confined themselves strictly to the budget and its effect on the economy of the country as well as on the finances of the individual, and they were quite justified in doing so. They seized upon the increased rates to deal exclusively with the Budget and to discuss the implications of the Budget on the national economy. But what is interesting is that in the entire discussion this afternoon, since this debate began, not a single hon. member on that side ventured to discuss the implications of this Budget on the economy of South Africa. Every member who rose to speak moved away from the Budget itself and from the implications of the Budget as quickly as possible. But looking at the clock now, Sir, and after having listened to the contradictory speeches made here by members of the Opposition, I should prefer to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.