Order! After the hon. the Minister of Justice had asked on a point of order yesterday whether the proposed discussion by this House under the half-hour adjournment rule of the subject of persons presently being detained under the Terrorism Act without trial was permissible in terms of the sub judice rule, I ruled that the discussion could proceed and that I would furnish the reasons for my ruling at a later stage, which I should like to do now.

As I indicated in my ruling on 30 September 1974, to which the Minister also referred, the sub judice rule is applied in criminal matters from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made or an arrest which will result in a charge being made. I must point out, however, that in the case of arrests, the rule has always been applied only when such arrests will result in a charge being made in the forseeable future. The Minister was unable to give me the assurance that this was the position in regard to all the detainees in this particular case, and for that reason I could not prohibit the discussion of the motion on those grounds.

†It is furthermore a well-established principle that the fact that there is a criminal case proceeding or pending against certain persons should not prevent discussion of the broad national issue involved, provided that such debate takes place without reference to any specific cases which are or will shortly come before the courts (see e.g. Assembly Debates, 1934, Vol. 22, col. 1104; 1938, Vol. 31, col. 879-883; House of Commons Debates, 21 November 1974, col. 1497).

In conclusion I must emphasize, as I did in 1974, that the application of the sub judice rule is at all times subject to the discretion of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate a wide range of subjects was touched upon, and hon. members will understand that it will not be possible for me to reply to all the matters which were raised here. I shall begin in the sequence in which the speeches were made here, and I therefore want to begin with the hon. member for Durban Point. Naturally I will then conclude with the hon. member for Orange Grove.

The hon. member for Durban Point moved an amendment here which I shall deal with at the very end, and attendant upon that also his allegation that this is a colourless Budget. At this stage I just want to say in passing that the hon. member for Durban Point, through his speech, paid the Railway Administration and myself a great compliment. If this had been a colourless and a poor Budget, I would have expected far more from the hon. member for Durban Point than I actually got. I think hon. members will agree with me that the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Point was, as far as criticism was concerned, indeed colourless. At this stage I shall deal with a few points which he raised.

He began by raising the question of pensions. I shall refer to this again later on, because it forms part of his amendment. He wanted, in that way, to pay the United Party a compliment because they had supposedly asked last year for what we have in the meantime done. The hon. member stated inter alia that they asked last year for an in-depth inquiry to be instituted into all transportation matters, and that the General Manager had in actual fact recently appointed a committee of inquiry with that object in mind. That is, as was set out in the speech made by the General Manager of the S.A. Railways and Harbours and as contained in my own speech. I should like to deal with this position with reference inter alia to the way it appeared in Hansard last year. I also want to refer to the words of the General Manager which he used on that particular occasion. On 23 September last year the hon. member for Durban Point had inter alia the following to say (column 3546)—

I should like to emphasize the words “the whole transportation scene”, and in the last portion of the paragraph “all fields of transport”. In other words, what the hon. member for Durban Point proposed last year was an inquiry in regard to transportation matters. Inter alia I replied to him as follows—I should like to quote this for I think that these are very sensible and wise words—

Look at column 3549.

Did the hon. member not say what I have just read out?

I covered planning as well.

The hon. member will receive many opportunities to reply. As I have said, I replied as follows to the hon. member, and I should like to quote this because I think these are very sensible and wise words (col. 3736)—

This is indeed the case, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member and all hon. members on that side of the House have every opportunity to obtain the figures and particulars which they desire in regard to the South African Railways. This speech which was made by the General Manager of the Railways and to which the hon. member referred, reads inter alia as follows, as far as this matter is concerned (translation)—

Sir, in my speech I said inter alia the same thing, and I think that it is completely compatible with what the General Manager said—

Sir, that is what the General Manager advocated. In other words, we in South Africa, with our rapidly developing economy, are asked from time to time to undertake certain projects about which we are dubious whether we are physically and financially capable of doing so. So many of these major projects have to be considered from time to time and at the same juncture that it is essential, in view of the financial and physical means of which South Africa is capable, that priorities be laid down to determine the sequence in which the projects ought to be attempted. That is what we said, and that is what we advocate. In other words, the hon. member is making a mistake if he now claims that we have in fact done what the United Party asked us last year to do. There is no reason whatsoever, as I said last year, why investigations should be instituted into the affairs of the Railways, because I think at this House, with the indepth investigation which is carried out here annually, is probably better able than any other body or quorum to reach decisions from time to time on Railway matters.

The hon. member also said that we had, through the appointment of certain persons in the harbours, proceeded along the lines they had suggested, viz. that the harbours should be separate and detached from the Railways as an organization. Sir, how the hon. member arrives at that point and is able to advance that argument, I cannot understand very clearly, but he bases his finding on the fact that we have created new posts in the harbour service. Naturally there are important posts in the harbours. Recently, with the crisis which occurred and the problems which arose with the large flow of traffic in the harbours, we created certain posts in the harbour service to effect greater efficiency there. The hon. member now wants to use the creation of those posts as an argument that we are administering the harbours separately as they suggested. That is not the case at all, Sir.

The hon. member as well as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti stated the point here that we compared the lowest point in 1972 with the highest point in 1974, and that this presented a false picture of the growth in the harbours during that period. Sir, I know that you may perhaps tell me that this is an argument to which it is not even necessary to reply in this debate. It is an insignificant argument; it is a mere debating point, and it just shows you what we had to listen to in this debate in the absence of good arguments and sound criticism from that side of the House. I just want to tell the hon. member, in regard to that argument, that we have nothing whatsoever to hide. He will agree with me that nothing is being hidden.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

I know the hon. member wants me to proceed to deal with another point; he probably does not like this one. However, it suits me to proceed with this point. We are not hiding anything from the hon. member. Recently when they visited Durban Harbour, we made a document available to them containing all the data relating to harbours. In it we also indicated in graph form what the flow of the traffic through all the harbours had been during the period 1964 to 1974.

I have got three lines on mine.

The hon. member says he has three lines on his. That shows what doubts he must have in his mind. A person with sound judgment need draw only one line.

Someone was shooting him a line.

This is nothing but a debating point, but if I had to draw a line, I would begin the line a little higher up from where that graph begins. I would have certain of the valleys, particularly those for the years 1966 to 1968-’69, below my line. My line would show a gradual upward trend, and would run more or less through the 1972 valley. I think that is a logical conclusion to which one may arrive, because the 1972 valley is not such an exceptionally low valley if one takes into consideration the average growth in traffic during this period. What does my line look like? The hon. member can look at my line; it looks fine.

It is completely out. I have your line, but I also have the real line.

The next graph is the one relating to Durban, as we furnished it to them.

There is another one here; it is for shipping.

Only, in the case of Durban the gradual upward trend is more pronounced. That goes without saying because Durban is the biggest and busiest harbour in South Africa, and because the growth in Durban is so extensive, that is why the upward trend in Durban is more pronounced than elsewhere. I am merely mentioning this; the hon. member can always turn it into a debating point. The fact of the matter, which they cannot argue away, is that there has been unparallelled growth in recent times in the volume of traffic which we have had to process through our harbours.

The hon. member raised various other points here. Inter alia he referred to the pipeline and asked me why the pipeline is being constructed from Durban and not from Richards Bay. The pipeline which we now intend constructing and for which provision is being made for the first time, in the Brown Book, is a pipeline which has to convey white products. “White products” are refined oil, in other words, petrol, paraffin, etc. This pipeline has to convey white products since the existing pipeline for white products will, by the end of the year or shortly afterwards, have been utilized to its full capacity. It is therefore desirable that an additional pipeline for white products be constructed from Durban to the Witwatersrand area now; mainly, too, because the refineries are at present in Durban. Of what use would it be to me at present to construct a white product pipeline from Richards Bay to the Witwatersrand while there are as yet no white products at Richards Bay? The white products are in Durban. The possible construction in future of a refinery at Richards Bay is still being considered, and once there is a refinery a white products pipeline from Richards Bay to the Witwatersrand complex may be considered, but it is not necessary at present. Naturally the hon. member is aware that there is in fact a crude oil pipeline running through Richards Bay, but this is not relevant at the moment. This is not the pipeline which we want at the moment; it is for white products that we should like to have a pipeline. I do not think I should at this stage deal with any further matters arising out of the hon. member’s speech, except for the question of pensions and salaries, and the so-called colourlessness of this Budget, something which I shall deal with later. But I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that I was just a little disappointed that his name did not appear on a certain list which I recently saw in the street. At the side of the street I saw a large placard, and at the top of this placard the words: “Brains Trust”.

Was your name on it?

No, not mine, but it was nevertheless interesting to see whose names did appear on it. After the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Point I can understand why he was not on this list, because, as I said, I was very disappointed by him. [Interjections.] It seems to me, Sir, as though hon. members opposite are a little touchy about this placard. At the top of the placard were the words: “Brains trust”, and beneath that, “The road ahead”, and then the following names: “Japie Basson, Geoff Budlender, Gatsha Buthelezi, Sonny Leon, Fatima Mears, Van Zyl Slabbert—chairman, Prof. David Wells, Wednesday 12 March, 8 p.m. at Rondebosch Town Hall”. Therefore the hon. member still has the opportunity to go and listen, Sir. I must say that at first I was disappointed, for he is after all the main speaker, on Railway matters, but after I had listened to his speech, I realized why his name did not appear on that list.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg also referred to pensions. I should like to elaborate on this a little later on. The hon. member for Maitland asked me earlier this year what the share of the Railways in the transportation system of South Africa is. By way of reply to that question I said that we did not have the details and the statistics with regard to the role played by the Railways in the transportation system, or its share in it. He then criticized the hon. member for Witwatersberg because the hon. member for Witwatersberg had said that the Railways is the biggest transportation system in South Africa. He then said to the hon. member for Witwatersberg: “How do you know how big the Railways is if the hon. the Minister does not even know”. Now I should like to ask the hon. member for Maitland, by way of information, whether he is not aware of the fact that the Railways is indeed the biggest transportation organization in South Africa.

That was not the point.

Yes, it was the point. In any case, Sir, I think anyone in the street or anywhere else for that matter, will be able to tell the hon. member for Maitland that the Railways is the biggest transportation organization in South Africa, and that is in fact what the hon. member for Witwatersberg said. But now I should like to inform the hon. member for Maitland that Prof. Verburgh, who is an expert on transportation matters, recently made a calculation, so I have heard, which works out to a figure which he regards as being the share of the Railways, but we in the Railways do not have sufficient data with regard to the role which the Railways is playing. The hon. member also referred to free tickets and wanted to know from me to what extent the Railways makes free tickets and concessions available. I take it the concessions are partly in respect of the Railways own officials and partly in respect of public servants. According to the calculation which was made and which was put at my disposal, these concessions and free tickets amount to a loss of approximately R10million per annum to the Railways. The figures which I am furnishing here, are only rough figures, Sir, and I cannot vouch for their correctness. This is only an approximate figure. I take it that these figures are the closest we are able to arrive at, because the officials will know better than anyone else. The total loss is approximately R10million, of which approximately R1 million is in respect of concessions to the Public Service. Set this against a total passenger loss of approximately R120 million. It is then R10million out of R120 million.

The hon. member stated inter alia that he would like to see Railway rates being planned in advance for a period of ten to 15 years. I do not know whether it is necessary for us to argue that point any further, but I think the hon. member will agree with me that such an idea is completely unpractical. If I had to plan the rates in advance for the next ten or 15 years, I would naturally have to suppose that there would be a specific inflation rate during this period. On the basis of that hypothetical inflation rate, I would then have to adjust the rates from year to year. Of course, there are other factors which also play a part in this, for example salary increases which could possibly be granted to officials, and pension contributions which could be made, which fluctuate from year to year. What the hon. member’s suggestion amounts to is that I should have announced an increase this year.

Yes, but last year’s rate increases would then of course have been smaller.

If I had to plan at this stage already for rates to be increased over the next ten or 15 years, it means that I would have to make provision for an annual rates increase regardless of whether or not it is necessary. However, the hon. member’s argument does have this advantage that one will then have a more gradual increase in rates, in so far as it may be necessary to introduce rates increases. However, it is also true that our entire economy may change. It may happen that we succeed in counteracting inflation, which would then entail that there will be no need for us to increase the rates in future. Consequently I feel that the hon. member’s suggestion is not acceptable.

The hon. member also put a question in regard to urban traffic and the staggering of working hours. I do not want to elaborate too much on the question of the staggering of working hours, although I have particulars at my disposal which indicate what role the Railways has to play in this matter. At present the staggering of working hours falls under the control of the Minister of Planning. An attempt will in the first place, be made to effect a staggering of working hours in Pretoria. The Railways will co-operate as far as possible to effect such a staggering in the working hours of its officials as well, but one must not lose sight of the fact that the Railways traffic has to be kept in operation for the full 24 hours of the day. I take it that hon. members will in due course hear more about the staggering of working hours.

The last point in the speech made by the hon. member for Maitland to which I want to reply is his request that far less overtime should be worked. To state it briefly, the hon. member asked us, if possible, to eliminate overtime, or if not, to restrict it to a minimum and appoint Bantu. In so doing the hon. member ventured onto dangerous ground, particularly in view of the fact that he represents so many Railway people in his constituency. I think he ought to be aware that overtime is part of a railwayman’s life. In many posts on the Railways the officials are used to working overtime and, in fact, like working overtime. However, the hon. member is proceeding from a false assumption when he alleges that limited overtime is inevitably economically detrimental, for this is not the case. The hon. member must also bear in mind that the elimination of overtime, particularly in so far as it affects the Railways, is in many cases simply impossible, for the Railways has to operate 24 hours a day. We have train staff who have to move from one station to the next and who arrive at their destination at a time which cannot always be determined in advance. Then, too, there is the question of maintenance work. When maintenance work has to be completed because time is an important factor, overtime must of course be allowed. One could compare this to the work of a doctor. If a doctor is performing an appendectomy but states after he has removed the appendix that he has now worked as long as he has to and is therefore stopping …

Then the patient dies.

Well, the same thing happens in regard to the train staff between Touws River and Beaufort West. If the train has reached Fraserburg station or any other station in the Karoo, the train staff cannot say that they are not working any more overtime. For that reason the working of overtime has become a part of the activities of the Railways. Over and above that it also has the advantage that we are of course able to manage with less staff when we allow the employees to work overtime. As a result there are less training costs, less sick fund costs, less housing costs and in general less costs in respect of all the other concessions which are made to Railway officials.

And a lower productivity.

Not necessarily. The hon. member states that this results in lower productivity, but I can only agree with him in part. If overtime is taken too far, we will have to sacrifice some of our productivity. However, I just wanted to bring it to the hon. member’s attention that the working of overtime does not inevitably constitute economic disadvantages. There is also an entire series of attendant factors which may be regarded as being beneficial.

The hon. member for Gezina referred to the noise made by locomotives, and to atmospheric pollution in his vicinity. As far as those shunting yards are concerned, I want to say that we have not yet been able to find a completely effective instrument for eliminating the smoke. Of course smoke is in fact being eliminated as far as possible by means of an improved blast pipe nozzle which is used on steam locomotives. Firemen are also being trained to keep the fire burning in such a way that it causes as little smoke as possible. With reference to his question I may say that dieselization will be introduced in that area in the region of 1980-’81. Dieselization will of course largely eliminate atmospheric pollution, but I do not want to imply by this that it would also eliminate the noise which the hon. member complained about, for wherever shunting takes place there will always be a noise.

The hon. member for Gezina and the hon. member for Jeppe referred to the Winternest/Mabopane railway line. In fact, the hon. member for Jeppe devoted his entire speech to this Mabopane/Winternest line, which is in the vicinity of Pretoria. He confined himself to the fact that less money is being made available for this project during the present financial year than he had in mind. I want to furnish a very brief summary of this project for otherwise it would take up a great deal of time. The department is aware of the necessity of providing suitable amenities for this population group, i.e. the Tswanas, as soon as possible. However, to make proper amenities available does not merely entail the building of the railway line between Winternest and Mabopane, but also the large-scale improvement and expansion of the existing railway network in and around Pretoria. It includes a new station for non-Whites at Bell Ombré, with connecting lines at Golf and Bantule. Initially it was also thought that the quadrupling of the Hercules/Pretoria North section would be sufficient, but further investigation disclosed that more than four railway lines would be necessary. The physical restriction caused by Wonderboompoort and Daspoort entail special problems. Complex railway fly-over structures at Hercules also have to be designed. This has made a comprehensive scheme even more complex, and requires additional detailed planning to ensure that the intensive traffic is able to flow without any hitches. What complicates the scheme even further is the fact that other Government departments and outside bodies are involved in it. The provincial administration, in co-operation with the municipality of Pretoria, is for example, contemplating major road building schemes in the area concerned, which will by their nature influence the railway project. Nevertheless the work to the north of Pretoria North will be commenced as soon as possible as a first stage. It will only be completed by the end of 1978, when it will be possible to introduce the passenger train service between Mabopane and Wolmerton outside Pretoria North. From there passengers will have to be conveyed in buses until the other work has been completed. However, it will still be a considerable time before the planning of the area south of Pretoria North has been completed. The entire scheme is not expected to be completed before 1984. Hon. members seem surprised, but this is a vast scheme with many implications. For that reason I decided to inform the hon. member about it as fully as possible.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the residential complex which is going to be constructed in Durban for the accommodation of Bantu. The hon. member for Klip River also referred to this. I shall, at a subsequent stage, discuss with him the aspect he dealt with. At present there are approximately 15 000 Bantu in the vicinity of the Durban complex, of whom 6 506 are in departmental hostels. The housing of these Bantu is also in the vicinity of the White area and what is being contemplated here is the construction of a hostel there. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to page 112 of the General Manager’s annual report, on which a splendid photograph of a model of such a hostel appears. The hon. member objected to this. To tell the truth, he unburdened himself of quite a number of contradictory statements. I want to refer to these at once. At the outset of his speech he criticized us because the necessary planning to get the harbours into shape was lacking. At the end of his speech, on the other hand, he criticized us because we were effecting improvements to the harbours. Referring to this complex he said that the enormous expansion in the harbours and particularly the measures which will be adopted in the harbours in regard to containerization, which would require less labour, would entail that there would subsequently be no more Bantu to live in the hostels. The hon. member even went so far as to criticize us for proceeding with Richards Bay. He said that he was surprised that we were proceeding with Richards Bay as a general harbour because the result would be that tomorrow or the day after there would be empty quays in Durban harbour. How is one able to square matters if one has to listen to such an Opposition? The one minute he is levelling the criticism at us that our planning is not good enough —inter alia he asked why we had not yet introduced the double shift system in Durban—and the next he says that we are developing too rapidly and that the quays will be empty.

He did not say that.

Be that as it may, to cut a long story short in respect of these hostels, I want to say that, with all the facts at our disposal, it has been calculated that despite containerization and all the other developments which may take place, it will be possible to accommodate 9 000 single Bantu in this hostel by the time it has been completed, viz. in the region of 1978.

The hon. member also referred to the introduction of the double shift system. The introduction of that system is not such a novelty as hon. members opposite are trying to imply. As long ago as 1958 an investigation was instituted into the possibility of introducing a double shift system. For various reasons, because of various problems which were being experienced at the time and have continuously been experienced right up to the present, the double shift system was not introduced until we considered the introduction of such a system in May of last year, which subsequently gave rise to the actual introduction of this system in Cape Town as well as in Durban. If it had not been for the exceptionally heavy flow of traffic through the harbours the introduction of the double shift system would probably not have taken place yet. Hon. members know—the hon. member for Simonstown in particular agreed with this— that one does not always receive the necessary co-operation from private bodies. It is not only the Railways that is involved in the introduction of this double shift system, but also to a large extent the stevedores, and one must have their co-operation before such a system can be introduced. I do not think that it is necessary for me to elaborate any further on this matter.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark gave a very interesting and practical elucidation of the capital structure of the Railways. I should like to congratulate him on it. He gave us, in simple terms, a very sound elucidation of the capital requirements and the capital structure of the Railways. He then referred to a railway line which he should like to have constructed to the Vaal Triangle from the South Sotho area. This matter has already been investigated on a previous occasion. However, it was found that it is doubtful at present whether it would be possible to justify such a railway line on economic grounds. But there is an interdepartmental committee which meets from time to time and determines priorities in respect of the transportation of non-Whites. At the same time, however, I must say that this interdepartmental committee actually devotes its attention solely to the resettlement of non-Whites. Be that as it may, what the information at my disposal amounts to is that it is doubtful whether the railway line which was advocated by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark would be justified.

I have already replied to the arguments of the hon. member for Jeppe, and I come now to the hon. member for Bethlehem. He made a very interesting speech. At the out set he referred to the wide range of services provided by the Railways. He pointed out that the Railways has to convey from the largest containers to the smallest packages over the shortest and the longest distances. I think this is a matter to which we will constantly have to devote more attention, particularly when one comes to the relationship between road and rail transportation. Let us leave aside for the moment the case of the small package as compared to the heavy freight load, and confine ourselves only to the distances. One then becomes aware, as I said in my speech, that the Railways is becoming increasingly capital intensive, and that increasingly larger amounts are being spent by the Railways. One then begins to doubt whether it is sound business economics to convey certain goods. Supplying a truck to a certain place, and loading it, usually takes two days. Suppose the freight only has to be conveyed over a small distance, then it still takes two days before that truck can be off-loaded. The result is that it takes a minimum of five days to load a truck, convey the freight over a short distance, and then off-load the truck. One then begins to doubt whether this is sound business economics, for it is, from the nature of the case, far more productive and profitable to load a truck and convey the freight over a long distance, which could perhaps take three or four days, so that far more money could then be earned with that truck. I think this idea which was expressed by the hon. member for Bethlehem should receive our constant attention, particularly in order to determine where the responsibilities and duties of the Railways begin and where they end, in other words in what cases transportation may be left to other bodies.

The hon. member for Albany, as the Bible puts it, asked more questions than a thousand wise men could answer. I want to discuss only a few of the matters he raised. He mentioned that ships sail first from Port Elizabeth to Durban, report their arrival there and then return to Port Elizabeth to discharge cargo, and then sail back to Durban to discharge their principal cargo. I do not know what object the hon. member for Albany had in mind when he mentioned these facts, but I take it he wants to criticize the Administration on these grounds. However, we are not responsible for that. It is in fact a favour which these ships are being done. Because these ships usually discharge small amounts of cargo at Port Elizabeth and the principal cargo at Durban, these ships are allowed to sail to Durban, and if they find that there are no berths for them in the Durban harbour, to report their arrival there. They, and not we, then decide that they will sail back to Port Elizabeth to discharge small amounts of cargo and subsequently return to Durban where they have already staked their claim for discharging their principal cargo.

To take their place in the queue.

Yes. We are really doing this to accommodate the shipping lines rather than place an obligation on them.

The hon. member also referred to empty houses alongside the railway lines. As a result of the introduction of centralized traffic control, it happens that fewer people are required at the smaller stations. As a result of this it happens that numerous houses—I have seen this myself—are empty and can no longer be utilized by the Railways. The policy of the Railways is of course—I think the members of the Select Committee will be acquainted with the circumstances—that the Railways tries to use those houses where it possibly can. The houses are rented or sold and are made available for human tenancy, or for storage. If there are no Whites who are able to or want to use the houses, the houses are even made available to non-Whites. However, everything possible is being done to use the houses. Only if no other use can be found for the houses, there is no other alternative but to demolish them.

The hon. member also referred to the Grahamstown industrial area. For the record I want to tell him that the Railways is not yet aware of the expansion and the planning at Grahamstown. As soon as the Railways have been notified of this, we will plan the necessary railway network, i.e. after an investigation has been instituted and it has been established what is necessary.

The hon. member, as well as other hon. members—I think inter alia the hon. member for Orange Grove—referred to the question of school concessions. Last year I announced here that the school concessions were being abolished. I said on that occasion that these concessions were in many cases being abused because the people making use of them did not really need them. Besides, it is frequently not a case of schools not being available. It is simply an idea people have to send their children to other schools. I said on the same occasion that, if such a need should exist, school concession should continue. However, it should then be the responsibility of another department to pay for it, and not the Railways. On that occasion hon. members agreed with me in general in regard to this matter. Since then requests have been received from various quarters for the re-introduction of a school concession system. I must mention that I recently had an interview with the Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education and Mr. Lubbe, the M.E.C, responsible for educational matters in the Cape, were also present. Arising out of the talks which we had on the possibility of re-introducing some scheme or other —which will probably be a much amended one—I have since written to the Minister of National Education and informed him about the way in which the Railway Administration is able to administer such a concession scheme as they want it. This can of course only happen if they compensate us for the losses the Railways suffers as a result, and if they cover the costs which the Railways incur in regard to the administration of such a scheme. The costs attendant on such a scheme are not considerable, and I want to give those hon. members who discussed this matter the assurance that the question of travel concessions to scholars will be reconsidered with a view to a new scheme in terms of which the other bodies concerned will bear the costs in that regard.

The hon. member for Albany referred to coal. I should like to express a few thoughts on this matter and say at the outset that on a certain occasion, when I received objections and complaints in regard to coal, I recently said to the General Manager: “Look, I am getting tired of this coal business”. The reason for this is that one cannot lay one’s finger on the person who is responsible. We supply the trucks and the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association must supply the coal and load the trucks. Then we must haul the trucks to their destinations, to where the coal has to be delivered. It frequently happens that complaints are addressed to the Railways that there are no trucks with which to convey the coal. I then say that we make the trucks available, but we do not tell the coal producers to whom they should send the trucks. They have to distribute the coaL We have decided that we are going to clamp down on the position. Before I come to that I should like to furnish hon. members with a little data. Since January of last year we have been making trucks available to the coal mines, but not in the numbers they have requested. We sent them less than they asked for, but in every month from January last year up to and including February of this year they did not fully utilize the trucks we did in fact supply. In January 1974 we supplied all the trucks they asked for. By the way, I want to say that they usually ask for more than they need. We complied 100% with their request, but they nevertheless utilized only 85% of the trucks we sent. In February of last year we also met their requirements 100% and they only used 88% of those trucks. The same pattern applies throughout. In May 1974 we supplied 92% of the trucks they requested, and they only utilized 89% of the trucks. In January this year we complied 100% with their requirements, and they only used 88% of the trucks. In February we supplied 100%, and of that percentage they used only 91%. The total picture for last year in respect of all their truck requirements requested was that we complied with their request up to 90,%25. Of that 90,25% they only used 91,97%. One may ask where the fault lies. If we were to look at a graph, we would see that the line of their requests throughout the course of the year was right at the very top. In the middle of the graph there is a line representing the supply of trucks and beneath that, lower down, there is a line indicating the actual utilization of trucks by the coal mines. If one looks at that, one can arrive at only one conclusion. It is that the difficulty does not lie with the supply of trucks. I want to admit that we do not always have trucks in such large numbers as are being requested by everyone in South Africa. We have our problems as well. However, if we look at this pattern, we can arrive at only one conclusion and that is that the difficulty lies where the coal has to be loaded. The difficulty lies with the coal mines. The same applies to the Natal Anthracite Producers, for which I have the figures. I do not want to go into them now. I just want to say that Mr. Loots, the Assistant General Manager, Operating, has worked out a new system in terms of which the entire country is divided up into 40 different areas. The object of this is that block loads of coal have to be conveyed from the coal mines to these areas. When the block load of coal arrives in these areas, it can be moved rapidly and without any interruptions to the place from which it is going to be distributed. A block load of coal is for example dispatched from the coal mines to Worcester. From thence the various trucks are then dispatched to Riversdale or Wolseley or wherever the coal is required. A day or so ago the hon. member for Albany asked me a question in regard to Port Elizabeth. He asked me whether I had any objections to the organization which is being established there for the distribution of coal. I have no objections to it. It is part of the scheme I should like to have—that the coal is dispatched in block loads to Port Elizabeth and that the distribution in Port Elizabeth is carried out by the private sector and not by the Railways. I sincerely hope that in the days which lie ahead there will be an end to the complaints which we may have had in the past.

Sir, the hon. member for Newton Park discussed the conveyance of livestock; I think he and I settled this matter across the floor of this House. We were in favour of conveying frozen meat rather than live animals. I have been corresponding for a considerable time with the Minister of Agriculture on this matter. All I want, Sir, is that we should know in good time where and when the abattoirs are going to be built. These trucks which we use for the conveyance of frozen meat are expensive, and it also takes a considerable time to acquire them. My only request in this regard is therefore that we should be notified in good time so that the necessary rolling stock may be acquired.

The hon. member also referred to the western part of Port Elizabeth and the possible introduction of a passenger service there. My reply to him is more or less the same as my reply to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, i.e. that it is very doubtful whether the passenger potential is there. Apparently an investigation has already been instituted with a view to the introduction of a passenger service to Gelvandale, the non-White area, but no investigation has yet been instituted with a view to the introduction of a service to the western part. This may in due course also be investigated by the inter-departmental committee.

Sir, the hon. member for Parow referred here to pensions, in regard to which I should like to say a few words. He said inter alia, that he thought that the built-in annual increase of 2% in pensions was unrealistic. I do not want to cross swords with him over this; it is a debatable point. But on the other hand the hon. member also said that he welcomes the fact that we are not making a practice of necessarily considering pensions with every budget. Sir, the salary scales are reviewed from time to time and adjusted when economic circumstances warrant this. With the adjustment of salary scales last year, we also made adjustments to the pensions. This will also be done in future. Furthermore, I just want to point out to the hon. member for Parow that the 2% increase, which was initially commenced in 1958, eventually became more than 2% because 2% is added every year to the 2% granted the previous year. Sir, I just want to bring the following to the attention of the hon. member to indicate that despite the built-in 2% increase to pensioners, so many interim adjustments have been made that it presents a very fine picture to which I shall subsequently refer when I reply to the hon. member for Durban Point. Let us consider the case of a person receiving a pension of R100 per month in 1958. That pensioner received a 10% increase in 1959, which brought his pension up to R110 per month. In 1969 he again received a 10% increase plus his 2%. After that he received his 2% every year, as well as his interim increases. The R100 with which the pensioner began in 1958 had increased to R231-14 per month by 1 October 1974. I am simply pointing this out—I shall have something further to say about pensions in a moment—to indicate what a fair and just supplementation the pensioners are receiving.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also criticized me on my approach to priorities. I think I have already dealt adequately with this question of priorities, as far as it related to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Point, by saying that all we want is that the physical and financial means of the country should be properly taken into consideration in all the various projects because we are not able, in this rapidly-growing economy, to meet all the requirements.

The hon. member referred to the passenger coaches which we are purchasing, inter alia, those which are being used on the Soweto line. I should just like to tell him that these coaches—I think this is what he asked—are larger than the previous ones. Also the doors are wider than they previously were. The hon. member then referred to our export position and said that we should maintain our position in the international sphere in respect of our exports, particularly with regard to minerals and metals. The hon. member also referred to Saldanha and St. Croix. In regard to that I just want to say that one should of course deal very carefully with a project such as that of Saldanha as far as the export of minerals and metals are concerned. One must hasten slowly as regards other projects. Saldanha is by its nature a vast undertaking, and it has always been my view that we should not make it our first task, in the national interests, to ensure that Saldanha is properly utilized and that Saldanha becomes a viable economic undertaking before spending millions elsewhere. Therefore I feel that although I agree with the hon. member that we should anticipate our requirements, we should not in our anticipation simply snatch things out of the air and say that we are going to proceed with an undertaking simply because we want to do so. One must be realistic, and in the process of being realistic one must, after all, look at the requirements, i.e. whether the materials and the traffic is there which has to be conveyed. The hon. member also said that the private sector is playing a major role in the exporting of minerals. The Railways has only one loading installation and that is at Port Elizabeth. The other one in Durban is a private installation, and not that of the S.A. Railways. But it is the private sector which frequently fails to play its part. I just want to bring it to the attention of the hon. member that Anglo-American has still not provided us with the necessary guarantees for the coal line which is under construction. Therefore I say that I do not think we can always simply hold the Railways responsible; we should also hold the private sector responsible. The hon. member also put questions on the purchase of locomotives and trains.

†The hon. member asked whether equipment being purchased is compatible with that of the S.A. Railways. I think he has asked this question before and the reply has been given before. There is close negotiation between the S.A. Railways and Iscor in connection with the acquisition of their material for the Sishen-Saldanha line. I do not say that we will have no problems at all, but I think the difficulties will only be small and that they will easily be overcome.

*The hon. member for Klip River referred to the hostel to which I referred a moment ago. I want to reply to his argument briefly. The cost of this hostel includes the cost of the compound unit and also includes a departmental feeding scheme, health services, sick bays, sport and recreational amenities, beer halls, etc. This hostel, which seems to have caused the hon. member a little concern, will not be situated in a White area. At present there is an unhealthy state of affairs because so many of these Bantu are being accommodated in the White areas, but this is now going to be done in a well-organized hostel in the Bantu area. We thought this would be beneficial, particularly in view of the fact that a large proportion of the manpower, the Bantu manpower in Durban, is migratory labour, i.e. labourers coming there on an annual contract and then returning. In other words, they are single persons. From the nature of the case it is far better if we accommodate these single persons in a hostel where the amenities may be created and where the need arises, than if we, as he should like us to do, bring the families from far away and accommodate them on a family basis near the centre of Durban. In addition the costs will be far higher if this accommodation is provided on a family basis.

The hon. member for Simonstown put various questions to me. In the first place he referred to the question of the school concessions, which I have already dealt with. The excuses which I offered in regard to the congestion at the harbours, he discussed one by one. I used the word “discussed”, because I do not think he criticized them all; he only tried to criticize them. There is only one point in respect of which I am able to agree with him, and that is when he said that the bad weather of Jan van Riebeeck’s days was back with us. That is true, Sir, I take it that it was a Cape of Storms even before Jan van Riebeeck’s time. Certainly there was bad weather in Jan van Riebeeck’s time as well, but I want to remind the hon. member that Jan van Riebeeck did not work under nearly the same sophisticated circumstances as those under which we are working today. If one were to open a ship’s hatches during stormy weather in the Durban harbour, one really has problems. It is not so much that people are affected by this, but that the goods that are damaged. As the hon. member knows we have in recent years had an exceptional amount of rain in Durban.

But, Sir, this is merely a debating point. It really gets one nowhere. The fact of the matter is that we have during the past year lost a great many crane hours as a result of bad weather conditions. I do not think it is necessary for me to react to all the other points which the hon. member mentioned in this regard.

The hon. member mentioned the matter of Grainger Bay on behalf of the hon. member tor Green Point. In reply to this I want to inform the hon. member for Green Point that what is being envisaged here is a harbour for the yacht club and for the power boats. The Granger Bay area falls within the controlled area of the habour, but its development is not the responsibility of the Railway Administration. I am certain the hon. member will agree with me as far as this is concerned. You will probably regard yachts and power boats as a type of sport, and under the circumstances I think that the matter falls under my colleague, the Minister of Sport and Recreation. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation is not present at the moment, and I should not like to anticipate his announcements, but I know that he is working on this.

You should try to persuade the Minister of Sport and Recreation and the Minister of Tourism in this regard.

I know that the hon. Minister is giving this matter his attention. We, on the part of the Railways, have undertaken to provide him with every possible technical assistance and advice. From the nature of the case, however, the money will have to come from another source. We will help him as far as we are able, and I want to promise my support to the hon. member in advocating that we should persuade the hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation to do something in this regard.

The hon. member for Simonstown raised two other points, to which I should like to reply. The one is in respect of Mossel Bay. You will understand. Sir, that the Railway Administration, which is in charge of harbours, cannot prevail upon the shipping lines to discharge cargoes at this or that harbour. The shipping lines discharge their cargoes at the harbours which are most convenient to them with a view to the destinations of the goods in question. Consequently a need for amenities arises at the harbour because the shipping lines want to use that particular labour, and/or the potential as far as the interior is concerned should be there to warrant the discharging of the goods. In other words, there has to be a hinterland to which the goods are to be despatched. I am quite sympathetic towards Mossel Bay, and my reply to the hon. member is simply that if the need arises, we will give the necessary attention to Mossel Bay by means of the necessary investigations. If it should then appear to be justified we shall undertake the necessary expansion as the needs arise.

The hon. member also mentioned Saldanha. He also mentioned the possibility of Saldanha being developed as a general harbour and dry dock. I want to tell the hon. member that my reply in respect of that request is approximately the same as the reply in respect of Mossel Bay. When Saldanha and its complex has been expanded, and a large city develops, as we expect will happen, and the need for a harbour arises in that vicinity, a harbour which will be better able to accommodate harbour traffic than Table Bay Harbour, we must and shall of course give attention to developing Saldanha as a general harbour. I think we would at present be putting the cart before the horse if we were to incur heavy costs there. The hon. member knows as well as I do that a harbour is a tremendously expensive undertaking, in which millions of rand, even hundreds of millions of rand, could be involved.

It will become more and more expensive in future.

Surely I cannot now plan and build a harbour at Saldanha Bay simply because it may be necessary in future.

It will be necessary in future.

It will be done when it becomes necessary. There are priorities, and, apart from that, everything costs money.

If a new harbour is built it will stimulate development.

The hon. member also mentioned a dry-dock, and I want to refer to that. The dry dock in Cape Town was built during the war years, as hon. members are well aware, to meet wartime needs. In earlier years it was a fact that such a drydock was regarded as being the responsibility of the harbour authority, because everything happened on a smaller scale. Today the building of a dry-dock has become a tremendously vast undertaking, so much so that the construction costs of a dry dock for Durban, Cape Town or Saldanha would be approximately R60 million. Attendant upon the infrastructure which has to be created around such a dry-dock can, today no longer be regarded as the responsibility of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. A dry-dock and everything which goes with it has, in other words, become an industry. Since it has become an industry, we feel that it is the responsibility of another body. It is for that reason that the Industrial Development Corporation is giving so much attention to the building of a dry-dock. As far as the Railways is concerned …

Is it going to be at Cape Town or Saldanha?

At present nothing much is happening. At one stage they were to have constructed it at Cape Town, and at another stage at Saldanha, but I think at the moment things are rather quiet. All that I am trying to explain to the hon. member is that we no longer consider it to be our responsibility today.

The hon. member for De Aar asked for a museum at De Aar. I want to tell him that the Railways do have a museum, the Railway Museum at Esselen Park. I therefore do not think that it is incumbent on us to establish another museum at De Aar, or anywhere else for that matter. For that reason I want to suggest that the hon. member should simply persuade the Municipality of De Aar to establish such a museum. I promise that the Railways will give them a locomotive, if they do not already have a steam locomotive at De Aar. We shall make all kinds of other items which we can spare available, if they establish such a museum.

The hon. member for Bryanston raised one point in regard to which I should like to reply. I should not like to reply to the other points which he raised, because I think that it is not for me to conduct a long debate on matters of colour in this debate. I think we should preferably see a little less colour—particularly Black—and confine ourselves more specifically to the Railways. This does not apply only to the hon. member for Bryanston, but also to the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Bryanston said that when considering a new railway line we should devote more consideration to the availability of fuel, energy, than to economic considerations to the availability of fuel, energy, than to economic considerations. I want to tell the hon. member that we are already doing this. As a result of the fuel crisis which has occurred, we have from the nature of the case intensified and expanded our electrification programme. I have here a whole series of particulars of our electrification programme in future, but it would take up too much time to submit it now to this House, but I can make it available to the hon. member if he is interested in it. The fact of the matter is that we have domestic supplies of electricity. It is therefore not necessary for us to import it. We shall, therefore, where we possibly can, make use of electricity instead of using diesels for which oil has to be imported.

Lastly, I just want to deal with the point raised here by the hon. member for Orange Grove. Yesterday, when I was asked about a “fireman”, I replied that we were not training Blacks as “firemen” but as “coalmen”. My reply was found to be quite amusing, but there is nothing funny about this. I shall furnish hon. members with an elucidation of the position, and I trust that they will be sensible enough to agree with me entirely once I have completed this elucidation. I said yesterday that the “coalmen” who are being trained in Durban are doing part of the work of the firemen. It seems to me the hon. member is completely underestimating the work of the firemen. He thinks a fireman is simply there to take a shovel and throw coal into the firebox. In reality the fireman has far more work than that. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that a fireman is really a learner driver. In other words, while he is stoking he is in the process of being trained to become a driver. In that process he has far more duties than simply to throw coal into the firebox.,

What about a Black driver?

For the sake of clarity I should first like to analyse the position of the fireman. He receives two weeks practical training as thirdman on a locomotive, and three weeks theoretical training in a classroom. A second method of training is to be trained as third man by the driver of a locomotive. The duration of training on a locomotive depends on the depot at which he works, but it varies from between three to five weeks. After completion of the training the person is put through an oral test by a local locomotive inspector. If he passes, he performs independent fireman’s duties. After six months’ service provided he has passed the oral test, he writes an examination on a fireman’s duties. To be able to do this he must attend the Railway college. The duties of the fireman are as follows: he prepares the fire, fills the lubricator, fills the coal-tender tank, opens and closes the smoke box, cleans the spark arrestor, pilots the driver out of the depot, gives hand signals and sets the points. If no shunter is available he couples the locomotive to the train, he stokes with a spade or operates the mechanical stoker, he operates injectors, watches the steampressure in the boiler and the water, compares signals and travelling signs with the driver— the latter is very important—he helps keep a look-out, he picks up travelling signs, he protects the train during accidents and locomotive breakdowns, he cleans the fire and takes on water.

Cannot a Black man do these things?

You cannot do it yourself.

The coalman requires no educational qualifications, and need only be able to speak, read and_write one of the official languages. Candidates are put through a psychometric test. The coalmen are given practical training in the work situation. The training covers parts of the locomotive, such as the boiler, the wheels and coupling rod as well as driver’s equipment. The training extends over a period of five weeks and they are given practical training in stoking duties under the supervision of an instructor. Their duties are as follows: Filling the lubricator, use of injectors and jet pipe, filling of coal-tender tank, cleaning of the cabin and equipment, the trimming and cleaning of the fire, the filling of sandboxes, regulator and the coupling of the locomotive. You will see, Mr. Speaker, that anything which has to do with the operating of the train is not his indaba and does not form part of his duties. The coalman performs specified locomotive duties under the direct supervision of the driver and carries out no train operating duties whatsoever, nor does he have any train operating responsibilities. Such responsibilities the fireman does in fact have. Drivers of steam locomotives undertake the remaining duties of the fireman at additional remuneration. In other words, where a coalman is used with a driver, additional duties are imposed on the driver who receives remuneration for them. The major difference is that there are no operational duties resting on the coalman. What is more, the coalmen are only used on shunting locomotives, and not on outside lines because a minimum of operating duties are attached to shunting work.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the Railway Administration not prepared to accept non-Whites as firemen?

I think the hon. member is aware of the policy we are adopting. In cases where we have up to now employed non-Whites and have trained them for special duties and services, we have done so in co-operation with the staff associations. That is why we have peace and quiet in the various services of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. When and where the need arises for the expansion of the employment of non-Whites on the Railways, we shall continue in this way, namely to undertake such training and made such appointments in consultation with the staff associations.

The hon. member for Durban Point moved as an amendment—I am just mentioning this briefly—that the Railways does not sufficiently appreciate its role as the dynamic in the South African economy and, secondly that the Budget fails to stimulate morale by not providing incentives to productivity for the employees, or adequately to compensate pensioners in the light of the ever-escalating cost of living. In regard to the hon. member’s first point, namely the dynamic, I want to tell him that in this Appropriation we are budgeting for expenditure from Revenue of more than R1 800 million. This represents a tremendous expansion which has taken place during the past year in the services of the S.A. Railways. In this Budget we are making provision for capital expenditure of R856,5 million. Then the hon. member states that the Budget is uninteresting and colourless, and that nothing is really happening. However, this is a tremendous increase in capital expenditure, which now amounts to the unprecedented total of R865 million. Let us consider the new works. The hon. member said that there was nothing new in the Brown Book. He said all it was was that little old pipeline which we have to construct from Durban to convey fuel to the Witwatersrand and that we were, for that purpose, appropriating a mere nominal amount of R100 because we probably had to do a certain amount of investigation work first. However, the hon. member did not do his homework. If he had done it, he would have seen that the estimated total cost of the already approved works in the Brown Book amount to R3 930 million. The estimated total costs of new works, which the hon. member said were not there, amounts to R1 014 million. In other words, the estimated total cost of new proposals, which the hon. member said were not there, amount to 25% of the estimates for already approved works which are in the Brown Book. For the proposals in the Brown Book more than R1 000 million is being estimated, not all of which, of course, we are going to spend this year. Our cash requirement for new works is only R190 million, while estimates have been prepared for R1 000 in regard to new proposals. Even that R190 million in cash which we are providing for the new works, in regard to which the hon. member says that he is uncertain whether they do in fact exist, is approximately 20% of the new works for which we are making provision in the Brown Book.

The hon. member is probably unaware that the S.A. Railways has the second-largest Appropriation of all transportation systems in the entire world. There is only one which is larger, that of Japan. I want to repeat that the Appropriation of the S.A. Railways, next to Japan’s, is the largest. The S.A. Railways are among the first to have purchased the 747 SP’s. I want the hon. member to bear in mind that we purchased these before there was a Portuguese crisis and before we thought that there would be any problems in regard to landing places—at that time already the Railways was one of the first in the world to purchase the SP’s which enable us to make uninterrupted flights from South Africa to Europe.

There are other projects to which I want to refer as well. The hon. member is probably dissatisfied that things are going so well with our staff. We have labour peace on the Railways. We are constructing the biggest shunting yards in the Southern Hemisphere. I am referring to the one which is going to be constructed in the region of Babsfontein. The hon. member did not, even mention this, although he praised the fact and said that he agreed with our rendering assistance to neighbouring states such as Mozambique—very fundamental and important assistance. However, everything is colourless to him. At Richards Bay we are engaged in the biggest dredging programme in the world—but according to the hon. member it is all colourless. The hon. member says that nothing is happening. We have the biggest computer system in the whole of South Africa, and the hon. member says it is all a colourless business. I think the House will come to a different conclusion, for then the hon. member came

Vause is a colourful character.

Then the hon. member came to the second part of his amendment and said that the necessary incentives were not there, that we were not encouraging productivity through salary adjustments and pension adjustments.

The hon. member should look at the figures. I am referring again to pensions. The basic pensions of persons who became pensioners on 1 April 1968—that was not very long ago—have increased as follows through the annual automatic addition of 2%, to which he referred, plus special concessions from time to time: In 1969 these pensions were increased by the normal 2% plus 10%; in 1970 by the normal 2%; 1971 by the normal 2% plus 15%; 1972 by the normal 2%; 1973 by the normal 2% plus 10% and in 1974 by 2% plus 10%. In the case of the person who in 1968 was receiving a pension of R100 per month, he received R172,38 per month at the end of last year. This means an annual average increase over the past six years of 12,06 But the hon. member says that we are doing nothing for these people. The average annual increase in the consumer price index over the past six years was 8,55%. I come now to salaries.

The average annual increase in salaries and wages on the Railways over the past six years has been 12,11%. The hon. member alleges, however, that we are not looking after our people as far as salaries and wages are concerned. While the price index rose by 8,55% in recent years, the pensions rose by an average of 12,06% and salaries by 12,11%. I think this refutes all allegations in the hon. member’s amendment or any other amendment that was moved. Consequently I think that this House will reject those amendments with contempt.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Sir, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour? I do not have the hon. the Minister’s vast computer, to which he referred as the biggest in Southern Africa, or was it the southern hemisphere, but I do have some calculating qualities which do not require it, and I have done a little sum of my own. The hon. the Minister, at 14h21½, said that he had nothing to reply to in criticism of the Budget. He sat down at 15h51, which I make 1 hr. 29½ mins, later, having spent 1 hr. 29½ mins, replying to “no criticism at all”. He said there was no criticism to reply to. Now, I have done another little calculation. If it takes an intelligent person one hour 29½ minutes to answer no criticism, if there was any how long would it take the Minister to answer it if he was not in that category? No, Sir, the hon. the Minister can play around as he likes. The fact is that as usual he picked out one or two items, tried to answer these, and then claimed that there was no criticism to reply to. First I want to deal with a few of the matters the hon. the Minister has raised.

I want to deal firstly with, the question of harbour traffic and the graph, to which the hon. the Minister referred, of cargo landed and shipped in South African harbours. Here we have a typical effort by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister drew a line and said that this justified his argument that the increase in cargo had been so terrific that it could not have been foreseen or coped with. But, of course, what did he do? He drew a line starting from a median point and took it through, the lowest peak of 1972. I happened to be able to see where he drew his line. Starting at a median, he took it through the bottom of a valley, and then claimed that he had got an average over the period. But what he did not do was to draw a line starting in 1964, representing cargo landed as opposed to cargo shipped, and take it through as a straight line to 1974. If he did so, he would find that most of the graph then comes below the line and there are a few very brief and very small humps above the median average. If you take that line, starting at approximately 415 tons in 1964, and you bring it to the peak of approximately 800 tons in 1974, you find that there are five points at which landed cargo exceeded the median line. Now this is what I meant when I said we did not like to be “taken for a ride”. We can work things out for ourselves, and you do not draw a line starting at a median, taking it to a bottom of a valley, and then claim that you are getting an average picture. And in the case of Durban, if you take the line from the starting point on the graph, through the median of the average for Durban for all cargo landed and shipped, you also get a different picture from that which the hon. the Minister tried to put across.

But I want to take the matter further in regard to the way the hon. the Minister informs this House on facts. The hon. the Minister on 13 February, less than a month ago, said the following to the House—

That is me—

This was one of the new initiatives being taken to solve the urgent problems of harbours. It was a new step, taken 14 days before the Minister for the first time announced that Richards Bay was going to handle general cargo. Am I correct, or am I misrepresenting the picture? The Minister does not deny it; it stands in Hansard. But, Mr. Chairman, I have here the report of the Railways and Harbours Board on Richards Bay, which was presented to this House in 1972. On page 6 we read the following—

In other words, Sir, the hon. the Minister tried to tell this House a month ago that he had now come with a new initiative in that general cargo would be handled at Richards Bay. But here is the map, the original plan of Richards Bay, and here we see that provision is made for a “clean” wharf. When we passed the Bill we made provision for this harbour to come into operation with a “clean” quay which would handle general cargo. Here it is on the chart. I happen to have another chart here which I obtained during the official visit which the hon. the Minister kindly arranged to Richards Bay. Here, too, a quay for “clean” cargo is clearly marked.

Vause, what do you actually want to say?

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. Whip has asked that question. What I am saying is that the hon. the Minister has in fact given information to this House which is not substantiated by the facte. He has attempted to present a picture of having done something to meet a crisis which in fact is not a new action or a new initiative. In fact, it is something which was planned as far back as 1972. That, Mr.

Chairman, is our criticism of this Budget. It is colourless; it is merely adding to things which have been debated and decided upon long ago. It is in that sense that this is a colourless Budget. The hon. the Minister talks of new works to the value of R1 000 million on the Brown Book. I have the Brown Book here. Hundreds of millions of rand are set aside for the buying of new equipment. If you look at the rolling stock section you will find these vast amounts. Tens of millions of rand are allocated for the purchase of rolling stock. But these are not new initiatives, new vistas or new ideas. This is simply a question of more money being required to buy more things of the same type. Here and there one finds a new item, an innovation, a new type of bogie or a new type of wagon, but generally what one finds here is simply a replacement of goods and additions of goods of the same type. This is what we mean when we say that the Budget is colourless and unimaginative.

What do you suggest?

I suggest that if the Minister had wanted to do something which would indicate an acceptance of the role of the Railways, he would have announced that, in consultation with the Government, it had been decided that the Railways should take over responsibility for the Sishen/Saldanha line. We quoted that an an example of the sort of initiative that is needed. Here sits the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs; he knows that that is the sort of initiative which would restore the Railways to their proper place, as a leader and initiator of progress and development in South Africa. This is one of the points I made, but which the Minister failed to reply to in his hour and 29½ minutes. He did not even refer to it.

I give him points for the pipe-line; it is for white spirits, and I accept that. He has, however, completely ignored my suggestion about the reconstruction of the Railway Board as a planning body and he attempted to make out that I had not asked for this. He quoted our amendment to the 1974 Railway Budget correctly, but he avoided stating that I specifically suggested in col. 3549 of Hansard, in addition to the amendment which called for an inquiry into transportation, that the Railway Board be recreated or recast as a planning body. I repeated it this time and I mentioned the organizations which should be given representation on the Board. I suggested that commerce, industry, agriculture, mining and finance should form part of this planning body which is the type of body which the hon. the Minister said was visualized by the General Manager. The hon. the Minister carefully avoided that suggestion. He evaded it entirely.

You can read it cut to us.

I do not want to read it. I suggested the reconstruction of the Board and in my speech on Monday I mentioned the specific bodies which I suggested should come into that reconstructed body. That is the sort of planning board which we have in view. The hon. the Minister tried to talk about the amendment, but evaded completely the question of planning and the bringing in of other bodies. There were two separate issues, and despite his speech of 89½ minutes, the hon. the Minister failed to refer to this question whatsoever. In fact, he tried to draw a red herring across the trail. He answered two points out of the 12 which I raised. He did not deal with the points I raised in regard to the Sishen-Saldanha line, he did not deal with the fact that he had followed our lead in divorcing the day-to-day management of harbours from the railways and he did not deal with the reconstruction of the Railway Board. He also did not deal with the question of the interest burden on capital and he did not deal with my suggestion that we sh,ould try to draw tourists by means of a Eurrail pass system or the Australian system where foreign visitors could take a travel-at-will ticket for a certain period. What is more, he failed to deal with a very important matter and that is the fact that we were told—the hon. the Minister acknowledged it when I challenged him across the floor on Monday—that the average delay for ships in Durban harbour was from one to two days. Does he accept that that is the position, or does he not accept it?

I shall reply to that at a later stage.

I queried this myself and other hon. members were present when were were given the figure that the delay for shipping, including passenger ships and ships with, priority docking, was one to two days. It seemed unbelievable to me and in fact it seemed unbelievable to others, but it was confirmed that that was in fact the delay. Taking passenger craft and priority berthings, the average delay was from one to two days. This was what he said 10 days ago. My question was and remains: If the delay is only two days, on what grounds is there a congestion surcharge of 40% to the value of some R80 million per year? I have asked the question who was taking whom for a ride. Are the Conference Lines unfairly and unreasonably placing a congestion surcharge to goods when in fact the congestion does not justify it, or is there congestion to justify it, which means that the claim that there is only a delay of one to two days is not a true claim? It must be one of the two. The hon. the Minister, in the 89½ minutes which he took to reply, completely evaded this matter of major importance.

I asked him to bring the floating staff into the picture as far as the two-shift system was concerned. I said that the floating staff should not be forgotten, and that they should not be required to work 48 hours a week while the quay staff are required to work only 40 hours and get three hours free overtime per day, which amounts to 15 hours free overtime a week. The floating staff has to bring the ships in, move them from quay to quay and take them from a single-shift to a double-shift quay, wasting hours of time in the process. I do not have time to deal with that this afternoon, but one of the things which we can criticize is the time wasted in moving ships once they are docked. Once they are at a berth, and another berth with two-shift loading becomes available, the floating staff have to move the ship to the other berth for the convenience of the shift staff. However the people who do that work are getting no compensation whatsoever. Those, in the main, are the issues to which the hon. the Minister has not replied, yet he has the nerve to say that he has nothing to reply to as there was not criticism whatsoever.

I want to raise some new matters with the hon. the Minister and I hope we get better answers on those.

[Inaudible.]

I can imagine the hon. member for Witwatersberg being a little prickly. The hon. the Minister thanked others but he failed to thank that hon. member, who is the chief Railway spokesman on that side, for pointing out the greatest achievement of the Railways, namely that they have travelled enough kilometres to take 20 000 people to the moon and back. I suggest the hon. member should volunteer with some others I can mention to travel on a one-way ticket to the moon, after which the Railways can come back for another load. That would be the best contribution he could make.

There is no chance of their making him Deputy Minister.

No, there is no chance of his becoming the Deputy Minister. They will not even have him as a commissioner-general or a “kaptein”, somewhere or other.

Before I leave the subject of harbours, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider making the T-jetty, the passenger terminal in Durban which is an international arrival point, an open area in the same way as the international arrival area at Jan Smuts is an open area. This is where people enter South Africa and just as it is important for people flying into South Africa that they should feel at home when they arrive, it is also important for people who arrive by ship. At Jan Smuts we have grown up and people can enter South Africa without coming across insulting notice boards and without there being distinctions as to race, colour or creed. At the harbours, on the other hand, the sheep are separated from the goats and they have to go into segregated queues and everything else that goes with it. If a foreign visitor can fly into South Africa without experiencing discrimination, why can he not sail in in the same way? I ask that the passenger terminal in Durban, the T-jetty, be made an international area as has been done at Jan Smuts Airport and that all discrimination be removed from there. I may add that I prefer to come with a realistic and specific request rather than do wh,at the hon. member for Bryanston did when he asked for a time-table for tomorrow, setting out step by step everything that is going to be done in the future. I am prepared to look at the realistic and practical issues and point out what can and should be done rightaway. I am not asking that we look for pie in the sky and that we should have a time-table working 20 years ahead, something which is totally unrealistic.

I want to turn to the Airways for a moment, which we had no time to deal with at any length during the Second Reading debate. Firstly, I want to pay a very high-tribute to the Airways staff at Durban Airport. They have had to work under the most disgusting and shocking conditions under which anyone could ever have been asked to work. We cannot discuss the airport itself, because that falls under “Transport”, but we will certainly come to it on the Transport Vote. At this stage I want to give high credit to the men and women employed under this Vote who have struggled in conditions absolutely impossible to conceive, unless you have seen them for yourself trying to handle tens of thousands of passengers without even the basic minimum requirements for handling them. That airport is sometimes so jammed that people have to push their way through. They are queued up, filling every comer of the building, and when you get a bit of rain on top of this, it becomes even worse. Somehow the Airways people have kept their cool, they have kept their temper and they have continued to give service. I think it is only right that special mention should be made of what is certainly a very special effort and a very special self-control which these people exercize in not giving up the fight, but carrying on and giving the service which they do.

In the field of airways as a whole, are we not starting to become too obsessed with overseas flights and treating our domestic airways service as a bit of a Cinderella? We are now voting more money on the Estimates for new aircraft to be bought. I accept that you cannot determine long before the time exactly what you are going to buy. Our last major purchase of R55 million was in respect of the Boeing SP aircraft, the Special Performance Boeings for the long flights. The previous major purchase before that was the 747’s, the Jumbos. It is not since the 737’s and the 727’s that we have made any purchases, other than the small aircraft for local flights, for our internal routes. We are now reaching the stage where we will have to divert 707’s previously used on foreign services for use on internal routes. This is a slow aircraft to load and a slow one to unload and is part of the cause of the congestion and delays at airports.

I think we must give some more thought to our domestic service. I do not have time now to develop my argument, but I feel we should look at this as a whole to see whether we cannot improve our cumbersome and slow booking-in procedures. I do not suggest the rugby scrum you get overseas where you do not have fixed seating on local flights. I would hate to see that system used here and I think we should still have our specified seating. However, I do feel that we can streamline our present procedures. Saafari seems to take a long time to produce the ticket after the luggage has been accepted and labelled. The passenger just has to wait until eventually the card comes back with the seating number on it. Saafari also seems to have become a “Winking Winnie” lately as a result of chronically being on the blink. About once in every three times you try to make a booking, Saafari is on the blink. That is why I say it is becoming a “winking Winnie” rather than a fully operative booking service. There are other suggestions we might consider and which I shall deal with on another occasion, for instance in respect of the handling of luggage, the elimination of the weighing of luggage, etc. There are also many ways in which I believe we could streamline and make up for some of the loss of attractiveness of local flights, which is essentially caused by the short flights, the short time allowed and the mini-seating which means so many more passengers to feed and to look after on an aircraft. I must say that mini-seating is not my cup of tea, but it is one of those things that we have to live with.

I believe that we have to look at our overload picture at peak periods and weekends. I must say that I have had tremendous help when it was necessary, but there are times when you cannot get a normal booking for four or five days in a row. Over a long weekend or over school holidays, you literally cannot get a booking on any plane for up to four days. Usually it is only on the weekends, the Friday and the Sunday or Monday morning, that it is difficult. However we are not able to carry the traffic which is being offered. The Airways are starting to lose the position they have enjoyed and should continue to hold as the speedy transport service. If you have to leave on a Thursday in order to keep a business appointment in Johannesburg on a Monday, you might just as well go by train. In fact, you can almost go from Durban to Johannesburg by ox-wagon during the time you sometimes have to wait. I think that we must look at extra flights, even if it means unserviced flights without food and refreshments so as simply to move the traffic during the peak periods.

I now want to raise a less pleasant issue and that is the method of selection of guests on inaugural flights. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked how many inaugural flights had been held and it came to the large number of 18 flights. He also asked how the guests were selected. One would expect that the answer to the question would be: People who could bring influence to bear, who could bring business to the Airways and who could influence other people to use the Airways, but I have heard complaints about the selection of guests on some of these flights which I do not want to go into in detail. It makes one wonder whether in fact the proper test has been applied when the guest lists are compiled. I hope that the hon. the Minister can give us an indication, a broader indication perhaps, of how these guest lists are drawn up and in what way persons are selected who make some contribution to the welfare of the S.A. Airways or who are in some way or another concerned with it. I would think, for instance, that the Railway Select Committee takes a particular interest in Airways. They are the sort of people whose presence on such a flight could certainly improve the image of the Airways. But if they are not able to go and if they are not considered suitable, then I think that some of the other guests may equally have less right to travel on such flights.

The hon. member for Umbilo will deal with pensions and I do not have the time to deal with that. I repeat my plea and the hon. member for Umbilo will deal with the allegations made. I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider consolidation of allowances with pensions. This will also be dealt with by the hon. member for Umbilo.

In the last moment or two which I have left, I wish to refer briefly to passenger services. When is it considered possible that we can route traffic to Rhodesia via Beit Bridge instead of via Botswana? It is a much quicker and much shorter route. Are we contemplating fast passenger services on the line from the Reef to Richards Bay? Also in regard to passenger services, I hope that we can reconsider the question of dining saloon facilities on passenger trains. Particularly parents with children find it very difficult indeed on these slow trains and I am sure that if we were to reconsider the use of non-White stewards on dining saloons, perhaps specially limited to these trains, they would become payable. It is on those slow trains—more even than the express trains—that you need to be able to provide meals and refreshments. It is cruel to expect those who have to use them to have to travel long distances without any refreshments. I also take the example of the Orange Express. The non-White coaches are shunted to the back of the train so that they can come into Cape Town station in the “correct” order. This is done five or six hours, perhaps more, before they get to Cape Town. For that entire period they are cut off from all services. They are cut off from the dining saloon and they cannot even have anything sent through to them. I believe if we can do something to improve our catering services on trains, we could perhaps help to make them more popular and reduce some of the losses on those trains. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point will excuse me if I do not follow up on what he said. The hon. the Minister will probably reply to it. However I can tell the hon. member right away that most of the statements and allegations he made here will be conclusively proved by the hon. the Minister to be entirely unfounded and incorrect.

I should like to confine myself to the amendment moved during the Second Reading by the hon. member for Bryanston. I am sorry that that hon. member is not present. In his amendment the hon. member proposed that separate travelling facilities be done away with and that White and non-White should be able to travel as and where they want to—in other words, that there should be a free choice in the use of facilities. This amendment was supported by the hon. member for Orange Grove. We can understand that he should have said: “I find myself in total agreement with them in regard to many matters.” I can understand it because they are kindred spirits. In fact, even before the election last year, he and the hon. member for Bryanston were already great kindred spirits. We know that it was the hon. member for Bryanston and the then leader of the United Party in the Transvaal who held the former member for Orange Grove, Mr. Etienne Malan, as a political hostage for so long in order to ensure that he would not come back here and that the present hon. member would in fact be able to represent Orange Grove here. Even then they saw that they were going to come to terms at one time or another.

They are courting each other.

It is therefore understandable that they should agree with each other heart and soul. The hon. member for Bryanston contended in his speech that the South African Railways could make or break South Africa’s image abroad. I think that the opposite is true. I think it is people like him, the hon. member for Bryanston, who are out to break South Africa with the kind of speech being made here. These are speeches that are not intended to promote the cause of the non-Whites, but which are intended for foreign consumption. They are intended to give our enemies abroad ammunition to use against us.

Order! This is not a Second Reading debate. Therefore hon. members must not conduct too broad a discussion.

I am back on the track now, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members opposite know that the policy of the National Party is that of separate development. Separate development means separate facilities equal facilities, for the different population groups. It means facilities that are the same and this also applies to the Railways. When it comes to equal facilities, when the hon. member accuses the Railways of being able to make or break the image of South Africa and of the existence of large-scale discrimination as far as service facilities and travelling facilities are concerned, then I think that attests to his ignorance and mischievousness. What are the facts on the Railways as regards service and facilities? On every train, whether it is a main line train or a suburban train, the facilities available to our non-Whites are the same as those available to Whites. On the main-line trains, whether the Blue Train or an ordinary train, the same facilities are available to non-Whites and Whites. Sir, on any ordinary main-line train a non-White may book his seat. He may buy a first-class or a second-class ticket and book his seat, and on many of the main line trains he can now buy a third-class ticket and book his seat. He can book a compartment with the same facilities as those of the Whites. What is more, Sir, he can also be served meals in his own compartment—the same meals served to Whites—without his having to pay anything extra for the service, while the White person has to pay extra if he wants to enjoy his meal in his compartment. But the difference is this, Sir: When a White person wants to travel first-class from Johannesburg to Cape Town, it costs him R45,20. A second-class ticket, the cheapest a White person can buy, will cost him R30,15, while a non-White can travel from Johannesburg to Cape Town on a third-class ticket at a cost of R15-04. Do you see the difference, Sir? The non-White is afforded the opportunity, not only to travel first-class, but to travel at such a low rate over such a long distance. In addition, I could just mention to the hon. member that a first-class ticket between Cape Town and Simonstown costs 61 cents for a White person while a third-class ticket for a non-White person only costs 30 cents. Sir, if a non-White wants to pay the higher price, then he, too, can buy a first-class or a second-class ticket. It is these train doors that the Reformists and the Progressives now want to throw open so that the Whites and the non-Whites can travel together. Sir, I shall tell you why they want that. These Progressive members and the Reformists represent people who live in places like Houghton and Parktown and who are able to purchase their apartheid. They know that their so-called civilized people will travel in the Blue Train and that we poor souls, we wearers of skins, will not be able to buy those facilities for ourselves. And what about the facilities on our stations? The facilities on our stations for the White and the non-White are precisely the same as far as the shelters on the platforms, the ticket offices and the toilet facilities are concerned. I ask those hon. members whether these facilities should all be thrown open to whoever wants to use them? Must there be separate toilet facilities for Whites, separate toilet facilities for non-Whites and toilet facilities for those who want mixed facilities? Is that what the hon. members want? [Interjection.] Is that what the hon. member wants, because that is what he advocated? He supported the plea by the hon. member for Bryanston. I am sorry that the hon. member for Bryanston is not present at the moment, otherwise I could perhaps have reminded him that they want to throw open toilet facilities for everyone and that it was not so long ago that his own leader, when he was still in the United Party, did not want to enter a toilet with another United Party supporter. Sir, as far as refreshments are concerned, there are the same facilities for Whites and non-Whites on the bigger stations. There are the same facilities. If we consider a large station like Johannesburg, there is a cafeteria that has been put at the disposal of the non-Whites. Go and take a look, too, at the restaurant there. It is of the best. They can book tables there just like the Whites can book tables in the Blue Room, and the service and the food is of the same quality. Now we are being told that there is such terrible discrimination. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, transport naturally plays a role of ever-increasing importance in the national economy as industrialization and the agricultural sector expand and economic activities increase. The importance of transport increases not only in scope, but also in intensity as regards its use and the dependence of the other sectors on this industry. The particularly important role which the Railways play in this set-up, is reflected by the fact that there are more than ¼ million people who earn their living in this industry, and when one looks at the operating results of the industry, where the net revenue as well as the expenditure is tremendous, it is clear how important this industry is. Furthermore, if one were to measure productivity in terms of operating results, taking into consideration the labour potential which one can use and the tremendous expansion in the industrial sector and the agricultural sector, then one is satisfied that the S.A. Railways meet the objectives laid down in the Constitution, which provides that the Railways and Harbours of the Republic are to be administered on business principles, due regard being had—even here the planning function is written in—to the advancement of the Republic by means of cheap transport, to the settlement of an agricultural and industrial population in the inland areas and especially the provinces. In a country in which the rate of progress continues to accellerate as it is doing in the Republic at the moment, conflicting claims are obviously laid to the factors of production; capital, entrepreneurial talent, labour and raw materials, and the allocation of these factors to the industrial and agricultural sectors must be done in a planned and scientific way. Planning, for example, must have due regard to the settlement of industries in certain regions, the transporting of raw materials to those regions and the creation of factors of production, as well as the distribution of the processed and refined product. If such planning is of importance in the White area, then the necessity for such planning is so much more valid in respect of the border areas, the growth points for the purposes of decentralization and through the determination of development priorities, such planning is obviously very important in respect of the phases of development in the country. Due regard must be given to this. The hon. the Minister said the following in his Budget Speech—

Sir, when one asks oneself what the object of planning is, I suggest that Ordinance No. 25 of 1965 of the Transvaal, section 17, gives a very clear exposition. Properly amended mutatis mutandis, it then reads as follows—

*Therefore it is clear that in any large development the allocation of resources must take place in a co-ordinated and harmonious way, i.e. in a non-intrusive way. If one thinks of labour allocation in large development projects, labour can be allocated between unco-ordinated projects which may lead to each project which is undertaken having insufficient labour. On the other hand, one can plan the labour for large projects on a priority basis, so that the project which is the most pressing, will be completed first. It is clear that if labour is allocated on the basis of market principles, viz. that the man with the most money will get the most labour, we shall come face to face with a few problems, also in the construction programme of the S.A. Railways. A method like that will give rise, in the first place, to unhealthy and inflationary competition between the competing parties, in the second place, to a delay in the development of an infra-structure, and in the third place, to a delay in industrial production.

Consequently I want to dwell on planning and suggest with respect that the collection and sifting of information, as well as the determination of priorities, are prerequisites for proper planning. What is also very important is the realization of the objectives of planning. In Government and semi-Government bodies co-ordination of development at national level can take place readily through the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council, on which the General Manager of the Railways does serve. However, as the hon. the Minister has said, there is also a level lower than Cabinet level at which co-ordination must take place between Government and semi-Government bodies and especially the private sector. The Railways, for example, must be duly informed of the envisaged major developments of the private sector so that proper planning may be done. In this connection, I refer to that part of the ordinance which refers to “efficiency and economy” in planning.

The question as to how this should be effected, is a more difficult one. I want to suggest in all humility that the national physical development plan envisaged by the Department of Planning, may present the answer and that certain guide-lines be fixed accordingly. I want to suggest that the following may serve as guidelines: All information in respect of planned major developments by the private sector and the State must be submitted to the Department of Planning. Then control must be exercised by means of a permit system so that the private sector—I refer only to-major developments—may be controlled to some extent, so that there will be no departures from phasing and priorities. The evaluation will then be made by the Department of Planning, and the Railways will be informed so as as to enable them to do the necessary planning in regard to how many sections there would have to be and how many sheds and other buildings would be required by such a development. I want to emphasize that to my mind it is necessary that when a large organization such as the Railways is involved, its requirements enjoy very high precedence on the list of priorities. Inherent in this statement, however, is the idea that the S.A. Railways will then not necessarily have to wait, before introducing a service, until it can be introduced on an economic or on a business basis. The Railways must become a mighty instrument for expediting and co-ordinating the development of the country.

I believe that, the Railways will be able to provide an even more excellent service in advancing all the sectors in the Republic in this way.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria West on his maiden speech in this House. He impressed us with his well prepared and constructive speech in which he dealt with an important aspect of South Africa, namely the development, the planning, the utilization and the availability of labour in South Africa and the role which can be played by the Railway Administration in this regard. I should like to wish the hon. member every success in his career as an hon. member of this House and express the hope that his future contributions will be equally constructive.

I wish to deal with the hon. the Minister’s policy and attitude towards the Railway pensioners. In replying to the relevant Second Reading speeches, the hon. the Minister made certain remarks and gave certain examples indicating that there had been an increase of 12,06% in Railway pensions. He then compared it with the cost of living which averaged 8,55% per annum over a period of six years. He also said that salaries and wages had increased by 12,1% per annum over the same period. These facts and figures which the hon. the Minister gave us certainly do not create a favourable position as far as the older pensioners are concerned. Incidentally, the hon. the Minister failed to deal at all with the position of those who receive a minimum pension. This pension was increased last year to R72 per month for a single person without dependants and to R144 per month for a person with dependants. These people only received a small increase of 2% per annum compounded and when this increase is applied to them, it means only a slight increase in the basic pension. There is, of course, then a reduction in that person’s supplementary allowance because these pensions are supplemented to reach these minimum levels. In effect, they do not receive that 2% per annum increase. Each year they have to wait for the hon. the Minister to make his Budget speech in the hope that he will grant them an increase in the minimum pensions. If we consider the position of those who receive the minimum pension, we must bear in mind that the overall cost of living index of 8,55% over the past six years affects these people far more adversely due to the fact that they, who are on the lower level of income, have to spend a far greater proportion of their income on food. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that food prices alone have increased by some 20% during the past 12 months. Therefore one can only assume that the hon. the Minister in quoting his figures was merely trying to indicate that the Government was doing something for the Railway pensioners. Our charge from this side of the House is, however, that the Government is falling far short of its responsibility towards many of these ex-employees of the Railways and particularly those who went on pension prior to 1 December 1973.

He gave us an isolated case and tried to get away with it.

Yes, as the hon. member for Durban Point has stated, the hon. the Minister quoted a case which he believed was a satisfactory situation. We on this side of the House, and perhaps some of his colleagues on his side of the House too, must have received scores of letters from Railway pensioners expressing their dissatisfaction with the situation. Let us look at representations which were submitted to the hon. the Minister by the S.A. Railways and Harbours Pensioners’ Association. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the situation. In a memorandum dated 15 February 1974 which the Railways and Harbours Pensioners’ Association submitted to the hon. the Minister they said:

In the same document they go on to state:

If one looks at the Memorandum tabled by the Minister of Transport (W.P. A—’75) one sees on page ten of that Memorandum that, as far as fund balances are concerned, the balance of the Pension and Superannuation Funds at 31 March 1970 amounted to R561 million and that at 30 November 1974 the balance had risen to R680 million, i.e. in the space of just over four years. This sum of money was partly built up by the pensioners who in their day made a higher contribution than the present employees are making. At one time the contribution amounted to 8 %. Afterwards it was reduced to 4% instead of an increase in salaries and wages being granted. Subsequently legislation was passed by this House whereby the contribution was increased from 4% to 6%. However, many of the old employees of the Railways, some of whom made a contribution of up to 8% towards the Pension Fund, were instrumental in building up this fund to its present balance of over R680 million. It will be interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he can give an indication as to what interest is presently being earned as far as this fund is concerned. We know that the rate was pegged at one time, but subsequently it was announced that it would keep pace with current interest rates. I would be interested to learn whether the hon. the Minister can indicate what the current average interest rate is on the investments by this fund. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go into the question of pensions. I think that there will be an opportunity for that later. I do want to say though, that this matter has two sides. One sympathizes with the pensioner, but the hon. member for Umbilo could, at least, have said that the Railways were the first to allow its pensioners to be re-employed and, by so doing, to enable them to receive salaries plus the pensions to which they are entitled. The Railways also opened the door later for pensioners to supplement their pensions even outside the service. The inadequacy of a pension is not measurable in terms of its amount alone, but also in terms of other factors such as the price of food. The hon. member said that this had risen by 20% over the past 12 months. The question is whether it was necessary that food prices rose by 20% and who was responsible for it. However, I think that we can discuss this later in dealing with the Agriculture Votes.

However, I want to turn to the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member for Durban Point is one of the chief spokesmen on the Opposition side during the Railway debate every year. He and I are both Natalians, but we are not the same sort of people.

Thank goodness!

If one looks at the concessions which this National Party Government has made to Natal by means of railway constructions and all sorts of other things which are in the interest of the economy of the country, one sees that these things come to a considerable percentage. Therefore, 16 voices do come from Natal which are as ungrateful as that of the hon. member for Durban Point, I have to feel ashamed. The hon. member spoke about Richards Bay, but we could just as well have built that harbour at another place.

Where?

There are many other places. We could have used Mossel Bay for that purpose for example. Hon. members on the opposite side must not adopt the attitude that if one receives something from the hand of the giver, one must always be satisfied with it. However, one must not create the impression that one is constantly being aggrieved and that there are constantly things which are wrong. Mountains must not be made out of molehills and the blame laid at the door of the Railways. As far as railway development is concerned, Natal has the most difficult topography of all the provinces. The biggest sum of money was spent on the railways in Natal. In the same way the biggest sum of money is spent, and will still be spent, on the harbour at Durban. Instead of hon. members of the opposite side telling the Minister from a sense of gratitude that they accept what has been done with thanks, that they suggest that this or that may be wrong and that they offer solutions, they hold jeremiads here, as the hon. member for Durban Point did. It really makes one melancholy.

Of the few points which I want to deal with briefly, the question of planning, which has already been mentioned here, is the first. In respect of my own constituency, I want to ask whether it is not possible to reconsider the planning of the construction sheds and that of Vryheid station. That railway station is situated on such a small site that any further expansions have become practically impossible. It is not well situated and no longer meets the requirements of a modern station site. The hon. the Minister may well have the plan reinvestigated. Instead of keeping the station where it is, it can be built—if I might suggest a site—on the north-eastern side of Vryheid where the shooting range is. It will not be necessary to remove the old station nor to remove the small part of the section to Sikame because it will be possible to effect a junction. It can continue as at the present time while industrial areas can be established next to that railway line, as is already the case on the northern side of that section.

The second matter which I should like to mention, is that much has been said here about the question of coal and the transporting of coal. I am glad that the hon. the Minister gave us the figures of the wagons which were used by the coal companies as well as the numbers which they requested. I do not feel so happy about the position of the timber producers. It so happens that many of the timber producers and the bark producers are in the same area as that in which the coal is mined. We struggle from year to year and we have trouble in getting wagons and in getting enough material to get our timber away from the stations.

The second point I want to make in conjunction with this, is that, should platforms be built for the stations south of my constituency—that is the section Kranskop to Pietermaritzburg—the platforms should be built so as to render possible the expeditious loading of timber and sugar cane. At the moment the timber must be lifted up, and the energy and time which it consumes to fill the wagon and which can be saved if the platform is raised high enough, will over a period, compensate the costs of raising those platforms to a height which will satisfy the timber and sugar producers, who will not use the same loading bank. The last matter which I want to mention, is the question of the provision of wagons in the northern part, i.e. from Paulpietersburg, also for the transport of timber and bark. In this connection, too, there are major problems.

There is something which I have omitted and I hope the hon. the Minister will forgive me for that. At Vryheid we have the problem that an extension has been made to the eastern side of the present station, where cement, fertilizer and agricultural lime is off-loaded. I do not think this is a good arrangement, because the cement and other things drop to the ground. We get a great deal of rain there and the site is very uneven with the result that there are many pools of water and one cannot reach the wagons. The valuable material which drops to the ground falls from the wagons, is simply lost. I understand that that is the arrangement and I want to ask that when such planning is envisaged, we, as representatives, shall at least be consulted in the matter. I want to address a polite plea to the hon. the Minister—we shall not be difficult about this—that we shall at least be consulted in this connection. I understand that a new station is being built for the transport of non-White passengers. It will be away from the present station, in other words at the Vryheid East station. I also understand that the passengers will be transported by bus from the present Vryheid station to the new station. This will tax the road to a very large extent and I think what is more, that this is not a good arrangement because as the traffic increases … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. members of the Opposition, it is very clear to me that they are seriously ill. They are ill because of this Railway Budget, especially because there is such a large surplus. One can understand that the hon. Opposition feels ill, because in recent times they have experienced one setback after another. Their left-wing broke away and there is still a bit left which will also break away one of these days. We have this magnificent surplus and one of these days we have the main Budget and there we shall have an even larger surplus. Then the Opposition will be truly ill.

I want to make use of this opportunity, not to dwell on the Opposition, but to confine myself largely to certain matters which are extremely important to my constituency. In passing I want to refer to the staff of the Railways. I think the Railway staff from the lowest to the highest paid official deserves the thanks and appreciation of us in this House and not only our thanks, but those of the whole country. That we are able to do this, testifies for us to the teamwork which there is on the Railways, it testifies to satisfaction, it testifies to a sense of duty. If there is this teamwork, sense of duty and sense of responsibility, small wonder that the Railways can have such a wonderful surplus.

What was so shocking to me, was that the hon. member for Maitland stood up here yesterday and said that the hon. the Minister must take away overtime from the railwayman. The hon. the Minister has already replied to him on that point by saying that it is unpractical. I cannot believe that an hon. member can come forward with such a ridiculous idea in this House. How can one say to the railwayman: You have brought the train halfway, from here on you will have to work overtime, so you will have to climb down because we are going to use another engine-driver. According to the hon. member, that engine-driver must be a Bantu or a non-White. The railwayman is very happy with his overtime. He supplements his salary with it. He makes extra money in that way. Now hon. members on the opposite side want to take the privilege away from him of earning that extra little bit of money, and put it in the hands of the non-White. This is absolutely unheard of. Hon. members on the opposite side could find no fault with this Budget, not even the hon. member for Jeppe, who always carries on so. In no single instance could he prove that the railwayman had faulted. That speaks volumes for them.

I want to turn to the hon. the Minister particularly in one respect. In 1972 I requested this House to encourage tourism to Port Elizabeth. On that occasion I pointed out that we had the Blue Train which runs from Pretoria to Cape Town. Now we have a second one. That is the Drakensberg, which runs from Johannesburg to Durban. It remains there for a day or two. It is cleaned and inspected in that time and then it leaves for Cape Town via Ladysmith, Kroonstad, Bloemfontein and Kimberley. That train benefits Durban, just as the Blue Train benefits Cape Town. It encourages tourism. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not possibly make such a train between Pretoria and Port Elizabeth available to us in Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth needs it. Sir, Port Elizabeth has of the best beaches in the Republic of South Africa and there are no sharks as there are in Durban, for example. We have many attractions worth seeing in Port Elizabeth. Just think of the dolphins and the snake park. In addition there is the university, which is a tourist attraction in itself. If we can get such a train and it can stay at Port Elizabeth overnight or for a few days, as the Drakensberg does at Durban, then luxury buses can take the passengers from there to visit the attractions at Knysna, where they can see the beautiful natural forest, and from there they can go to Oudtshoorn and to the Cango Caves and then return to Port Elizabeth. I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that his predecessor half promised something in this connection. I want to quote what he said when he replied to me—

That is what the previous Minister said in 1972. Sir, now that the price of gold has escalated so sharply, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to put a little of that money aside for Port Elizabeth.

Then there is a second matter to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention, viz. Swartkop station in my constituency. Sir, it is a large railway junction. The trains from the eastern part of the Cape Province pass through there, as well as the trains from the north, but the platform there has no shelter. Nor are there any porters. If the people have to change from the one train to the other, then there is no one to transport their baggage for them. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the necessary facilities cannot be made available for us at Swartkop station. Sir, then I come to my last urgent request to the hon. the Minister. The railway line in Port Elizabeth runs parallel to the main road of Port Elizabeth for about 10 km. On that route the old black steam locomotives are used for shunting. As you can imagine, Sir, this causes an awful amount of air pollution. It dirties the shops and the business premises on the main street of Port Elizabeth. Those engines do all the shunting. The hon. the Minister knows that the volume of goods which have to be handled there, has increased tremendously. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to use diesel engines for shunting purposes. It will be a tremendous asset to Port Elizabeth, and Port Elizabeth and its people will be very grateful to him for that.

Sir, then I just want to express my thanks and appreciation on behalf of Port Elizabeth, on behalf of the people of the hinterland of Port Elizabeth and on behalf of the people of the Midlands that attention is now being given to converting Port Elizabeth harbour into a container wharf. We are very glad to hear that the work will be commenced in the near future. Estimates are that R36 million will eventually be spent. Sir, it is essential work. We know that it will be done in various stages. We must take into account the tremendous development which is taking place and which is going to follow the completion of the Orange River scheme. That harbour will have to handle not only the Sunday River’s citrus fruit, but also the production of the Gamtoos and of the Midlands. With the change of fortunes which has come in Mozambique, much from the north is also handled in Port Elizabeth’s harbour and therefore we are grateful to the department for the work which is now going to be done in Port Elizabeth. We are very glad to see that the container wharf will now be built, because this will obviously be in the interests of our people. Although it will be built in three stages, we are nevertheless very grateful for it. It is expected that R4,9 million will be spent on the first stage in 1975-’76; in 1977 R10million will be spent, in 1978, R12 million and in 1979 about R6 million. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Walmer can reply later. I am waiting for him. The hon. member is too late. Even before he was in Parliament, we inspected the building of that harbour with the Deputy Minister and the System Manager [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I can only wish the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North luck with his plea for a special train to Port Elizabeth. I hope the price of gold will go up a little more so that we will be able to afford this sort of thing. He seems very happy with the surplus announced by the hon. the Minister, but certainly I think that a 3% surplus in the face of our present rate of inflation is not all that happy.

Sir, during the course of this session 1 asked the Minister of Transport whether an investigation had been made into the allegation by a former South African Airways air hostess that a member of the S.A. Railways Police had offered to arrange the withdrawal of certain criminal charges against her if she would undertake to inform on cabin crews and passengers on S.A. Airways flights. The Minister stated in this reply that an investigation had been made and that it was found that the allegation was unfounded. I then received information from another source that this ex-air hostess claimed that she had never been approached by anyone investigating the matter, and accordingly at a later stage I asked the hon. the Minister whether in the course of the investigation the air hostess had been interviewed and whether or not any statement had been taken from her. The hon. the Minister’s reply was that she had not been interviewed as it was not deemed to be necessary. Sir, I find this to be a most extraordinary state of affairs. Here we have an air hostess. Miss Amor Pretorius, who makes a most serious allegation which is widely reported in the Press. She claimed that she was approached to become an informer by a Railways Policeman, and she named him, Det.-Cons. Richard Phillips. Charges were pending against her for possessing banned books and she alleged that Cons. Phillips had approached her before the trial and offered to arrange for the withdrawal of these charges if she would agree to act as an informant in the course of her duties as an air hostess. Now, I would have thought that it would have been the logical thing to do, when investigating these allegations, to question Miss Pretorius herself, but in the course of the investigation into the allegations which the hon. the Minister says was made, the person who made these allegations was not even asked to substantiate her charges. It was not deemed to be necessary. I can only say that this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and I cannot really believe that a proper investigation was made if the accuser was not questioned. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to the public to see that a proper investigation is carried out, particularly in view of the very wide publicity that this received in the Press. This incident, together with the whole “spies in the sky” affair, was a most unsavoury chapter as far as the Airways are concerned, and it can only be in the public interest to ensure that no doubt remains in anybody’s mind, because certainly there is a very grave doubt in my mind and I think in the minds of many other people as well.

While on the subject of airways, I am going to talk about colour again. The hon. the Minister seems to be very reluctant to talk about people of colour in a Railway debate. He just wants to get on and run the Railways, and perhaps this is why the hon. member for Durban Point referred to this as a “colourless Budget”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not look into the question of extending opportunities for employment as aircraft crew to all race groups. I just want to take air hostesses as an example. I can see no reason at all, in view of the Government’s decision to get rid of discrimination, why there should not, for example, be Coloured air hostesses or Indian air hostesses, or African air hostesses. If we are not prepared to open these jobs to all South Africans, whatever their colour, this is rank discrimination. However, let us look at the positive side. A move such as this would certainly indicate to the outside world that things are changing in South Africa. We would show better to visitors from the outside world that discrimination was on its way out. The visitor who has his meals served by a charming non-White South African would surely be very impressed indeed. If the hon. the Minister and the Government have hang-ups about this, they will find it very difficult to explain it away. They should allow this sort of thing. Perhaps we could take the argument of the hon. member for Waterberg, apropos of the Nico Malan, that as long as Africans, Coloureds or Indians do not have their own airlines, there is every justification for allowing participation in the operating of the S.A. Airways. I must admit that my mind reels at the thought of the number of operating airlines which we are likely to have some time in the future. Imagine a future where the S.A. Airways is in competition with Transkei Airways. Gazankulu Airways, Bophu-thatswana Airways. Lebowa Airways. KwaZulu Airways. South African Indian Airways, S.A. Coloured Airways and Basotho Qua-Qua Airways. I must admit that looking at Basotho Qua-Qua I do not know where they are going to put an airport. I do not think there is a space flat enough in the whole of that enormous, great future country on which they can build an airport. Perhaps they will be able to put a helicopter port on the roofs of some of the double-storey houses in their capital city, Phuthaditjhaba because there is certainly no other space. Perhaps a statement from the hon. the Minister concerning the future of air operations in South Africa with all these airways flying around the place will throw some light on the matter. However, could we ask the hon. the Minister to appoint just a few Coloured air hostesses in the meantime just to show that we mean what we say when we talk about abolishing discrimination? It would certainly be a step in the right direction.

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

No, I am afraid I have very little time left. Yesterday during the Second Reading debate I was raising the question of S.A. Airways flights which do not depart on time. I realize that there is considerable pressure on the Airways at the present time, but could I suggest that when timetables are unrealistic, they should be changed. It gives a very bad impression indeed of the Airways’ efficiency if flights are continually late. Now that our Boeing 727s and 737s have been altered to take six seats abreast, which gives passengers a far less comfortable flight, I am sure that Airways’ customers would feel far better if they had their relative discomfort right on the advertised time.

They have six seats abeam; not abreast.

I thank the hon. member for Durban Point.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Railways are planning a highspeed mono-rail system between Johannesburg and Pretoria. Press reports have speculated that such a scheme is being planned and that a member of the Railways engineering staff spent months in Europe towards the end of last year studying high-speed rail systems. If such a system is being planned, could the hon. the Minister give us some details? Is the planning of this system being co-ordinated with the local authorities concerned such as the municipalities of Johannesburg and Pretoria? How will it fit into the road grid system announced by the Transvaal Provincial Administration? When is it likely to be started? We would very much like the hon. the Minister to tell us all about it. It has serious implications for provincial and local planners.

Finally I should like to raise the question of the conveyance of Railways Administration workers to and from work in motor vehicles owned by the Administration. In reply to a question I asked the hon. the Minister on 28 February, he stated that a total of 14 accidents had occurred involving the death of 45 people and serious injury to 55 others during 1974 alone. The hon. the Minister stated that departmental instructions prohibited the conveyance of employees in tip-trucks or standing on open lorries. Looking at this very frightening statistic—45 deaths and 55 persons seriously injured is a frightening statistic— does the hon. the Minister feel that the safety regulations in this regard are adequate, specifically in regard to open lorries? We see these open lorries crowded with Black workers travelling to and from work all over the dace in South Africa. I am not convinced that these safety regulations are adequate. I should like to know whether some action has been taken to prevent this sort of thing happening to the same extent in the future. I do not know what the reasons for these accidents were, but I think that it is nevertheless a matter of considerable importance and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove will forgive me if I do not react to his arguments. He said nothing worth reacting to anyway, and what he did say. I shall leave in the able hands of the hon. the Minister, who will certainly take him to task for the nonsense he talked here.

The Railways must be the biggest enterprise in our country, and in the light of this I want to make a plea today for a certain matter which affects the Railways. The Railways, Water Affairs and Mining Departments are the three biggest enterprises in our country which will have to face up to a challenge in the future. I want to dwell on the Railways and to discuss the great challenges with which the Railways are faced. The Railways have to undertake tremendous projects which are still in their infancy at the moment, and I want to draw the attention of the House to two of these projects. The Bushveld complex is to undergo very great developments in the near future. It is a complex which geological researchers consider to be one of the world’s richest regions as far as mineral wealth is concerned. The Railway connections which have to be provided for that complex present the Railways with a great challenge. The second major complex to which I want to refer is that of the North-Western Cape. In order to complete all these major projects, the Railways will have to perform an enormous task in the future. I now want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister and to the Railways Department, and this that the Railways should do everything in their power to face up to this great challenge in the future. The Railways have done so in the past, but perhaps not yet on such a large scale. In order to meet these challenges, the Railways will have to obtain trained and highly qualified staff. I do not want to say today that the Railways have been very conservative, but I do want to urge that we should do everything in our power to attract those highly qualified officials to the Railways. The Railways must be made attractive to such people and we must do everything in our power to get hold of them; we must make it as easy as possible for them to receive the necessary trainins at university This must be propagandized. The Railway network in South Africa will probably have to be increased threefold by the year 2000 if it is to meet the requirements. We need those people. If South Africa cannot supply them from its own manpower, we shall have to get them from overseas. The Railways should start to train those men on a large scale even now. Let us forget about the Railways Administration for the moment—if it had been the Public Service, it would have been the Public Service Commission—and let us forget about giving them their increases step by step every year. Let us rather try a different way of attracting these men. We shall have to attract the staff from all available sources in South Africa, and where these fall short, we shall have to attract staff from overseas sources. The Department of Water Affairs started such a scheme a few years ago. Perhaps they did not even apply it on such a large scale as I would like to see. The result was that some of our young men were trained at universities as civil engineers, mechanical engineers and technical staff, and that even their pocket money was supplied to them. These young men are able to earn a salary from their very first year and their bursaries pay for their studies. Afterwards they are bound to the Department of Water Affairs by a contract. However, the Railways and the State cannot compete with private initiative, with the industrialist. The time has come for us to get away from that conservative approach. If the Railways are to face up to the challenge which will be presented to them in the future, a rich country such as South Africa must devote its best manpower to this purpose. I want to urge that we should give those officials the opportunity of devoting themselves to our country. As I have said, it has already been ascertained that there are rich mineral deposits in the two big areas I have mentioned. I do not want to enumerate all the minerals, for just to enumerate the minerals we are aware of at this stage would take me half an hour.

My time is short, and for that reason I want to come to another point. I want to thank the Railways for the beautiful new Blue Train which was built in 1972. I should like to recommend all hon. members to travel by that train from Pretoria to Cape Town if possible.

It is super-luxurious.

Mr. Chairman, it is being said that the train is super-luxurious and I want to say that I travelled in the super-luxury class. Why did I do that? This is not a train by which one travels every day; this is a prestige train. I want to compliment the Railways on the way passengers are treated, not only by the staff, but by everyone on that train. The treatment one receives is equal to that in a five-star hotel. The train is basically a five-star hotel on wheels. In a lighter vein, I may say that although I have been married for 33 years, I could almost go on a second honeymoon on that train. It really is a prestige train. Every official who serves on the Blue Train deserves our praise. The friendliness, the courteous treatment one receives and the smoothness with which everything operates is unparalleled. This train is something which each of us in this House, no matter where he sits, should propagate with pride. Snobs are not the only ones who should travel on the Blue Train; we should encourage our own people to travel on that train. If we can take pride in the Springbok team, no matter against whom it plays, how much more pride we can take in something which is build for everyone’s comfort i For that reason I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department very sincerely for this beautiful train. All I should like to ask—and I think that this will come about in the near future —is that our cars should be conveyed as carefully as they are on the Drakensberg Train. Talking about the Drakensberg Train, the praise I have for the Blue Train and its staff is applicable to the Drakensberg as well.

The hon. member does a lot of travelling by train, doesn’t he?

I wish the hon. member would stop talking so much nonsense and travel by train more often. Then the Progressive Party would be much better off, too. I want to conclude by appealing to the hon. the Minister and his department once again to attract and train the young people of South Africa, of whatever colour, to perform this task which has been entrusted to the Railways to the advantage of this splendid country, South Africa.

I always like to listen to the hon. member for Stilfontein, but for a moment I thought he was off the track when he started to talk about the second honeymoon. It is very clear to me that we shall have to change the old saying “still waters run deep” to “still fountains run deep”. The hon. member for Stilfontein raised a few very interesting points. He said that specific challenges awaited the Railways in regard to certain regions in South Africa, such as the Bushveld and the North-Western Cape. He also said that if the Railways was to play its part there, it would have to act dynamically. But to me this sounds very much, like the amendment we introduced in the Second Reading. Thus, if the hon. member does not physically come over to us, then at least he is with us in his thoughts.

He went further and said that if we were to be so dynamic—in this regard I also refer to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North—we should have to find the necessary manpower and then train them and pay them. However, once we have trained them all, we tell them we are sorry that we cannot pay them in full and that they will have to work overtime in order to make a living.

Nonsense.

I want to use the ten minutes at my disposal to rectify a certain matter and in my opinion it is high time that this be done. The hon. the Minister has already caused me concern by saying that I must bear in mind the fact that there are railwaymen in my constituency. He said that I would have to be very careful when discussing the question of overtime. Possibly the hon. the Minister was implying thereby that I had perhaps said something that was contrary to the best interests of the Railways. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth. North came along with his “Potgieter special” this afternoon and contended that the Railwayman is happy to be in a position to work overtime. If that hon. member wants to be fair and has the best interests of South Africa at heart, then is he still really going to tell me that most Railwaymen like working overtime? They work overtime for one reason only, and that is that they need the money to make a decent living. The Railways is the biggest employer in South Africa today. Is it not perhaps time for us to say that it is a crying shame that hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa have to work overtime merely in order to make a decent living.

May I put a question to the hon. member.

No, the hon. member can come along with his “Potgieter special” again later. I want to repeat that overtime is expensive time and that the Railways should restrict overtime to a minimum. Of course I realize that there will always be overtime, because an organization like the Railways cannot always eliminate overtime. However, the point is that overtime must in fact be worked because the Railways does not have the necessary manpower to do all the work. My argument is that we should try to make up that time by making use—if I may now use the words of the hon. the Minister and close my eyes to colour—of other workers in South Africa, because they are there.

Will the hon. member advocate that overtime be done away with and that Black labour should be put in its place?

The hon. member for Carletonville is now putting in a nutshell the kind of propaganda that the Nationalist Party has been employing for 30 years.

I am just trying to expose your hyprocrisy.

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

I am prepared to withdraw it, Sir, but I mean what I said.

Order! The hon. member for Carletonville must withdraw the word “hypocrisy” unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

Do you withdraw your overtime as well?

I repeat the statement that the Railways should limit overtime to the minimum. Now the hon. member asks me for which group of people I want to do away with overtime and have the time worked by non-Whites. That is the question. I say that overtime will have to be limited to the minimum and that the Railwayman must be paid more and let other people work in the overtime. [Interjections.] I said the other day, and I repeat it, that there was a time in this hon. House that when one spoke about overtime, hon. members opposite came one after the other, like klipsringers, and asked whether one wanted to do away with overtime, and why? To that question they expected only one answer and that answer must be “yes”, because as soon as I say “yes”, they besiege the first train at the platform and tell the workers that Hickman wants to do away with overtime and what is to become of you?

You are making cheap propaganda.

I have no quarrel with the propaganda. I just want to state clearly that I am not saying anything that is to the detriment of a single Railwayman. I say, pay the Railwayman more, pay him a decent and living wage. If, then, there is overtime to be done, there are workers in South Africa who can do the work. The beauty of our country South Africa, the beauty of the Railways is that one’s White trade unions, the staff associations, are giving their full co-operation in order to bring about this very state of affairs. While this is what we find in this massive organization, the National Party comes along, through the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, and maintains that we are making cheap propaganda out of the situation. Do you know what he is trying to do, Sir?

Only yesterday you contended that as far as overtime was concerned, we should …

Order!

No, the hon. gentleman cannot put me off in that way. I have stated my standpoint and I do not back down from my facts. I shall repeat them on any platform … [Interjections.] I am not afraid of that, because I know the needs of the Railwayman. I talk to them every day. I know how hard they have to work to make a living and I repeat that to me it is a shame that the biggest organization in South Africa should have to come and tell me—the hon. the Minister could not have meant it that way; and yet he did use these words—htat it has become part of the Railwayman’s way of life. In not a single country in the world, nor in any organization except the S.A. Railways, is this the case. We are here to test the efficiency of the Railways and now we find this attitude. Really, it does not do us credit; this is what I call cheap “kafferboetie” politics! [Interjections] Hon. members now want me to have to ask for injury time!

Order! The hon. members for Carletonville and Port Elizabeth North must not make so many interjections.

I just want to express my regret about one matter. The hon. the Minister furnished very good replies to the questions I put to him in regard to our urban transport except that—probably by mistake—he once again omitted to say anything about what I call the Driessen Report. I mention the Driessen Report for one reason and that is that I should like to see—I may be wrong—the Railway providing dynamic leadership in the sphere of urban transport, the kind of leadership to which the hon. member for Stilfontein referred. We must not wait for other organizations. The Railways must acknowledge that they have an enormous obligation to meet in the urban complexes of South Africa. Whether it is the Driessen Report or any other report, I expect of the leader of this organization, the hon. the Minister, that he should take the House into his confidence and tell us where he stands and what he would like to do. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland tried to deny what he said yesterday, namely that it was a shame that there was so much overtime and that overtime was necessary to assist our Railwaymen to lead a decent life. That is not true. We all know that our Railwaymen receive a reasonable salary. If there is a shortage of staff, they are asked to work overtime and they do so willingly. They do not do it because they like doing it, but in the first instance because they want to perform a service and in the second instance because it gives them that extra income that may perhaps enable them to buy a television set next year, for example, which they would not otherwise have been able to afford. I think that most Railwaymen are grateful for the opportunity they are given to earn extra money. I know that as a Member of Parliament, if I have an evening free and I need extra money, I, too, would do extra work. There are many people who do more than a day’s work during the day and who also work in the evening if they need the money. I do not think it is a disgrace to work hard. I think it is an honour for any man. If he does the work of two, so much the better for him; it means he is so much more of a man.

The question of urban transport and the Driessen Report is in fact well and truly in the hands of the hon. the Minister. He is expanding the urban service here in the Cape. We know that plans are being drafted. Various Bills have already come before this House providing for the expenditure of large sums of money on urban services. I am certain that we shall continue in this fashion.

There is a small matter which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister because it affects my constituency. Through the years there has been a bus service from Willowmore to Domstry in the Baviaanskloof that has always attracted passengers. Last year, however, the Railways decided that they could no longer operate this service economically because over a period of six months, only 33 people had made use of it. There are poor people living there, too, pensioners with no transport of their own. I do not know how many hon. members know the Baviaanskloof. It is an isolated area between the Baviaanskloof Mountains and the Kougha Mountains, 60 miles from Willowmore. It is really a little hard for those people to sit there, knowing that the bus travels past their doors and that they may not board it. Surely the Railways is not only there to make money. It is also there to provide our people with a service where necessary. That is why I make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this special case.

I also want to convey my thanks for the diesel engines on the Langkloof line. These diesels have been operating for some time now and I just want to say that in spite of the people of Walmer whose sleep is disturbed to such an extent by the sirens, they are a great success. They render a very good and outstanding service to the farmers. You may as well go further, Mr. Minister, and extend this service to the Upper Langkloof, too. It works very well. The dismissal of station staff which we feared this would involve, and which would have caused a great deal of disruption, did not take place. The whole change-over went off very well and we thank the Minister for this. The hon. the Minister said that the Railways had succeeded in providing the services provided by our expanding economy. In spite of the fact that after all these years our Railway system is now nearly complete, we still have to invest large amounts of capital in the Railways, some of it from loan funds. I calculated that planned investment over the next few years amounts to more than R1000 million so as to meet the needs of industrial development in our country. I just want to refer in passing to a few interesting developments which may or may not have been mentioned here, but which I find particularly interesting.

The first I want to mention is the matter of the floating cranes that are to be built for our harbours. They will be enormously strong cranes able to lift 200 tons and capable of propelling themselves by means of their 650 hp. engines. They will be exceptionally manoeuvrable and will cost R4 million each. What I find most important is that they are to be built here in South Africa, in Cape Town. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this forward step. These floating cranes will undoubtedly come in very handy as far as container traffic is concerned.

Another development to which I want to refer is the matter of the tugs that are now being built—three for Durban and two for Cape Town. These tugs are being built in Durban, and this is a major achievement. They will be among the most modem tugs in the world and in my opinion we can be proud that we are able to build such boats here in South Africa. I also have in mind the way in which our traffic is controlled, and advanced planning. On the East Rand, at Bapsfontein, a marshalling yard is being built that will eventually cost more than R400 million. This is planning on a large scale, planning to meet all the possible needs to which other hon. members have referred, inter alia for the transportation of our minerals. This is at the heart of that planning. This planning is done far in advance.

Besides all these large amounts of capital that are going to be spent, we also see that the most modern methods are being applied in operating our Railways. Reference has already been made to the plans to transport coal in block loads and on a regional basis. There is the shunting that is now going to be done with “walkie-talkies”, new methods that are employed to eliminate staff and provide a more efficient service. There are the automatic train controllers that are being installed at Durban and Cape Town, and central signalling boxes to be erected which will control train traffic by means of coloured lights. I wonder how it works. I should be obliged if the Minister could perhaps tell us, because I have only read about it. There are longer and heavier trains that are going to be brought into use, ore trains of up to 100 trucks, which can transport 7 300 tons at a time and which will be drawn by six Diesel locomotives although staff for only one locomotive will control those six locomotives. There are the new methods of transporting cars—double-decker trucks that can take eight cars at a time. There is the electrification of lines and there is container traffic, which is on the increase. There is the Richards Bay harbour that is being built. All this indicates to us that efficient planning to enable us to keep pace with the economic growth of our Railways and our country is in fact being undertaken.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I just want to say that whereas Mr. Schoeman, the former Minister of Railways, was very popular among our people and among the officials of the Railways, I am pleased to be able to testify today that although the present Minister has only been the Minister of Railways for one year, he is no less popular among the Railwaymen than his predecessor. There are officials today of whom we are very proud. There are officials who are perhaps doing less important work or lowly paid work today, but we are convinced that all these people are dealt with sympathetically, as the hon. the Minister’s predecessor dealt with them in his time. We are grateful, too, that the Minister was able to introduce a Budget like this one which has burdened us as farmers, and South Africa as a whole, so little that we can enter the future with confidence. This Budget is of course the result, too, of the knowledge possessed by the Minister in consequence of the portfolio he held formerly as Minister of Economic Affairs. We want to express our sincere appreciation of such a fine Budget which we ourselves had not expected.

I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Parow, who referred briefly to the Saldanha /Sishen railway line. As you know, Sir, major developments are taking place today in the Northern Cape and the Northwestern Cape and we are assured that there is a great future for this region. Yesterday the hon. member stated that there would be various links with Gamsberg, Pofadder and Aggeneis, but these were only isolated aspects of the matter. According to the information at our disposal, that region is rich in minerals, so rich that as yet, its wealth cannot be determined by experts. If this is so I do not find it strange that there should be experts in South Africa who predict that the North-Western Cape will become a second Witwatersrand in 40 or 50 years time. That is why I feel that we are entitled to ask the Railways to undertake advance planning in respect of these things at this early stage to enable us to link these parts of our country directly with Witwatersrand and Cape Town, which will involve much less expense than we already have to incur today. If we only consider the agricultural potential, I want to say that in the Northern Cape there are over 1 000 km. of irrigation today, and if we bear in mind the great potential of the Northern Cape and the North-Western Cape it is important, too, for us to give attention to the development of that potential in that region. This will also make a major contribution to the development of South West Africa in the future. I just want to say that I trust that in the future we shall give our full attention to these golden opportunities of developing the North-Western Cape which we have today and that the Minister of Planning will see this in the light of the fact that a new world could come into being in the North-Western Cape.

I should like to bring a few minor matters to the hon. the Minister’s attention. In the first place I want to thank him for the decision taken at the time, after we had made representations, that the Saldanha/ Sishen railway line should eventually be made a multi-purpose line. This is worth a great deal to us, and I want to convey the appreciation of our community in that part of the country for this decision by the Government.

Do you want to send your wool there?

Yes. Then I want to convey my thanks in regard to a different matter. For a long time already I have been making representations for a fly-over at the new station at Prieska. I have now been informed that the fly-over is going to be provided, and I want to convey our sincere thanks in this regard. I thank the Minister for this.

Then, too, Sir, I just want to bring one other minor matter to the Minister’s attention. He knows the heat which we in the Northern Cape have to endure. It is sometimes so bad that the people in the Post Office exchanges faint. The same goes for the Railway offices in Prieska and elsewhere in the Northern Cape. It is impossible for these people to give of their best today, as they would like to do and as we would like them to do, because the offices do not have air-conditioning. The installation of air-conditioning was approved long ago, and after I had made inquiries it was clear that it would take some time before air-conditioning was installed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that air-conditioning will be installed as soon as possible, because this is something these people really need.

Sir, there is another small matter which has caused our farmers a great deal of concern, and this is the fact that we still have steam locomotives in those parts. These steam locomotives have done us a great deal of damage recently by setting our veld on fire. In those parts where grass is a fire hazard today, I want to ask that attention be given to this matter by the Railways with a view to the prevention of fires. I have ascertained, to my knowledge, that these fires that are caused two or three times every day at two or three places along the line, are ascribable to the fact that the grid in front of the engine which is there to hold back the coal, gets broken. The burning coal then falls through the grid and causes a fire, often during the night, and then all the farmers in the vicinity have to rush to the area to put out the fire, and the very next day one has the same thing. I want to ask, therefore, that diesel engines be made available in those parts, or that the Railways ensure that the steam engines be provided with new grids.

Mr. Chairman, I will not deal with the matters raised by the hon. member who has just sat down and by the previous speaker, because they dealt with parochial matters which they wished to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I would like to come back, Sir, to the issue I raised in the course of the Second Reading debate. I must say that I was somewhat appalled at the reply which the hon. the Minister gave this House. I am more particularly surprised that the hon. member for Hercules, who had a great deal to say on this subject last year, has not said one word about it in this debate. According to what the Minister has told us, it is going to take until 1984 to complete the rail link between Baphutatswana and Pretoria. In other words, 11 years will have elapsed since the matter was first raised in this House. The extraordinary thing to me about the explanation is that the Railway Board, which I too am now beginning to believe should be converted into a planning board or some other type of board, actually held meetings with representatives of the Department of Transport, the Railway Administration, Bantu Administration and Development, Community Development, Planning and the Treasury. Representatives of all these departments served on a special subcommittee appointed by the Inter-departmental Committee for the Conveyance of Non-Whites, and their report was submitted to the Railway Board for consideration. At the end of 1969 the committee appointed a sub-committee to investigate the provision of a railway line to Mabopane. What are some of the facts which have been placed before us in this report? The report states that it is anticipated that in the year 2000—i.e. 16 years after the project will be completed for the conveyance of what is believed to be 52 000 persons—more than one million Bantu will be resident in the Tswana area and that at least between 200 000 and 250 000 of this number will be working in or travelling to the Pretoria area. This now seems to account very correctly for what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in 1973. He said that this matter was going to be a matter of the highest priority and that he would leave no stone unturned to see that it went ahead. I wonder whether it is not a matter of policy on the Government’s part to divert its attention to other projects, not because they are prejudiced, but because they believe, according to their own peculiar form of reasoning, that other projects are much more urgent. The committee, the Deputy Minister and the representative of the area were insistent in 1973 when a Bill was put through the House that this was a matter of the utmost seriousness, of the utmost urgency. It was said that it could bring in its wake the possibility of serious dislocation of traffic, of unrest, of irritation, of friction between Whites and non-Whites, and of a breakdown in communications in so far as travelling to work was concerned and it could even possibly affect industrial life itself in that particular area. These were some of the matters which were brought up not as a result of any criticism on this side of the House, but by the very people who were concerned in this matter. Surely it is not a sufficient answer to say that a tremendous amount of additional planning must go into this work, and that it needs very much more investigation, bearing in mind what the representatives of all these organizations have already said. But the report goes further. It even discussed in a particular paragraph on page four the whole question as to the route the lines should take. It found, for instance, that the route originally recommended should be altered to reduce the distance to 20 km. They found that the original distance which was planned was too great and they said that it would result in Bantu passengers having to be conveyed daily over a distance of 56 km as against 40 km over the proposed route. They therefore changed it so that a shorter distance would have to be travelled, because they said that the higher-fare passengers would be required to pay for travel over the longer route, and more especially that the longer distance that would have to be travelled would cause dissatisfaction. In other words, there was obviously some form of careful investigation into what was required to be done there. They went further. They said that the Board had conducted an inspection in loco in regard to the recommendations of the committee outlined in a previous part of the report. They also said that the Board was convinced that the construction was essential to meet the transport requirements which had arisen as a result of the settlement of non-Whites in the Mabopane area.

I think it is very important to get a very much more informative answer than we have been given. After all, the hon. the Minister owes an explanation to this House. I think he should indicate to us whether he intends following up the settled opinion and conviction of the Board, of the subcommittee of this committee for the conveyance of non-White passengers, of the Deputy Minister and of the representative for Hercules that this was a matter of the gravest urgency, that no stone should be left unturned and that the matter should be dealt with immediately. Surely the hon. the Minister should state in this House whether he is satisfied. He should change his whole attitude in this matter and request the Administration to treat this matter as one of great urgency and importance as against other matters, because of what has been predicted by these very people. I am not pleading for anything that I feel I am wedded to because of a particular policy or political thinking; I am dealing with this matter because I think that it is in the interests of the country that when one deals with the overall picture in respect of the Railways, attention should be accorded those areas where there is the greatest pressure and where it is in the interests of the country itself that a matter should be resolved. I think the hon. the Minister owes us a very much better and sounder, and a very much more convincing explanation than the rather gloomy picture which he painted with almost a sense of casualness when he said that this matter would take until 1984 to be completed, in other words, seven years beyond the period that was predicted and eleven years beyond the time when the matter was dealt with on the basis that I have indicated. One is somewhat horrified then to think of what is going to happen in the year 1984 when within 16 years, the traffic will have almost quintupled because of an increase from 52 000 people to approximately 250 000 people. We must not forget that this is one of the main homelands which has a big city, as I have already said, on its borders. Here, if anywhere, the Government should illustrate its sincerity by taking the necessary steps to see that the policy which it adumbrates is carried out.

I should like to deal with another aspect to which I referred only for a moment the other day. I refer to the question of the Soweto area. On page 13 of the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works I notice an item “Dube-Naledi: Quadrupling; signal cabin at New Canada.” I mentioned the fact that it has been estimated that an amount of R13 721 000 should be spent on this project. Up to 31 March 1975 nothing is to be spent, so it is possible that this is a new item. It is estimated that they will spend less than R1 million in the course of the present financial year. I do not want to rehash the whole question of Soweto because the hon. the Minister knows it better than we do. He knows that we have to deal with some 800 000, if not a million people in that area because it emcompasses not only Soweto, but all the outlying areas and the large number of people who congregate there, some of whom are not even what is termed legally there, because some of the people who are present in that area are not necessarily resident there. The point is that a train service for this area has to cater for a considerable number of passengers, in the region of 200 000 if not more. I feel that any work of this nature which is necessary in order to avoid any possible dissatisfaction, such as we have had in the past and which we want to avoid in the interests of the country itself, particularly under the present circumstances, should receive the utmost priority. Other matters can be left to take their course over four, five, six or seven years even though they might help the country economically to an extent of perhaps 0,5% or 1% per year. This is a time when not only the economy must be the sounding board of what the policy should be. Matters such as peace and good race relations should be just as important for the country. I think the hon. the Minister should give us an answer on that particular aspect. Let him state what he thinks the order of priorities should be in matters of this nature rather than merely to give a factual explanation of what he says he has found to be the position.

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly glad that I can reply now to the speech and the argument of the hon. member for Jeppe, especially as he has raised Railway matters which affect my constituency, Wonderboom, in the Second Reading debate and now in the Committee Stage. Hon. members of this House are particularly privileged in having access to information which the electorate outside do not normally have at their disposal. It is really deplorable that hon. members of the Opposition do not avail themselves of this privilege to give the world outside a true perspective of our problems. On the contrary, they use it to project a distorted image to the electorate and they try to make cheap politics out of real project problems in certain areas. The hon. member for Jeppe raised the matter of transport problems in my constituency in this debate and also in the Second Reading debate. In the 1953 election, that hon. member held a meeting in the Wonderboom constituency with a U.P. candidate, and they entertained us for more than 1½ hours with a discussion of inflation problems. At the end of question time, the hon. member had to admit that neither he nor the United Party candidate knew anything about inflation problems.

Yes, I can believe that.

The hon. member has made the same mistake again now, by talking about problems and matters of my constituency while he knows just as little about them as he knew at that time about inflation.

We did not have inflation in 1953.

The hon. member denies it and he will probably also deny that he offered me a seat at the end of that meeting. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had raised the matters of my constituency out of sincere interest, I believe that the voters of Wonderboom and I would have welcomed it, and would have supported it with acclamation. But what happened now? The information which he presented to this House during the Second Reading debate, and again tonight, is in most cases outdated and in particular, absolutely incomplete. The hon. members will have to agree with us that he did not use this information to help the constituency, but in particular, to cast doubts on the planning ability of the department and of the Government. If he had done his homework well, he would have known that the apparent delay of the projects in that constituency has taken place precisely as a result of good and fruitful long-term planning by the Railways. I ask whether this attempt of the hon. member for Jeppe is not a deliberate attempt to conjure up a distorted image. I ask whether this is not a wilful attempt to make political capital out of this situation which we have in the Wonderboom constituency on the borders of Bophuthatswana homelands. As a result of the presentation of these distorted images, I am obliged to set the matter straight to convey the information at my disposal as completely as possible to this House and to the hon. the Minister and then, in addition, to direct a plea to him. Wonderboom constituency lies to the north of the Magaliesberg range. The primary access to that constituency is the Wonder-boompoort. That is where the whole problem lies. The constituency, briefly, is made up as follows: At the moment there are a little more than 26 000 Whites there and it is estimated that in 1980 there will be 30 000 of them. Let us look briefly at the position in the Bantu homeland area, which borders on to the constituency. Ga Rankuwa has 72 000 inhabitants at the moment and it is estimated that it will have 108 000 in 1980. Mabopane has 64 000 at the moment and will have 97 000 in 1980. The Winterveld has 250 000 inhabitants and will have 350 000 inhabitants, according to estimations in 1980. Soshangkuwe has 8 000 and, it is estimated, will have 62 000 inhabitants in 1980. That is a total of 395 000 at the moment and an estimated 618 000 in 1980. The number of registered workers from this area in the Pretoria area is 163 000 and in the Rosslyn industrial area 14 000. The planning tells us that in 1980 the figure will have increased to 185 000 for the Pretoria area, and to 20 000 for Rosslyn.

Let us look at the transport aspect. I have data here which indicates that at present 58 000 gross tons of freight are moved along the railway line through that pass every day. This is being done with. 153 trains. At the moment there are also 463 buses moving through that pass and it is estimated that the total number of buses which will move through that pass in 1980, will be 680. Besides the private transport which makes use of Hornsnek and Wonderboompoort, Wonderboompoort is the only primary access to that area. Wonderboompoort Pass is jammed between two mountain slopes which are hundreds of metres high. On the one side of the pass there is a double train line and ten metres lower down there is a double road. Another ten metres lower, between a concrete wall and the other side of the mountain slope, there is a place for the “mighty” Apies River to flow. Therefore everything must squeeze through this narrow pass. It is the pass through which thousands of tons of rail cargo must flow; it is the pass through, which thousands of people must flow. It is the pass through which vegetables and livestock and also gravel for Pretoria, must flow. We can apply the proverb here that it is actually easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for this traffic to flow through that pass.

I come back to the problem of planning. I want to say that because of the recent complication in this area, in this constituency about which. I now want to speak, and because of the rail connection project from Rosslyn to the marshalling yard at Bapsfontein, it is obvious that this problem has changed considerably and that the position is very different from that for which, the original planning was done, indeed very different even from what it was a year ago. Therefore, as the representative of that area, I accept the good planning which will now be done in three phases instead of in one phase, as the hon. member says. The first phase is the Winternest/Mabopane line, which will be completed in 1978 according to estimates. We want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this part of the project cannot be completed earlier. This pass is already very full and by 1978 it will be completely congested. The eastern bypass which is being opened at the moment, will make absolutely no contribution to the alleviation of Wonderboompoort. I also accept the rest of the projects which will be completed by 1980. It concerns the loopline needed to get the six tracks through the pass. We accept this, but we ask the hon. the Minister please to advance the first part. I can just tell the House that there are only 8,25 miles of six-track railway line in the whole country. If this railway line is now changed into a six-track railway line, that mileage will be more than doubled—proof of the intensity of the traffic which goes through this pass.

I want to conclude. I could present an emotional argument about the interests and the relations which may or may not be disturbed, but on behalf of the almost ¼ million people in that area, I should like to address a plea to the hon. the Minister and his department and ask him whether he would not advance the first part of that project. [Time expired.]

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the hon. member for Wonderboom has very little knowledge of his own constituency. It seems to me the hon. member does not understand the statements of the hon. member for Jeppe; hence his inability to reply properly to the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to reply to the statements made by the hon. member for Jeppe, because the hon. member for Jeppe raised very important matters here and we want a full reply to them.

I should like to say only one thing to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, viz. that he should support the United Party when we plead for a railway line to Gelvandale and to the western suburbs, as the hon. member for Newton Park did in fact do. The matter is urgent, and we should like to see an immediate and comprehensive inquiry being ordered into these two matters. We request the hon. the Minister to institute an inquiry of this kind—if the hon. member for Somerset East would only leave the hon. the Minister alone for a moment so that he may listen to what I have to say.

The Administration of the S.A. Railways should be the spearhead of development in South Africa. I firmly believe that the General Manager, the Administration and the staff are seeing to it that the S.A. Railways have no shortage of the skills required in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We are grateful that we have such an efficient General Manager with a dedicated staff. It does not get us anywhere if we have these able people if they are not fully supported by the highest authority, i.e. the hon. the Minister. However, the problem is that the hon. the Minister used to be the Minister of Economic Affairs, and that he is now trying to satisfy the administrations of both the Railways and Iscor. As there are conflicting interests, the hon. the Minister is being embarrassed because he wants to satisfy Iscor at the expense of the Railway Administration. As an ex-railwayman the hon. the Minister ought to realize that the proud Railway Administration and railway workers are not going to tolerate this attitude. These people are thoroughly aware of the interests of South Africa. The hon. the Minister will discover that they are not going to tolerate decisions unless they are in the interests of the whole population of South Africa.

†It is common cause that if the Sishen/ Saldanha line were to be a single-purpose line, the Government was going to allow Iscor to operate that particular line. If words had any meaning, it was accepted by the former Minister of Transport that, if the line became a multi-purpose line, it would be operated by the S.A. Railways. I think this multi-purpose line will make a vast contribution to our economy as, among other things, it is anticipated that it will transport 17 million tons of ore per year, which is expected to earn approximately R500 million in foreign currency. For that reason it follows that the S.A. Railways and Harbours are going to lose out on a substantial income that is normally their due and which they would normally have been entitled to. The operation of this line is going to require trained Railway personnel. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether their rates of pay are going to be comparable with those of people on the South African Railways and Harbours doing similar work. I know what the hon. the Minister said last year but I want to tell him that he cannot interfere with the employees of Iscor. The problem is that Iscor is a semi-autonomous body. According to the former Minister, Parliament has no say in their internal affairs. I want to know from the hon. the Minister tonight how he is going to regulate the salaries of railway workers who work for Iscor, because he has no say in their affairs. If he wants confirmation of that, he can look at the answer I received from the Minister of Economic Affairs on 7 March where he informed me that he was not prepared to furnish information of projections in regard to Iscor’s present and future trading operations. It is therefore an established fact that the Minister will have no say whatever. In other words, Iscor can develop a parallel and competitive railway organization in conflict with the Railways and Harbours organization we have at present. We are clearly being a party to creating a second railway system in South Africa, a form of railways within a railways. We are going to duplicate certain managerial and administrative staff and this is obviously going to be a far more costly operation than if the S.A. Railways ran the scheme from the start. There is a shortage of manpower in South Africa and we must try to avoid duplication. Yet in this instance the Government, through lack of foresight, is creating a regrettable situation. We would like to see a more dynamic approach by the hon. the Minister of Transport and by the Administration of the Railways in this regard. The hon. the Minister cannot get away from this argument. His predecessor said in Hansard, Volume 42 of 1973 (col. 2756)—

That was honest Ben.

I believe that the previous Minister of Transport made that statement in good faith and with all the facts at his disposal. I have no doubt whatsoever that this hon. Minister is going to have to implement the undertakings of the Government as stated by the previous Minister of Transport. I believe that if he implemented those undertakings it would be in the interests of South Africa as a whole. A dynamic Railways Administration would be only too happy to take the lead in this particular undertaking. This is an enormous undertaking and is one of the largest that this country has ever seen or envisaged. A dynamic Minister of Transport would not allow railwaymen and the Railways to be shunted around in regard to this particular project. The hon. the Minister, in replying to the debate last year, made certain points to the effect that Iscor and its partners would be adversely affected if they took over the running of the Sishen/Saldanha Bay line. The hon. the Minister has a legal background and knows that Iscor and the S.A. Railways can hammer out a contract together whereby the S.A. Railways take over the running of the line on terms that would be no more onerous than if Iscor ran the line itself. That argument of his is therefore fallacious. If this is done the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration, who are in the best position to manage the line, can develop that line in the best interest of all in South Africa. Failure to take over the administration of that line would mean that he is undermining the confidence in the whole railway system of South Africa and in his own administration.

And in himself.

We know that he does not have much confidence in himself. I predict that the railwaymen of South Africa are not going to tolerate this state of affairs. In the interests of the South African Railways and Harbours the Minister is going to have to take a strong and dynamic stand to ensure that the Railways Administration takes over the Sishen/Saldanha line.

Whilst dealing with the matter of administration, I want to ask the hon. the Minister for an assurance in relation to St. Croix. Will this project be taken over by the Railways as a turn-key project or will it not? In other words, if it is financed by foreign funds, will the Railways on completion take it over? I would like a further assurance from the hon. the Minister. In the event of finality not being reached, with the negotiating parties within the next few months, will the Railways not finance the project and take it over initially? The St. Croix scheme will be yet another milestone in the history of the South African Railways. Although the hon. the Minister will admit that initially he was one of the less enthusiastic proponents of this scheme, I believe he can now make up for his previous reluctance by pulling out all stops and going ahead full blast.

There is one other matter I would like to raise, namely the question of the noisy locomotives going through the Walmer constituency. [Time expired.]

Order! Before I call upon the next speaker, I just want to address a general warning to hon. members with regard to the reading of speeches. I address it to hon. members on both sides of this House. Hon. members know the history of this matter. They know that in the year 1806 there were two candidates fighting an election in Britain. They agreed that the one who lost the election would write a speech and that the one who won the election, would then read this speech in the House of Commons. Mr. Jeffreys won the election and consequently he had to read his opponent’s speech. This took longer than a day. The present rule had its origin in this incident. In 1927, in this House, the then member for Witbank, a certain Mr. De Villiers, tried to infringe the rule by reading a letter consisting of more than 2 000 words. I know that in the course of time this rule has been abolished in other Parliaments. Since 1946 Ministers are allowed to read their Second Reading speeches because they are often of a technical nature and in the Senate today even a member introducing a private motion is allowed to read his speech. However, I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that the presiding officer will not object to hon. members making comprehensive notes and referring to them. However, if the presiding officer allows hon. members to go so far as to read their speeches, then not only the age-old practice, but also the standing rule as set out in our Standing Rules and Orders is being circumvented. Consequently I want to sound a warning for the guidance of hon. members that this is something we should try to avoid. The Chair will be obliged to take stronger action in this regard in future.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, can we take it that the time taken up by this instruction will be added on to the time for this discussion?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Walmer, who has just resumed his seat, tried to read a little extra life into a lifeless United Party attack. In reply I want to read him just one verse out of a letter—not the whole letter—which I received from my daughter in Krugersdorp. On the back of the envelope she wrote the following—

Be like Elvis, go, man, go!

I think the hon. member tried to put a little “go” into the attack but he did not succeed. With regard to this same subject he has often been given a hammering as regards the Saldanha story, and he is going to be given another by the hon. the Minister.

Listening to the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech, to the Second Reading debate and to this debate as well, it is striking that when Railway matters are debated, people talk big. When I say that, I do mean that they brag. When one is debating Railway matters, what one is debating is big. One hon. member spoke about a giant. An hon. member used the words “giant” and “impressive”. Someone else spoke about “great projects”. When one refers to Richards Bay or Saldanha or Bapsfontein, then that is big. When we consider the health aspects of the Railways, we find the same. These things are on a large scale. There is the Sick Fund, with a membership of 110 000. If we add the women and children, the figure is 330 000. R24 million is spent on health. There are 450 Railway doctors, and if one includes the specialists, there are over 500. All these things are on a large scale. If we take this great organization and break it down into its primary systems, to the bricks of which it is built, one reaches its small but important nucleus, viz. the human being—the man, the woman and the child. I do not want us to forget the small but important human being in this great organization. I want to congratulate the Administration on the fact that, just as in the past, a great deal is being done at present for the health of the Railway people. Here I refer to the section on aviation medicine on page 105 of the report, and to page 112 in which reference is made to health and hygiene and to industrial health services, and so on. I do not want to go into that now, but this is a major task that is being performed by the Minister, by the General Manager and by the rest of the Administration. Although I congratulate the Administration on this, there are nevertheless a few aspects which are not good enough and in respect of which not enough is being done. Sir, the Conradie Committee has investigated these matters fully over the past two or three years; they have done very good work and have already brought about many improvements. On 1 April the improved aid was further improved and extended, but precisely because things were being done better and also because costs are rising, people necessarily have to pay more now. I remember that when I was a Railway doctor, people often told me: “Doctor, we do not mind paying more as long as we just get better service and the correct services.” I am therefore convinced that the people will not mind paying more, but there are a few difficulties as regards these health services, and as soon as the people have to pay more, these difficulties will be aggravated.

Sir, with reference to a departmental circular I just want to refer to three aspects. On page 2, reference is made to the improved maternity benefits. On page 4 it is stated that the change-over to the improved aid scheme will result inter alia in the eventual disappearance of the formula list for prescriptions, and that the panels of Railway doctors will be limited, as far as possible, to 1 500 beneficiaries per doctor, in order to ensure a wider choice of doctors. In other words, Sir, I am now discussing maternity, this formula list for prescriptions and a wider choice of doctors. As far as maternity is concerned, I cannot understand why maternity cases should have to be singled out—and the Railways is not the biggest culprit in this regard; there are other bigger culprits. Why should maternity be singled out for discrimination? It looks so much as if the attitude is adopted that every woman who is pregnant has been naughty and should be penalized. Why should maternity not be treated in the same way as any other condition is treated? There should not be separate clauses and stories for maternity. It is true that maternity is not a disease, but it is a health service and a mistake could be made. My plea is that it should be treated in the same way as any other health service or ailment. As far as the formula list for prescriptions is concerned, one finds that when one has prescribed yellow and red capsules in a white bottle for the daughter’s flu and for the mother’s stomach ache and for the father’s bladder pain, when one prescribes the same yellow and red capsules in a white bottle for Junior’s boils, the father will immediately tell one: “No, man, rather give me a private prescription.” Reference has been made here to the eventual disappearance of the formula list for prescriptions. Sir, I want to ask that that “eventually” should mean tomorrow or the next day; that these codes, as we called them, for the Railway people, be done away with. The railwayman knows that his friend in the Post Office who lives next to him can have any pill; why, then, should he should get specifically those prescribed pills?

The United Party supporters must also be given pills.

Sir, there are certain ailments which no pill will cure. I refer to the wider choice of doctors. This is a very good improvement. A wider choice is of course better than a limited choice. But, Sir, let me give you a typical example. You know, doctors are just like advocates and attorneys and teachers; the vast majority are good, hard-working people like me, but —let me be honest—as in any other group, one finds the lazy ones, not to use the word “bad”. Say for example there are six doctors in a town, five good doctors and one lazy one. Sir, the private patients will surely go to the lazy doctor less and will go more and more to the hard-working doctors. As a result, the lazy doctor’s income is in inverse proportion to his laziness and the other doctors have a good income. But if the lazy doctor happens to be the Railway doctor, then the railway people do not have the choice of going to a hardworking doctor. They are compelled, and this practice, that a patient is compelled to go to a specific doctor, and that a doctor is compelled to see a specific patient, must be reconsidered. I think that methods should be found to provice, not for a wider choice of doctors, but for a free choice of doctors.

Sir, I conclude by mentioning briefly to you two other examples, two other small matters. I understand that there are certain constituencies, such as Bethlehem and Ladysmith, in which specialists are in fact available in the town, but that the patients are not allowed to go to those specialists; they have to go to Bloemfontein, Pietermaritzburg or elsewhere. I think that this should be looked at. It is difficult for the old people. The man has to take off work and this is a waste of his time and money. The final example is the following. When we have set all these matters right and the loving couple are both fit and healthy and the wife can have her baby free of charge at the hospital, then she is killed by an electric shock from a washing machine, or the man is killed by a shock from an electric drill. I want to ask the Minister that the Railways should insist on the installation of this earth leakage safety device, whenever any Railway house is built. It only costs R32 if one buys it privately, and the State can buy it much more cheaply. But it must be insisted on that every dwelling unit should have this safety valve. I think it would only cost the State an additional R50 to install it in the house—much cheaper than funeral expenses. We cannot afford the funerals of strong, healthy people like that Pretoria couple the other day. Both are dead, leaving a ten-year old orphan. Our country cannot afford it.

Sir, in the course of the debate, various speakers opposite have made mention of alleged major dissatisfaction among the employees of the Railway Administration. I should very much like to associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Wonderboom. He said, earlier this evening, that hon. members opposite were presenting a distorted image of the railway official and the Railway Administration as a whole. Varous hon. members opposite mentioned salaries and overtime, as well as inefficiency, as the hon. member for Orange Grove put it. Thinking about all these arguments, one sees that the argument advanced by the hon. member for Wonderboom, that a distorted image is being presented here, has substance. For example, if—with respect— one looks at the officials in the officials’ benches, I want to ask whether the people sitting there look like unhappy people. Earlier this evening the hon. member for Maitland mentioned that he visited railway people every day and that he could attest to the unhappiness of those people. But, Sir, I cannot take it amiss of those officials, because the hon. member comes to talk politics with those people and what better way to make people disconsolate then by means of that kind of politics? It is a fact that that kind of politics could make anyone sick. That is why the hon. member for Stilfontein said that hon. members opposite needed a few tablets. [Interjections.] I want to state here that it is very clear to us from the report, and from the attitude of our railway people, that what we have here is a happy group of people. I want to tell the hon. member for Maitland to bring me one railway official who is forced to work overtime. Sir, there is no such thing. I, too, was once a railway official and I worked a great deal of overtime, but I was never forced to work overtime. These statements that are being made, and this image that is being conveyed, only constitute politicking by the other side of the House. I say, Sir, that what we have here is a happy group of people, because it is only a happy person who is able to produce. It is those people who have maintained an average level of productivity of 2,25% in the Railways over the past 15 years. This is an achievement that is not to be found in all sectors of our country. But the railwayman is a happy person, and honourable person, and in this regard I should like to quote from Volkshandel. An interview was conducted with a very senior Government official, a head of a department, and he stated the following (translation)—

This is typical, not only of the ordinary Government official, but also of the railway official. On one occasion, I arrived at a small station in my constituency at 7.30 in the evening. I came across two officials in that building. One was a station foreman who was controlling train traffic, and the other was the station master, dressed in his leisure clothes. He had gone home earlier in the evening, had supper and later come back to work. When I arrived there, he was busy with a pile of invoices and statements. I said to him: “Sir, you have a great deal of work.” He replied: “Yes, Sir, but we are being looked after and therefore I feel like working”. At a small station, therefore, there was a man who felt like work. We can attest to this attitude among virtually all our people in the railway service.

You have been a member of Parliament for a long time, not so?

No, I shall never become that, because I am not sick yet. What we have here is a happy group of people, a host of officials—amost 236 000 people—whose life and work attest to productivity, and also the industrial peace we have in the Railways, in contrast to what is to be found in many other sectors of our country. Not only is there productivity among our people, but one also finds an admirable process of absorption of non-Whites. It is pleasing to read in the report and admirable to see in practice that the absorption of the non-White is not taking place precipitately as hon. members opposite want it to. It is being done systematically because trained people are being placed in service.

Looking at the salary increases that railway officials have received over the past ten years, I find that the salaries of the Whites have been increasing gradually by 8,58% per annum, while the salaries of non-Whites have increased by 9,16% per annum. We do have inflation. Who does not feel inflation? With the possible exception of the hon. members for Durban Point and Umlazi, judging from their appearance, we all suffer from it. [Interjections.] However, I do not have the slightest hesitation in extending to the hon. the Minister my sincere thanks, not only for a fine year, but also for a praiseworthy attitude towards the railway employee. My thanks, too, to the General Manager and to every member of the staff. We convey our thanks for that fine salary increase and assistance as regards pensions. Besides this we also convey our sincere thanks for the attitude we find in the Railways. In the Railways we have a team effort that has succeeded in converting the deficit of R34 million in the previous financial year to a surplus of R32 million in the past financial year. This demands planning and teamwork. This affords eloquent proof that the distorted image that hon. members opposite want to present is totally inappropriate.

I should very much like to put a few minor matters to the hon. the Minister. I have in mind in particular, the poor accommodation which some railway officials have to put up with during working hours. I think the time has come for both these buildings, and the facilities to be modernized. I have in mind certain railway towns too, in particular a specific town situated in my constituency. I believe that there could be better planning with regard to the residential areas of both White and non-White in that town. I have in mind, too, the fact that this same little town, Cookhouse, has a deficient floodwater drainage system and that every time it rains hard, flooding is caused in that area. Like the hon. member for Krugersdorp, I, too, should like to plead for an improved classification of medical services for the railway staff. There are cases that really require attention. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Somerset East followed in the footsteps of many of the hon. members on that side of the House who spoke before him—particularly the hon. members for Port Elizabeth North and Humansdorp —who said the same as he did, namely: “What we have here, is a happy group of people.” [Interjections.] I think the hon. member for Somerset East must have visited a different station from the one I visited. I have visited a few in my old constituency, especially those which have been taken over by my hon. friend from Mooirivier, and I want to tell hon. members about the overtime that they work at those stations. There we have a station foreman who has worked for five solid years, 12 hours a day, seven days a week, apart from the three or four weeks of leave he has had during that period.

Disgraceful!

That is right, it is a disgrace. I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny it. Yet the hon. member for Somerset East together with the others can say: “This is a happy group of people we have here.”

They are not supporters of the United Party.

Yes, by Jove, they are not supporters of the United Party, but they were supporters of the Nationalist Party. They were supporters of the Nationalist Party but they will never in their life vote for the Nationalist Party again, for they have seen the light.

†They know that the Government has lost interest in the ordinary railwayman. I call as my witness the hon. the Minister himself. Only four months ago he gave us some interesting statistics regarding the salaries and the wages, or should I say the pittance which he pays his people. What do we find? We find that in the category of people who earn between R50 and R100 per month there are 17 Whites and 14 000 Coloureds and Indians. Is the hon. the Minister proud to pay that wage to them? No wonder that my hon. friend from Maitland says that these people are compelled to work overtime in order to live. When we look at the category of people who earn between R100 and R200 per month, what do we find? We find that there are 15 641 White workers on the Railways and over 5 000 Coloured and Indian workers who earn less than R200 per month. Is the hon. the Minister proud of that? I ask the hon. member for Somerset East: “Is hierdie mense wat minder as R200 per maand verdien die gelukkige mense waarna u verwys het?” That is not a living wage and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the wage he pays them is merely subsistence and to exist they have to work overtime. That is the position with the railwayman today and the hon. the Minister knows it. He can come to Pietermaritzburg where he will meet hundreds of them. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he thinks a man can raise a family on a salary of less than R200 a month. That is why we have the efficiency the hon. member for Somerset East was talking about. When hon. members opposite take the gross product of the Railways and divide it by the number of people who are employed they forget to take into account the hours of overtime that are worked and the amount that is paid out in overtime pay. When they work out the productivity in the Railways they forget to take these factors into account and then they tell us that this is “ ’n doeltreffende diens”. I want to say here and now that the railwayman is the most loyal person that we have in the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, that hon. member will have time to talk just as I have if his Whips will allow him to. I want to say that the railwayman in this country is one of the most loyal workers we have. He has to be to work for that pittance. That hon. Minister must go to bed tonight and thank God that he has those loyal workers who are keeping his railways running for the pittance he is paying them. Let us hear no more of this story of “the happy people in the Railways”. There are a few, yes, namely those who earn a wage that is slightly higher than R200 per month.

I want to come to local matters in Pietermaritzburg which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister. During the last session, the short session, the hon. the Minister told us that he was planning to give us a new station in Pietermaritzburg. I was very glad to hear of it. He told us that this new station would be designed to deal primarily with passengers and parcels. I know that he has other plans regarding goods traffic. We have in Pietermaritzburg at the moment an old building which was built, as my hon. friend told me just now, before the real rinderpest, not that of 1948, a building that was there at the time of the Boer War, a building of a particular type of architecture which I believe should be preserved. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister has taken this into consideration in the planning. I want to appeal to him today: Let us have an improvement in the facilities but, please, let us leave the facade of the existing station as it is. It is something that is unique. I would almost appeal for it to be declared a national monument but I know that this is not the right Minister to appeal to for this. However, I do appeal to him please to see to it …

Make it into a United Party museum.

Yes, there are many supporters of the United Party to visit that museum.

†There are very many supporters of the United Party in Pietermaritzburg who would come to that museum. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will reply to that point and will take this into consideration.

I know that his department has been busy with certain changes in Pietermaritzburg, but I want to ask him please to speed those up. In September last year I was at the station and noted that certain changes and alterations were being made to the passenger entrance to the station. I did not have occasion to visit the station again until two weeks ago when I went to pick up a passenger. I found that they still had not finished relaying the floor in the entrance. To the best of my knowledge they have already spent six months replacing the floor of the foyer. This is not the efficiency which my friend, the hon. member for Somerset East, referred to earlier on. I wonder if this work cannot be done a little faster.

The hon. the Minister knows that he has replied to certain questions and given undertakings in writing about the improvement of other facilities such as the goods yard facilities and the renewal of the roof there. How many thousands of rand does the Administration lose every year in claims from businessmen in Pietermaritzburg because of goods damaged by rain while they have been in goods sheds in Pietermaritzburg as a result of the condition of the roof? When I asked the hon. the Minister a question in this regard, he could not answer me. He says that those statistics are not kept. But I am sure the hon. the Minister and the Administration know that many thousands of rand are lost every year because of this. That is not efficiency. In fact, it is rank inefficiency.

While we are talking of efficiency, I want to pay tribute to the staff in Pietermaritzburg for the job they are doing under the most difficult circumstances. I know the hon. the Minister has improved conditions for them, but has he made all the improvements they have asked for? I do not believe he has. I want to appeal to him today as a matter of urgency, for the sake of the safety of life and limb in some cases of the members of his staff in Pietermaritzburg and particularly those working with forklifts and heavy rail traffic, to carry on with the repairs he undertook to carry out at Pietermaritzburg.

There is one other matter I must raise and that is the question of the elimination of the bottleneck that exists on the road to Edendale. His Administration is responsible for the existence of that bottleneck, and I am sure that the officials of the Administration are aware of this. The traffic on that road is becoming heavier every day. At the last count there were 7 812 vehicles using that road between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Twenty-four percent of those were in the heavy-duty class. There are two bottlenecks which are hazards and at which there have been many accidents. Unfortunately I have not been able to get accurate statistics as to how many accidents there were on that particular stretch, but it is common knowledge that there are many. They are caused by the bottleneck which is created by the hon. the Minister’s Administration, because railway lines cross the main road. There are more than 140 000 Africans in the Edendale complex who are using that road. This is over and above the industrialists and the bus services making use of that road. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister today to speed up his planning in that area so that the Natal Provincial Administration’s Roads Department can get on with the construction of the road and eliminate the bottlenecks which are created by the Railways Administration.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was unusually calm tonight and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will reply to the questions he asked.

I should like to refer to a discussion which took place during the debate on the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation Bill. I also want to refer to the way in which the hon. member for Durban Point carried on in this debate about Richards Bay and the work which is being done there.

You should be glad that somebody is taking an interest in your constituency.

While he was blowing off steam about that, he reminded me of the words in Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” I think it would be quite appropriate for me to tell the hon. member that “the gentleman doth protest too much, methinks”. For many years the hon. member has been standing on Durban’s Point and looking down very proudly on the beautiful, busy and efficient Durban harbour. At such moments he swells with pride. He has every right to do so, because the Durban harbour does handle a great deal of traffic, more than all the other harbours put together. We share in the pleasure and the pride which the hon. member for Durban Point takes in this. However, the hon. member’s great problem is that he just cannot believe that a mere 160 km to the north another giant harbour is going to be established. He finds this incredible. I am not saying that he does not like it, for the hon. member for Durban Point is a good South African. I accept that he welcomes this as being in the interests of South Africa.

The reason why I am referring to this in particular is that when we listen to the hon. member’s objections and we analyse his criticism, we must always think of the elder brother who has been showing off his muscles and boasting about them to his younger brother for years. In the meantime, however, the younger brother has been developing some muscles himself, and he has shown these to his elder brother. However, the elder brother is not going to take this lying down; he is going to be over-critical. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point to accept that the harbour at Richards Bay is an accomplished fact.

The Budget speech delivered by the hon. the Minister confirmed that two coal wharfs will be ready to be commissioned by April next year. This is a great achievement. We must remember that the S.A. Railways and Harbours have been set a great task, namely to provide for mass exportation of coal from April 1976. This is not just a matter of building a number of wharfs; much more is involved. To be able to do this, an intensive railway network had to be provided. During the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister confirmed once again that those works, too, will be completed in time.

The construction of the railway line to enable the harbour to function effectively is a great achievement in itself. It must be remembered that an adequate railway line had to be provided from the coal-fields. In particular, I think it has to be pointed out to the House that a new line of 93 km had to be built from the Broodsnyersplaas area up to Ermelo. Then the line between Ermelo and Vryheid had to be improved and rebuilt. There it linked up with the Vryheid/Richards Bay line, which was already under construction at that stage, but which had to be changed to meet the requirements of the increased amount of freight which was to be conveyed. This new line is longer than 500 km and was designed to carry traffic of more than 30 million tons a year. I am not going to refer to all the other railway connections now, for time does not allow it.

I want to refer in particular to the harbour complex, the Empangeni/Richards Bay area, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the question of sport and recreation facilities in that area. According to all expectations, that area will develop into a very big city. A large number of Railway servants are already living in the area. Houses are being completed every day.

However, the existing recreation facilities for Railway servants are limited. There is a small building which serves as a recreation hall, a rugby field and a few tennis courts. However, there is no possibility of any further improvements or additions on that small piece of land. The hon. the Minister must bear in mind that this is a growth point and that there was no big town with ample facilities into which the officials could have been absorbed. The local authorities have to deal with expansions from all sides, and consequently they find it difficult to provide on their own for sport and recreation facilities for Railway servants. I therefore suggest to the hon. the Minister that he request his department to investigate the matter, and if it is deemed necessary, to acquire sufficient land even at this early stage for something big to be erected there, something similar to what we have at Schoeman Park in Bloemfontein and Sturrock Park in Johannesburg, to mention only a few examples. We know that this need on the part of the Railway servants is a matter of concern to the hon. the Minister and his department as well.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that I reply now to a few matters which were raised here. I want to say at once that it is not my intention this evening to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Umbilo. As we have found to be typical of him, he discussed his favourite topic, namely pensions. He made a thoroughly prepared speech on that topic, and if possible I should like to reply to it tomorrow.

I think the hon. member for Durban Point was a little unfair to me this evening. The hon. member kicked up a great fuss about my having spoken for one hour 29½ minutes this afternoon. When the hon. member said that, I got the impression that he thought I had spoken too long. But at the same time he took it amiss of me for not replying to all the points he raised. The hon. member will probably recall that I made it clear at the very outset of my reply this afternoon that it was simply impossible to reply to all the matters which had been raised here. If I had in fact done so, I would have taken up far more time than I actually did take up. However, I should like to accommodate the hon. member, particularly because of the position he holds in regard to this Railway debate. I should like to try to reply to the other points which were raised by him.

This afternoon he made a great fuss about my allegedly having given this house the wrong impression in view of certain statements which I had made during the discussion of the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation Bill. The hon. member tried, by way of a syntactical analysis, to prove that I had allegedly given this House this wrong impression because provision had previously been made for certain quays which are known as “clean quays” to be built at Richards Bay, where goods other than bulk production goods would be handled. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that up to now the development at Richards Bay has for the most part been regarded as a bulk handling harbour. The bulk handling part was so predominant that it was regarded as a bulk harbour. In fact, as a result of the circumstances which occurred at Lourenço Marques in particular, owing to the lack of productivity, there was greater pressure on our harbours, with the prospects of there being even greater pressure on our harbours in future—not only as a result of Lourenço Marques, but as a result, too, of other factors which I should not like to discuss now. It was then decided—in fact I went to the Cabinet—that we would expedite the activities in the “clean” part of Richards. Bay, and that over and above the two quays which have previously been planned, we would expedite the work.

The original plan made provision for that.

No, there are now additional quays. More quays will now be built than were originally planned. As a result of that whole picture of Richards Bay changes. For that reason it was not sucked out of my thumb, nor was it my intention to mislead or give false information to this House or to anyone else for that matter.

Was it not in the original planning?

No, it is a new decision. The original two quays for “clean cargo” were there. I am not disputing that point with the hon. member. Recently we decided to proceed immediately with the construction of two more quays. We also decided to spend more money on quays for clean clean cargo at Richards Bay.

That is not what Hansard says.

I have furnished the hon. member with the explanation, and I hope he is satisfied with it.

The hon. member also referred to the Railway Board. The hon. member is of the opinion that the Railway Board should be converted into a body which should serve as a planning body for the Railways. I differ with him on that point. I did not think it would be worthwhile having a long argument on this matter. The Railways has a planning department, with an Assistant General Manager, a Mr. Du Toit, who is in charge of planning. By its nature planning is a highly technical matter. For that reason I think it would be wrong for one, if one has a company, to make the directors of that company one’s planning division as well. It is simply not appropriate. I see the Railway Commissioners as being comparable to the directors of a company. One has one’s Management which is in charge of the activities, together with planning and everything attendant upon that. The proposals or the memoranda then come through to the directors who in this case consist of the Minister and the Commissioners, who go into these matters thoroughly. Seen from another point of view, they bring certain matters to the attention of the Minister and in actual fact they help them to discuss certain matters in greater detail, matters submitted to the Minister by the Railway Commissioners. As a result, I cannot agree with the hon. member. I feel that the purpose of the Commissioners is completely different; in any event this is how I should like to see it while I am Minister. It does not mean that they have nothing to do with planning. What they do in fact do, is to institute investigations with reference to planning proposals which have been made, before these are given final approval.

Sir, the hon. member also said that I have not replied to the Eurorail proposal which he had made, and he asked why we could not introduce something of that nature in South Africa. I should just like to point out to the hon. member that we are now engaged in eliminating all uneconomic services, as well as socio-economic passengers whom we have up to now been conveying for special reasons. In that process it would most certainly be unwise to introduce more services, which would upon analysis prove to be uneconomical. This idea of the Eurail system has already been investigated by the Railways, and it was found on the basis of the present fares that the introduction of such a service would not be justified and would not be economically profitable. Under these circumstances we feel that it is not advisable to give favourable consideration to it now.

Sir, the hon. member referred to the harbours. I just want to tell him what the position is according to the information at my disposal. I hope I did not give him the wrong impressions. That was not my intention. Today, when he mentioned the delays of a certain number of days, he wanted me to nod to indicate whether or not I agreed with him. It appears from the figures that the delay in the Durban harbour is not from one to two days, as the hon. member said here. During January 1975 the average delay in all the general goods ships was 4,3 days, while the average delay in the general cargo ships was seven days. Sir, before I proceed, I think I should just explain that some of the ships which are berthed in the harbour, experience no delay. The hon. member knows this, but I do not think that hon. members of the Committee are aware of this. In the case of some ships which lie outside the harbour and wait, there is a long delay for particular reasons. Then there are cases where the delay is shorter owing to the special nature of the goods loaded or off-loaded by the ships. Then there are, on the other hand, ships such as passenger ships in regard to which there are no delays. Passenger ships enter immediately, together with other ships which need not be delayed owing to the circumstances and which have to enter immediately. For that reason one has a great variety of delay periods, and for that reason we refer here to the average delay period.

But to what did the delay of one to two days which we saw on the board refer?

I have been informed that on the occasion of the visit of the Select Committee to Durban, mention was made of three days.

One to two.

Sir, I am not aware of that period of one to two days. I think the hon. member and I will simply have to settle this little matter in private. Perhaps I should also bring this important aspect to the attention of hon. members: As far as general cargo ships are concerned, there was in January no delay in the case of 37,5 % of them. This just shows you that it is very important. So frequently mention is made of a 12 to 15 day delay, or even more, while the average delay is very low because there is a major percentage of the ships which experience no delay. I do not want to go into the delay periods any further now.

But it is important.

Yes, let it be. Let us assume the average delay is three days, although I think the difference is not so great. It does not really matter. The hon. member then went on to ask me on what grounds the Government finds it justifiable that there is now a 40% levy on goods which are discharged in Durban. That matter is very important, and I should like to explain it. The hon. member should see this against the background of the existing agreement between the South Africa Government and the Conference shipping lines. An agreement exists between the Government and the Conference shipping lines in terms of which the Conference shipping lines must, over the period of the agreement, have a certain return on invested capital. If that return diminishes over the period, it is the responsibility of the South African Government, by way of agreement with the Conference shipping lines, to adjust the rates so that by the end of that period the Conference shipping lines have received the return on their capital investments which had been agreed upon.

Now we are getting to the truth.

What has been untrue about it?

It is not a congestion surcharge. It is profit, a guaranteed profit.

No, it is a standing agreement between the Government and the Conference shipping lines, and delays at the harbours are not the only reason why the earnings of the Conference shipping lines are presenting a poor picture. There is a wide range of reasons—as a result of inflation, increased fuel prices, higher wages, and so on, and also as a result of delays in other harbours in the world. It is today a world tendency to have delays. The achievement of the Conference shipping lines in respect of earnings has therefore dropped and has to be supplemented. In fact, so I have been informed, the backlog at present is in the region of R24 million; R24 million on the earnings of the Conference shipping lines which has to be made up.

How much?

R24 million. So I have been informed, but I am speaking under correction. But this is a very substantial amount. Therefore I just want to bring it to the attention of the hon. member that in so far as a levy is now being imposed in order to place the Conference shipping lines on a sound return basis, it does not mean that more money is being taken from the pocket of the person who ultimately has to pay. If it is not done by way of a levy, it will have to be done by way of increased rates. And we have the advantage, the additional advantage, in regard to the levy, that it has been agreed that the levy will be imposed only on imported goods, on goods which are discharged in the harbours, and not on goods which are shipped in the harbours. It has the advantage that it has built into it a measure of assurance for the industrialist and the businessman in South Africa, in other words for the South African exporter. Otherwise, if there are increased rates on export goods, it means of course that our position on the international market is being prejudiced by this. But in this case the levy is only on imported goods. I sincerely hope that this explanation which I have furnished gives the hon. member a clear insight into the entire matter.

The hon. member also referred to the floating staff, and suggested that they should also receive the incentive wage applicable to the staff that are working the two shift system. This incentive wage is the payment of 11 hours wages for eight hours’ work provided it appears after a careful check that a certain result was achieved during the eight hours work in the performance of activities. In reply to the hon. members’ argument, I want to point out that the double shift system was introduced on those quays on which we should like to have the highest productivity. Where do we want such productivity?—In the handling of cargo. Where is the cargo handled? On the quays. The quays are the limiting factor, and for that reason we have concentrated on the available quays where this can in fact be done. We have introduced a double shift system on those quays, and introduced a system of incentive wages there in order to encourage greater productivity so that the flow of goods on the available quays could be increased. The so-called “other staff”, or “floating staff”, to whom the hon. member referred, naturally have nothing to do with the work on the quays or with increased productivity which we are envisaging in the handling of goods. For that reason it is justified that an incentive wage should be payable to them as well.

The hon. member also referred to the terminal for passenger ships in Durban and requested that it be declared an open area. I do not want to elaborate on this, except to say that the hon. member is aware that it is Government policy to eliminate apartheid signs which serve no purpose, which could perhaps give offence, and which are unnecessary. The Railways is also applying that policy. Consequently a special committee has been appointed on the Railways which is to consider this matter in depth and effect elimination where it is possible. We are therefore giving this matter the necessary attention.

Is there no report available on this matter yet?

No, it is still under consideration.

The hon. member also referred to the Airways and said that we should be able to convey all the passengers. Recently very great demands have been made on the Airways. Hon. members are aware of this. The aircraft are very full. The fact that we are making provision in this Budget for the purchase of aircraft, surely indicates that we are in earnest about this matter. Apart from that we already have three SPs on order. The expectation is that when they are delivered, we will be able to use some of the 707s, which are now being used for international flights, on domestic services. However, the position still has to be reviewed, and I cannot give complete finality in this regard this evening.

The hon. member also referred to our inaugural flights, and said that he did not feel happy about the people who are invited to go on such flights. This is a rather tricky business, and it goes without saying that I should not like to furnish an analysis in this House, mentioning the names and the positions of persons who are invited. However, I want to give the hon. member and the Committee the assurance that in inviting people to go on inaugural flights we concentrate on people who are of value to the Airways owing to the positions which they occupy, owing to the extent to which they utilize the Airways, etc. There are other additional reasons as well why people are invited to go on inaugural flights. I want to point out that inaugural flights have become traditional throughout the entire world. I think that if we take everything into consideration we concentrate mostly on those people whom we think may be invited to the advantage of the Airways.

This has not been happening.

The hon. member also asked me whether passenger train services are going to be introduced on the Beit Bridge railway line between South Africa and Rhodesia. This matter is being investigated, although at present there are no permanent plans in this regard. The hon. member also asked me what the position is going to be on the railway line to Richards Bay. I take it that he was referring to the railway line which, when it is opened on 1 April, will run via Vryheid to Richards Bay. It is our intention to have one passenger train per day running on that railway line. We shall of course have to wait a while to see what the need is and to what extent the train service there will be supported, but I can tell him that it is our intention in any event to introduce one train service per day on that section. The hon. member also asked me for the introduction of a better dining saloon service. I want to tell him that dining saloons are only provided on trains when a need for them exists. The length of the train journey and other factors determine whether or not we provide a dining saloon. At present ten cafeteria coaches are on order. These cafeteria coaches will be used on certain trains in the place of dining saloons, and they will be staffed by Coloureds. We are doing this by way of an experiment, and if it should appear to be successful, we shall extend this service.

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in regard to this matter.

The hon. member will simply have to bring it to our attention, please, so that we can see what we can do about it.

I want to deal with a further speech or two. The hon. member for Pretoria West made his maiden speech in this House, and I should like to congratulate him on the well-considered speech which dealt with planning, and more specifically planning on the Railways.

I do not want to deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Umbilo now. The hon. member for Vryheid referred to the railway station at Vryheid. I just want to tell him that attention will in due course be given to this matter. However, it is not necessary at the moment. The hon. member also asked for wagons for timber producers.

Hear, hear!

Very well, we shall see what we can do about it and I do not think it is a matter that, for the present, necessitates any discussion.

What does he seek to achieve if he raises that matter here as a member of Parliament?

The hon. member for Orange Grove raised the case of Miss Amor Pretorius again. I do not know whether it is the Christian name of this young lady which causes so much attention to be focussed on her and this case to be discussed so frequently, but I want to tell the hon. member that I really do not think it is worth all the bother. He referred to the “spies in the sky” case, which I should like to elaborate on briefly, for I have my own ideas on it. I must in all honesty say that the Railway Administration in my opinion was a little over-modest and apologetic in regard to this case at the time. In my opinion it was definitely not necessary to be so apologetic. We must take into consideration that these aircraft cost millions of rand and that there are hundreds of people in one such aircraft whose lives could be endangered. For that reason it is necessary for us to know what is happening at all times. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if a member of the crew of an aircraft hears or discovers something which constitutes a danger to the aircraft, the passengers or South Africa, and does not report it to the captain of that aircraft, I would definitely more than take it amiss of him. Therefore I do not think that it is a mistake to say that the people should be pre-ocupied with security measures. They should be geared to doing this. For that reason I do not want to elaborate any further on this case. We have arrived at the conclusion, and this is my reply to the hon. member, that this Miss Pretorius was obviously seeking publicity. On the basis of various considerations, on which I have a report, we arrived at the conclusion that she was not a responsible person and that it was not worthwhile taking a statement from her. The matter has been disposed of, and the allegation that there was a so-called quid pro quo and that it was said to her that if she did certain things we would not proceed with the case against her, is untrue. The case against her did proceed, and she was found guilty. I therefore regard this matter as having been disposed of. I really do not think it is worthwhile elaborating on this any further.

The hon. member asked me—and with this I want to conclude—about the possibility of a monorail between Johannesburg and Pretoria. I should like to tell the hon. member that the Railways does not regard the provision of inter-city transportation services as its responsibility. It is the responsibility of the local authority in the first place—in fact, more than just in the first place. The Railways has its existing railway system, such as the one between Cape Town and Simonstown, and also in other cities, and those railway systems are being expanded and improved as circumstances necessitate this. However, we are not considering and do not regard it as our responsibility to introduce a system such as that hon. member referred to between Johannesburg and Pretoria.

Lastly the hon. member asked me a question in regard to the transportation of Railway workers on open motor trucks. I have replied previously to a similar question from him, and I can only repeat the last section of that reply. It reads as follows:

I think that these measures are sufficient. The work circumstances are such that these people will have to be conveyed on open lorries from time to time, for I doubt whether one could take more precautionary measures than these.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the detailed replies he has given. If one persists and keeps on hammering, one gets results in the end.

But then you must not blame me for being too long.

I appreciate that the hon. the Minister has dealt fully with most of the matters I have raised.

I would not normally have risen at this stage to speak again but one issue has arisen which cannot be left floating in the air, but must be dealt with immediately. I refer to the question of the congestion surcharge. I think a very serious situation has been disclosed tonight, a situation affecting the credibility of the Government. This goes far beyond being a mere question of terminology; the credibility of the Government is at stake. The Railways Administration through its harbours has in the minds of the public been carrying the blame for a situation of congestion which has led to the imposition of a congestion surcharge. This surcharge was at first 20% at certain harbours. It was then increased and eventually doubled to 40%. It is estimated by people concerned with shipping that this surcharge now amounts to some R80 million per annum. At 20% it was estimated to be approximately R40 million per annum.

The harbours, and indirectly the Railways Administration, are blamed for being so inefficient that a backlog of ships built up which caused losses to ship-owners and in order to protect themselves against this harbour inefficiency and inability to handle the ships, they had to seek compensation from the importers. Consequently the importers, and therefore the consumers in South Africa, were loaded with a 40% surcharge on freight. In the eyes of the people of South Africa this was due to the harbours being unable to handle the ships. I am not going to argue whether the delay involved is one or two or two or three days, but I shall accept that it is three. However, I can still see the figure in front of me and I remember saying: “But that is impossible.” The hon. the Minister and the hon. members who were there will remember an official saying: “I could not believe it myself,” or rather: “I did not believe it myself; so I checked.” They will remember that I then asked how it was possible that these ships were lying outside. Then it was explained how a certain number of passenger ships came straight in, that a certain percentage of other ships had no delay and that this was the average figure. I will accept that it was three days. I remember the two days’ delay very clearly, but I will accept that it was three days. This does not justify a surcharge of R80 million on the consumers of South Africa. What has been hidden and what the harbour administration is asked to take the blame for, is what was denied in this House when we, the Opposition, asked whether there was a hidden tariff holiday in the OFA agreement, in the new Conference Lines agreement. Obviously this is the “holiday”. They are guaranteed a fixed profit and if they do not get that profit the freight charges have to be increased to give it to them.

Do you mean to say that you did not know it?

I knew it, but the public did not know it.

If you had not known it then you would have been badly informed.

I knew it. But when I asked about it across the floor of this House I was told that there was no tariff holiday. What is it but a tariff holiday when you have a guaranteed built-in profit? In order not to let the public know that our Government had sanctioned an open-ended freight basis with a guaranteed profit, the harbours were made to take the blame and it was called a “congestion surcharge”. It is not a congestion surcharge. It is a guaranteed profit allowed by this Government at the cost of the consumer in order to give the Conference Lines an advantage over all shipping not in the Conference Lines.

The Railway Administration have had to take the blame Why could South Africa not have been told at the beginning that it is not because the harbours cannot handle the ships. Why is it not admitted that while ships are out in the roadstead for 16 days but, in fact, there is only a two-three day delay or one-two day delay, whatever it may be?

Average.

Yes, average, and some of those waiting have a six-day delay. Instead of that the impression is being created day after day, week after week, that, because of this tremendous build-up and backlog of ships unable to get in, the consumer, the housewife, the breadwinner, must pay this extra money in freight charges. It comes back to the breadwinner. I think it is fair to say that, even if we have not done anything else, we as an Opposition have done our duty to the public of South Africa by exposing this situation which has been exposed tonight.

You have exposed nothing whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, one finds it surprising that the hon. member for Durban Point should have said what he did tonight. I would have expected, after the hon. the Minister had given him a very clear reply and after the hon. member had acquired certain facts, that he would act more wisely. I blame the hon. member for having accused the officials of the S.A. Railways.

No, the Government.

He accused them of not having done their duty and of having caused a congestion of ships by their inefficiency, and so forth. Does the hon. member not know where that congestion originated? Is he unaware of the problems experienced at Lourenço Marques? Does he not know that the ships which were to be unloaded there had to come to the Cape to be unloaded? Is the hon. the Minister, the Government, the officials or South Africa responsible for the fact that there was a break-down in Lourenço Marques? Why does the hon. member not tell South Africa this? I think there is a credibility gap on the part of the hon. member. I think the hon. member should actually be more honest and give South Africa all the facts. The hon. member should really pay tribute to the Railways for what has been done.

If we consider the problems experienced by the Railways in connection with the transportation of our steel products, for example, the Opposition, and particularly the hon. member for Durban Point, should bear in mind that in December 1974—the most difficult month of the year—an enormous amount of steel was landed in South Africa and had to be transported. How was this to be done? It was done by the hard work and dedication of the Railway staff We should realize, too, that there is a staff shortage. However, hon. members do not take this into consideration. South Africa has many problems, and in this connection I want to refer to our Airways. People say we should inject so much money, we should do this or that. Hon. members should bear in mind that costs have risen tremendously, something which is not denied by this Government. The expenditure on fuel consumed by the Airways has risen from R45 million last year to R62,4 million this year, an increase, therefore, of R17,4 million. I think we should be prepared to give credit where credit is due and to be more fair.

The constituency I represent does not have a station I can discuss at length, but for the sake of the broad national interest I nevertheless want to make a request. A beginning has now been made with the Belle Ombre for non-Whites in Pretoria, and I think we should look much further than that station. In Cape Town we have one of the most beautiful stations one could imagine. Cape Town is the legislative capital of South Africa. In Johannesburg, too, there is one of the finest stations one could imagine. However, when we get to Pretoria, that beautiful city and our administrative capital we must admit that the railway station does not do credit to South Africa. My request is—I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone in Pretoria— that until such time as the new Belle Ombre station is built, consideration should also be given to building a station in Pretoria, a station which would be worthy of our capital. Who knows, it might become very necessary, especially if Parliament were to move to Pretoria! We should then be anticipating such a possibility. I feel that this is a matter which should receive our attention.

Hon. members of the Opposition have had a good deal to say over the past few days, and I thought that they would approach the Railways from an economic and a financial viewpoint as well, instead of just asking for certain concessions. They want salaries to be increased, etc. One can hardly believe all the things they think should be done. However, none of them said where the money for all this was to come from. Section 103(1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act provides the following:

Surely the Railways comply with this requirement. The Railways always try to provide South Africa with the cheapest transport, no matter what. I want to say a few words about section 103(2)(a) of the Constitution Act. This subsection reads as follows:

This very clearly provides where the money is to come from and on what it is to be spent. We may not receive more money than is spent on those things. As far as the Estimates are concerned, there is an amount of R1 818,5 million to be defrayed from revenue. For capital betterments, an amount of R678,5 million must be appropriated. So the total amount to be spent on our Railways in respect of transportation, extensions, and so forth, is only R3 million short of R2 500 million. However, the hon. member for Durban Point says that this means nothing to him, that it is of trifling importance. When one thinks of these vast amounts, one is amazed at the fact that South Africa is able to do all this.

I want to say a few words about the financing of this tremendous service that is being rendered in South Africa. By far the greater part of the financing in respect of the Railways is derived from revenue. As against this, the capital appropriation is financed partly from loans. The capital appropriation for 1975-’76 amounts to R865,5 million. This is to be financed from Railway funds up to an amount of R278,5 million, which accounts for approximately 32,18% of the capital appropriation. The loans required for further financing amount to R587 million. Apart from a small sinking fund, no loans are repaid from Revenue Fund. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the future policy is to be in respect of loan capital which is used for financing capital works. Of course, a part of the loan we have consists of interest-bearing capital. In 1948 this was R443,2 million, by 1960 it had risen to R1 369 million and by 1974 it was R3 228,5 million. As against this, the non-interest-bearing capital amounted to only R472,8 million. This interest burden does accumulate. In respect of 1975-’76, the interest alone amounts to R256,6 million. This is only R3 million short of our total income from the South African Airways. I feel that one should never burden the next generation too heavily with loan capital. This should apply to future Estimates as well. Of course, we have had the Franszen Commission’s report in connection with the Post Office, where capital works are financed on a 50/50 basis from loan and revenue funds. I accept that the hon. the Minister may not want to go into all this detail at this stage. If the hon. the Minister is unable to reply to this now, it can stand over. However, I do hope he will consider this for the future. If things are in order, they are in order and if we are safe, then I am very happy. I think it would nevertheless be worth looking at this for the future as far as financing from revenue and loan funds is concerned.

I just want to come back briefly to the third Opposition party—there are three of them sitting there—and the amendment moved by them. The hon. member for Durban Point is not here at the moment, so I shall not reply to him. I am now referring to the amendment moved by the Reformists, which goes on for a whole page. The hon. member spoke of almost nothing but colour. As far as the three commissioners of the Railways Board are concerned, he actually proposes that those three commissioners should come from the Black, Coloured and Indian communities respectively. Is there then to be no White person on that Board?

They are to be additional.

No, there can be only three commissioners. The amendment is very clear about this—

They are to be additional.

It seems to me that this party hates the White man in South Africa. They want to destroy the White man. They want to work him out of everything, even out of the Railways. [Interjections.] That is what these people want to do. Everything we have heard from them has concerned the Blacks, the Coloured people and the Indians. They have not even put in a word here for the White man. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Sunnyside. I have been a member of this House for quite a long time and I have listened to a great many debates, as well as to the debate on this Railway Budget during the past two days. This Budget makes provision for several million rand. It is remarkable that I was unable to find a subject on which the Opposition could speak without dealing with the non-Whites. In this debate the hon. member for Orange Grove also told us the story of a person who was sitting alone in an office where provision was made for seven other people. He told us that the person said to him: “What they should be doing is to get some non-Whites to do the job that I am doing right now”. It is unparliamentary to say that this is a lie, but I want to say that I do not believe this story. I do not believe there is one person on the Railways who believes this story. There is not one White person on the Railways who wants a non-White to do his work. I am not only a member of this party. As I am standing here, I am also an Afrikaner. I was born during the depression, at the time of the “Reddingsdaadbond”, at a time when the ganger on the Railways and his labourers were Whites, at a time when we went to school in tents under the trees and at a time when, in the City of Johannesburg, provision had not even been made for more than one Afrikaans language high school. That was the time when the Afrikaner had to work his way up from the bottom, and the Afrikaner has reached the position he is in today out of his own accord, and because he had to work for it. He did not ask for any favours. He was not asked to take over as it is being said today that the Blacks should take over. I do not think the Blacks want this either. One cannot feel happy in a position for which one did not have the necessary training and where one does not fit in. No person would want this, and I believe the non-Whites do not want this either. Why do they simply want to hand over everything to the Blacks? Why do we not have some recognition too? They are the people who said recently they were speaking up for women’s rights. This is Women’s Year. What did the Railways do? They have a shortage of workers, but they made provision for the White woman in the first place. As has been said by the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech—

We have the people and we have to make provision for our own people in the first place. This is our country; this is White South. Africa. We do not begrudge the other people employment and we are prepared to pay them for their services. [Interjections.] The Railways has also set an example to private enterprise. They are prepared to employ the non-Whites in appropriate positions. In the first place, however, they made provision for the Whites of this country. It is only right for the homelands to make provision for their own people in the first place. Why is it necessary for all the highest positions to be given to the Blacks now? Could we not get away from that subject? Could we not conduct a discussion for one single moment without coming back to that subject? We know what they have in mind, but hon. members opposite ought to know by now what the policy of the National Party is. In particular they ought to know what the policy on the Railways is.

You will exchange that seat of yours with a Black man.

I do not want to return to that theme. There is a Roman saying to the effect that the eagle does not hunt the sparrow. In a Budget such as this the matters which relate to one’s own constituency could perhaps be likened to sparrows fluttering up every now and then. It is also a fact that the local problems for the people in a particular region are the most important national problems. Mr. Chairman, you will permit me to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister a few minor matters pertaining to my constituency.

In the first place I want to express my gratitude on behalf of a great many of my voters for the re-introduction of the train services between Johannesburg and Carletonville as from 1 April of this year. I want to express my heartfelt congratulations to my colleague, the hon. member for Carletonville. I think it is in large measure due to his determined endeavours that this service is going to be introduced again. He has been pleading for several years for this to be done. The Railways, with the same sense of responsibility they display at all times, gave attention to this matter. Every one of us is grateful that this service is going to be introduced again.

Then we have the doubling of the railway line between Houtheuwel and Potchefstroom, which now appears in the Estimates. This is the former Houtkop. I think the name of Houtkop was changed to Houtheuwel at the insistence of the Opposition. There one has a station, which is in fact a branch line, i.e. Klipdrif, which I believe is going to be involved and which is likely to be downgraded. On behalf of the community there I ask that this matter be given serious attention. This is an area in which a great deal of lucerne is being grown and I believe any change in the circumstances there would affect these people detrimentally. Sir, then we also have the position that, at Fochville Station, the platform on the station side has never been completed. I was unable to discover for what reasons this had not been done. There is only a platform in the middle and there is a very high overhead bridge. The mainline train to Cape Town passes through this station. This station is now being used by Carletonville and will also be used by the new area which is being developed by the mines at Deelkraal and Buffelsdoring, a development which involves more than R200 million. I therefore want to make this friendly request that while this work is in progress, this essential service will also receive attention. Sir, then there is another minor matter I, as a relatively new member, am rather hesitant to discuss this matter, but I nevertheless feel I should do so. We have recently been granted the concession, something for which one is particularly grateful that our trunks may be transported to Cape Town and back to our homes. I want to say with great appreciation that one has to travel very fast to arrive in Acacia Park before one’s trunk does. The delivery is particularly speedy, but the handling of the trunks, particularly here where they are received, is of such a nature that damage is not only done, but that it is also a matter of great concern. These trunks are loaded with great care and they are conveyed with great speed. Damage is done only here where they are off-loaded, or mahandled in the process of off-loading. One could submit a claim for damage, but I nevertheless think that this is one small item which should receive attention. We are very grateful for the concession and for the service which is otherwise being rendered. Sir, may I also express my personal gratitude for a Budget which makes provision for the smooth working of a large undertaking such as the Railways, but which, in particular, also protects the rights of its White employees.

Sir, the two speeches to which we have just listened, i.e. that of the hon. member for Sunnyside and that of the hon. member for Losberg, were both outbursts of verkramptheid. I hope that the few strayed verligtes sitting in the Nationalist Party, for example the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education …

You have verligtheid on the brain.

… have listened very carefully to the outbursts of the hon. members for Sunnyside and Losberg. I hope they listened to the statement the hon. member for Losberg made a moment ago to the effect that this is White South Africa; that it is only the Whites who have any rights here …

He did not say that.

Order! Order!

Sir, just look how a policeman can spoil a good speech at its very outset! Sir, the statement was made clearly that this is White South Africa and that only the Whites have certain rights here and the right to preferential treatment in this part of South Africa. Sir, let us take a closer look at this statement; let us analyse it. The statement is to the effect that the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians are not first-class citizens of South Africa …

Come back to the Railways.

… and because they are not first-class citizens of South Africa, they cannot claim for themselves the same rights the Whites reserve for themselves. Sir, I am glad that this statement came from the opposite side of the House. I regard it as a shameful statement.

Where do you get that from?

That was the statement which the hon. member made. I regard it as a shameful statement, and I should like to analyse it a little.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

[Interjections.] I do not have the time now to answer questions. The hon. member has had his chance to speak. Sir, I want to make the following statement. Every South African, irrespective of colour, the Black man, the Coloured, the Indian and the White man who were born in South Africa is a first-class citizen of South Africa, and the Nationalist Party cannot, by means of legislation or by means of the implementation of their distorted ideology, deprive these people of their fundamental civil rights permanently. This is a fact. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must please come back to the Railways.

Those hon. members, Sir, replied to statements I made in my speech during the Second Reading debate, and I should very much like to have the opportunity of replying to the statements they made in regard to my speech.

Order! This is not the Second Reading debate now. The hon. member must please confine himself to Railway matters.

I shall come back to the Railways. The statement I want to make is that the Railways and Harbours Administration should take immediate steps to remove all discriminatory measures in respect of the employment of staff and in respect of the remuneration of staff. And it should not only remove the discriminatory measures, but, in order to prove its bona fides to South Africa and to its employees and to all the population groups of South Africa, the Government should announce a programme immediately and should make known its standpoint and the steps it intends taking to do away with discrimination. In addition, a timetable should be published so that we shall know over how many years such steps are going to be taken and how long it is going to take to bridge the gap and how long it is going to take before such steps are carried out successfully. The Government cannot make promises at UNO to the effect that they are going to move away from discrimination in South Africa; and they cannot make promises to the population groups here in South Africa and then simply refuse to take the necessary steps to fulfil those promises. The accusation will be levelled that this was fraud and, if this were to happen, we would be in far greater danger and would be faced with far greater problems than we have ever had before. I just want to make it clear before proceeding with my speech that what hon. members such as the hon. member for Losberg and the hon. member for Sunnyside are doing, is to thwart in a blatant manner the good intentions and the good work of the hon. the Prime Minister and that they are doing South Africa a disservice. I appeal to them, not only on behalf of our side of the House but also on behalf of South Africa and on behalf of their own Prime Minister, to keep quiet rather than to express in this House such bigoted statements which are going to receive such wide publicity throughout the world. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sunnyside levelled the accusation that I was supposed to have asked that only non-Whites be appointed in the Railway Board. Sir, I did no such thing. My argument was that it should not only be Whites that serve on such a board which exercises control over one of the largest, if not the largest organization in South Africa, i.e. the South African Railways.

But you did not say so in your amendment.

The Railways does not only exist for the purpose of the Whites. The Railways does not only employ Whites.

Why did you not say so in your amendment?

Order! The hon. member for Sunnyside must refrain from making so many interjections.

The Railways serves every South African, irrespective of colour and it also employs people irrespective of their colour. For that reason, if we want to move away from discrimination as was said by Mr. Botha at the U.N. and if we mean this sincerely, we should appoint representatives of every race in South Africa to the control board of the Railways. When I refer to representatives of the Coloures, Indians and Blacks, they should, of course, be supplementary. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

I do not want to be discourteous but I only have a few minutes left.

Order! The hon. member is not prepared to answer questions.

I have time problems, but I am prepared to make a deal with him. If the hon. the Deputy Minister would undertake to comment on the statemens made by the hon. member for Losberg, I would afford him the opportunity of putting a question to me.

Why should there, on the basis of the policy of the hon. member of representation according to numbers, together with all the implications thereof, be only one Bantu on the Railway Board in view of the number of Bantu in the country as compared with the fewer numbers of Whites? The same question applies to the remaining Government bodies in the country.

I made it quite clear that it is the policy of the Reform Party that … [Interjections.]

Order!

When one refers to the policy of the Reform Party both sides of the House are scared stiff. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon. members to contain themselves.

It is the policy of the Reform Party that representatives of all communities in South Africa should serve on every board and every commission, whether it is a Government board or a semi-Government board. The hon. the Deputy Minister wants to know according to which formula representation would be allocated. This is something which should be determined by means of consultation and discussions. This is our policy, but what is their policy? The hon. the Deputy Minister represents the verligte conscience of the Nationalist Party to which prominence is given from time to time to solve its conscience. The policy of the hon. the Deputy Minister is that there should be no representation for non-Whites, and then he wants to pretend that his policy is more just than the policy of my party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston is a reasonably young member of this House.

He is the leader of his party in the Transvaal.

Often when he spoke in this House he waxed lyrical. Tonight he again waxed lyrical about a prearranged programme to be announced by the Railways. He also spoke of doing away with discrimination and accused the Government and this side of the House of deceit. I just want to point out that the hon. member originally sat in this House as a member of the United Party and that he is a member of the Reform Party now. As I see it, he will soon be in the ranks of the Progressive Party. Seeing that he waxed so lyrical about a pre-arranged programme to be announced by the Railways, I want to ask him whether his behaviour is part of his pre-arranged programme to come to Parliament via the United Party and to walk over to the Progressive Party eventually. Seeing that he accused this side of the House of deceit, I want to ask him whether it is not blatant deceit to come to this House in this manner and then to change party affiliations within a short period of time. So how can he attempt to prescribe a programme for other people? I leave the hon. member there. If I may give the hon. member some sound advice, it is to speak less and listen more. The statements he made here tonight, are far-fetched and not relevant at all. If he continues in this way he will still make many statements in this House which he will have to swallow later.

I should like to raise two small matters which are of importance to me. The first relates to our maize exports and the manner in which these have been handled by the Railways. If we have regard to the fact that the economy of our country developed very rapidly during the past year, if we have regard to the problems the Railways experienced during the past year as a result of washaways, the congestion at harbours, the coal situation in South Africa and the large quantity of maize which had to be exported, I want to pay high tribute to the Railways tonight for what was done despite the problems they experienced. It was planned that approximately 40 million bags of maize were to be exported during the past year and up to the end of April. At times things were extremely difficult as a result of the washaways on some of the major sections on the routes to the coast. At one stage we built up a small backlog, but the Railways did everything in their power not to neglect some things while they were doing another, so as to enable us to get our maize crop to the coast for export. It was inevitably so that the price of maize started rising abroad from June, July and August to reach an ultimate price of R114 per ton at the very time when we were contending with the worst washaways. I want to express my appreciation tonight to the Railways for having made it possible that these large quantities of maize could be transported to the coast at this very time so that we could earn money on the foreign market at the best time when the price was at its highest. As a maize farmer I would be failing in my duty if I did not express appreciation for what the Railways did under extremely difficult conditions.

We know very well that at that time—it was towards the end of winter and it was very cold—the Railways had to meet the heavy demand for coal. Measures had to be taken to supply coal at the places where it was needed. This was no easy task. There was also a heavy demand for coal as a result of the energy crisis which we were experiencing. Often when coal was unobtainable people readily blamed the Railways. I inevitably had a great deal to do with this since there was a heavy demand for coal in my constituency as well. There are creameries in my constituency which process large quantities of the farmers’ products. The Bantu in the Bantu townships also had to have the necessary coal for cooking their meals. At one stage the supply of coal reached a very low level. Often when one went to investigate, one came to the conclusion that the Railways had done their share in 99% of the cases. Often when one dealt with the Railways, they were only too willing. Therefore I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has announced that in view of the fact that the heavy demand for coal still exists, the country will be divided into certain regions so that justice may be done to everybody. I want to thank the Minister and the Railways Administration for what they did and for the effort that was made on their part in regard to those two matters.

To come somewhat closer to my own constituency. I want to say that we too, have certain needs at stations, loading pens, etc. I raised these matters with the Railways Administration and consequently I do not want to repeat them here. However, there is another matter I want to raise. The hon. member for Sunnyside quoted section 103 of the Constitution which provides that the S.A. Railways and Harbours shall be administered on business principles and shall bring development to agriculture and industries in the rural areas and in all the provinces of South Africa. In these times when the rural areas are contributing in various ways to the economy of the country as a whole, although it may not be able to make the contribution in terms of rand and cents in respect of freight or passengers, I believe and trust that the Minister and the Railways Administration will give sympathetic consideration to the rural areas. I am thinking, for example, of the case where a motor transport service is perhaps not being run on an economic basis. Certain facilities may have to be provided at smaller stations without there being any proper motivation. As I say, I hope and trust that the hon. the Minister and the Administration will give favourable consideration to those minor matters, and in doing so assist the rural areas in the letter and spirit of section 103. The Railways would then be instrumental in providing the necessary development, because, in the first place, it was the S.A. Railways which contributed towards developing South Africa into such a lovely and happy country. Therefore, we ask that when representations are received from the rural areas, these will always receive kind consideration as has been the case in the past.

I also want to convey my gratitude for the Bethlehem/Grootvlei railway line, which is being supplemented. This railway line passes through my constituency. There are other lines there which will have to be considered in the near future, and one would be pleased if that could be done as well. We want to express the hope and confidence that it will receive the sympathetic consideration of the Railways in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, those hon. members who have been able to spend much of their time in this House over the last three days will no doubt have found this debate extremely interesting, especially during the last few minutes. This debate started off on Monday with the hon. the Minister giving his report on the activities of the Railways. It became very clear that the Railways were struggling with a major problem, a problem which affects the economy of South Africa and also the security of South Africa. It is very obvious to us on this side that they cannot cope with the job that has to be done without the help of Black South Africans. For this reason I think it was most unfortunate that the hon. member for Losberg made the speech which he made this evening. I would like to suggest to him, with respect, that in future, before he embarks on such a diatribe, which I feel has gross overtones of racialism, he should possibly first consult the hon. members of his Cabinet as to whether it is advisable for him to do so. Having said that, I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for the explanation which he gave earlier on about the new Umlazi Bantu hostel which the S.A. Railways is planning. It is interesting to know that they are planning to build this hostel in order to give Black employees of the Railways better housing. I think that this is very admirable. Looking at this photograph and having toured a hostel for Whites a week or two ago at Montclair, there is no doubt in my mind that the Railways will do an exceedingly good job in the building of this huge complex. However, I stand by what I said the other day and that is that I would like the hon. the Minister to have another look at this. I think that it is accepted today, not only by us on this side of the House, but by most South Africans who are thinking today, that the migrant labour system along with the necessary hostels which follow, is not the sort of thing that we would like to see continued in South Africa. A few days ago I was listening to the S.A.B.C. and I heard a report on the recent uprisings in the mining industry. It was extremely interesting for me to hear from people who were intimately concerned with the handling of labour on the mines, that in their opinion the sooner the mining industry got rid of its migrant labour system and the sooner they got their Black men into decent homes and townships, the sooner they would eliminate one of the root causes of these faction fights which occur so frequently these days in these large complexes. Umlazi is a Bantu area and it is served by a very efficient commuter service. I really cannot see any reason at all why the Railways should not rethink this matter with a view to having those men, who are mature and married men who have families, live permanently in Umlazi and enjoy a decent standard of living and a decent home life. I do not believe that if this complex is built, those workers in 1980 or whenever they may occupy it, will thank the S.A. Railways and the hon. the Minister for having gone ahead with such a large and beautiful complex, because basically this will be alien to the way of life which they will want to enjoy at that time and which in fact many of them like to enjoy at this time. Having said that, I would like to refer to a subject which was raised earlier on by the hon. member for Durban Point in passing and to elaborate on it. This was the matter of the overloading of the South African Airways on weekends and at peak business periods and the difficulty of businessmen in obtaining adequate accommodation on these flights. This is happening all too frequently these days. I fully appreciate the difficulties the Airways are experiencing at this time. How many of us in this House have had to battle to get accommodation on flights back to our constituencies in recent times. How many of us, having been told that an earlier flight was fully booked, and after having had to book on a later flight have managed to obtain a seat on the earlier flight have found on boarding that flight that there are anything from 10 to 20 vacant seats on that particular flight? I would like to ask exactly what effect this is having on the economy of the Airways and what it is doing in respect of the campaign to save fuel? I asked a question as to what the cause of this was and I was told that there were two reasons, the first being that there are late cancellations and, secondly, that there are many passengers who just do not show up for their flights.

I have been led to believe that there are travel agencies and businesses which regularly book seats on flights. I have been led to believe that there are travel agencies who will buy a number of tickets and have bookings on the earlier flights, let us say, from Durban to Johannesburg, every day so that in the event of one of their senior employees wanting to fly to Johannesburg they have a flight already booked and a ticket available. If that employee does not take that flight, they just get the secretary to re-book a seat on tomorrow’s aircraft. If he does take the flight, they then buy another ticket and book another seat on tomorrow’s aircraft. I believe there are also travel agents who do this in order to accommodate some of their bigger customers. They have block bookings on a number of flights and if they do not use them they just re-book for the next day. I do not know whether this is entirely true or not, but if it is, I do believe that these people are doing a great disservice to the S.A. Airways. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should ask his Administration to look into this and if this is happening that they try to devise ways and means of preventing it, because basically this is a very selfish attitude and approach to life because there are many people— and we see them at the airports every time we pass through them—who are trying to get to their destination but who are unable to find accommodation on the flights and then have to wait hours on end at the airports before they can get a flight.

In the few minutes I have left I want to say that a lot has been said about planning in this debate. I want to appeal sincerely to the hon. the Minister to take a good look at the upper South Coast. This is my constituency and it is expanding at a tremendous rate. We see in the Budget that considerable amounts are being spent on quadrupling and building new lines, etc, to the gigantic Bantu township of Umlazi. I would like to point out that just south of Umlazi, through the Amanzimtoti/Kingsborough area, which is a big White complex which is growing extremely fast, there is the Umgababa Bantu resort. This is the only Black resort on the South Coast other than Turton. It is also the one closest to Umlazi where in the future some quarter of a million Blacks will reside. A bit to the south of Umlazi about one mile inland from Amanzimtoti station itself is KwaMakuta which is growing very fast. I can see, in the not too distant future, thousands of Blacks wanting to commute, especially on weekends and holidays, southwards from Umlazi to Umgababa. At present they are doing it by cars and buses. The roads are beginning to get congested and I believe there is a great need developing in this area. After all we have said about long-term planning I would like to make an appeal here this evening for the hon. the Minister to look at this one very Closely, because unless something is done right now to reserve some of the available space for suitable stations, etc. we will find that in the not too distant future they may have to pull down blocks of flats or some very large complexes in order to make space available to meet the needs of the commuting people in my constituency.

Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of replying to all the arguments raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I only want to say to him that judging by the tone he adopted at the beginning of his speech, he gave me the impression—and I am very sincere in this —that he was on the road to joining the Reformists. I am glad that he spoke in a more positive view towards the end of his speech. I am convinced the hon. the Minister will reply to him fully on the recommendations and ideas he expressed.

It has become customary in this debate for members to raise matters of a more local nature, but on this occasion, although it is at an advanced hour which one could really call injury time, I want to raised one aspect which is of more general importance. I realized that it may be a somewhat delicate subject, but I do feel that it is of such a nature that we ought to pay attention to it. I also want to mention that this matter has already been given attention in the letter page of our Press. I am referring to the custom of people smoking almost freely on the aircraft of the South African Airways. When a ban on smoking in our theatres and cinemas was introduced the following considerations applied: Firstly, there was the health aspect, secondly the fire risk and thirdly the inconvenience and annoyance it causes non-smokers. I think the same considerations apply to the same extent, if not to a larger extent, in regard to our aircraft. For instance, we have in mind the fire risk. Those of us who fly regularly know what fire risk there is on our aircraft. In the second place, we also know that in view of the provision of more seats on our aircraft, it is certainly inconvenient for any non-smoker to sit between two smokers, especially when one of them or both are smoking cigars! We do have air conditioning on our aircraft, but it is unfortunately a fact that the air conditioners are unable to clear the air of smoke satisfactorily. I am aware of the fact that certain sections of aircraft of overseas airways are specially earmarked for people who are smokers. I do not know whether it it practical to do the same on our aircraft and on the other hand we do not want to think in terms of a total prohibition either. I am convinced …

What about the wine drinkers?

The hon. member asks me what about the wine drinkers, but Sir, I think we should rather not discuss that matter in this debate! I am convinced that the hon. the Minister and his department are quite capable of devising a satisfactory solution in order to make the journey far more pleasant for the great many non-smoking passengers on the South African Airways.

How about taking a pinch of snuff?

Yes, we could possibly use a snuff box there, too.

Apart from the matter of general interest which I have raised, there are two minor requests I want to make to the hon. the Minister. Last year I asked in this House for a bicycle and pedestrian overhead bridge in my constituency. I did not receive my bridge and I do not intend asking for it again, because the hon. the Minister gave me a satisfactory answer. There is, however, another need in my constituency which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

I want to ask for a proper and efficient parcel office to be erected at Verwoerdburg. At the moment the office is accommodated in an unattractive, inefficient and also uncomfortable little building constructed of galvanized iron. This building is very old and it really detracts from the appearance of our station. The local community of Verwoerdburg increases at a rate of between 15% and 20% per year and our local business community tries to channelize as far as possible the goods traffic locally, and the facilities there do not really meet the demand any longer. In addition, it is also unpleasant to work in a building such as this in the Transvaal weather conditions— everyone is familiar with the heat and thunderstorms there. I also think it redounds to the credit of the local staff that they always succeed so well in rendering the service we require and to work under these conditions without complaining. I notice that a good deal of provision is being made in the present Estimates for similar improvements at other stations. In this way Kokstad will be getting approximately R15 200, Witbank R36 000 and Pinetown R9 200. [Interjections.] I trust that the hon. the Minister and his department will see their way clear to accommodating us in this respect as well.

There is one further matter which has been causing considerable problems in the constituency for many years and which is also the cause of continuous complaints from the public. This concerns the state of the unused site of the Railways in Verwoerdburg. In Verwoerdburg there is a reasonably large site which is situated next to the main road, which is the freeway to the East Rand. The site is overgrown with weeds every year and then becomes the dumping place of all kinds of waste paper and other rubbish. The local authority is not allowed to do anything on the site, because it is Railway property. The fact of the matter is that, every year, it becomes a really unpleasant sight, in the centre of the town. With all the heavy rains we have had this year and the weeds which have grown profusely as a result, one can expect the situation to deteriorate. I also realize that the Railways has certain problems in this connection, but I shall be glad if they will try and work out a formula to help us in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg made a very interesting suggestion here which I believe should be followed up. I do not know if he is a smoker himself, but I as a smoker would like to tell him that I would certainly support him. I know that we in this House sit for hour after hour listening to speeches and we are not allowed to smoke. I believe that we can do the same thing in aircraft as well. The hon. the Minister should give this matter some serious consideration.

I want to talk to the hon. the Minister about the railway passenger service at East London. I think that the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that in 1974 a bus boycott took place in the East London area when the Border Passenger Bus Service was boycotted by the Blacks who were living in Mdantsane. This bus service was granted by the Road Transportation Board some years ago and it serves the area between Mdantsane and East London where the major portion of the labour which is available at Mdantsane, is presently employed. The distances which are involved are some 20 kilometres from the central point of the bus service in Mdantsane, to areas in East London which are not widespread. At the time that the application was made to the local Road Transportation Board, there were certain other interested operators. The board itself decided that this operation should be given to one service only. In fact the Border Passenger Bus Service received a virtual monopoly of the right to run the passengers from Mdantsane down to East London. The railway services in that area, as far as passenger services are concerned, run from a small station called Mount Ruth and Mdantsane station itself into East London. It was found that these services were used very minimally and that it was not necessary therefore to run regular services along the railway line. The buses were of course far more popular than the railway services, because they ran into the heart of Mdantsane itself. They were nearer to the homes of the people who were employed and furthermore they ran more regularly and more frequently. This is understandable because of the fact that the railway terminals were far away from the homes of the majority of the people who were living in Mdantsane. The hon. the Minister knows full well the very drastic results of this bus boycott. The results to commerce and industry were serious and the harbour itself was affected by delays which were caused as most of the labour which was employed at the harbour came from Mdantsane. As a result congestion occurred in East London harbour itself.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.