Mr. Speaker, the only member on the other side of the House who tried to make out a case for the Minister not to increase tariffs was the hon. member for Maitland. As usual, he did his best, but in the process he stretched matters very far for the sake of his argument. He tried to convince us that the economic position of the Railways is largely due to the socio-economic services with which the Railways are burdened, and then made the wild allegation that it is as a result of National Party policy that the Railways are saddled with the socio-economic services today.

Devaluation.

That is not true; those are not the facts. The hon. member for Maitland knows as well as I do …

I did not say that.

Of course. I have read the hon. member’s Hansard in the meantime and he can read it himself. The hon. member must not try to get away from the fact that he said it. He knows just as well as I do that when the national transport service was established in 1910, it was written into the Constitution that the Railways would be required to provide certain services in the national interest. It is true that the socio-economic services which the Railways have to carry from year to year are becoming a great burden to the Administration. Nevertheless every Government, including every United Party Government before 1948, adhered strictly to the provisions of that section of the Constitution. No United Party Minister or United Party Cabinet ever lifted a finger to change it in any way, although National Party critics referred to these aspects before 1948 and said that it was time something was done about them. However, Mr. Sturrock opposed the thought of doing anything in this connection until the last United Party budget which he introduced in this House.

What have you done?

What have we done? I will tell the hon. member what we have done in a moment. Has it not been under the National Party Government, more specifically under Minister Ben Schoeman, that the Cabinet accepted the principle that under certain conditions, when it is in the national interest, the Railways can be subsidized with respect to certain tariffs? And now the hon. member asks what we have done about it! What did they do about it? What did any previous Government do about it? It is the National Government which is rectifying the matter. It is outrageous of the hon. member to be so blatant in his criticism of the Government and the present hon. Minister. Since the principle was accepted that in all cases where it is necessary for the Government to maintain low tariffs, the State is prepared to compensate the Railways for the difference between the actual service and tariffs which are applied to the traffic concerned, this principle has been systematically developed by the present Government and its Ministers. In this way we have come very far. It is a principle which is firmly established, a principle which has international support. I would like to quote a paragraph from an article which Edward Jaycox, head of the World Bank Railways Department, wrote in the Railway Gazette International. He said—

I agree with this whole-heartedly. This is the pattern and the policy which the Government is developing, and this is what the National Party did to relieve the Railways of the increasing burden of socio-economic services. We have come a long way. The Railways already receive a subsidy on the passenger transport to and from the resettlement areas.

Is that your policy?

Yes, that is our policy. The Saps never had a policy like that. It does not end there. The Government pays a subsidy on Railways rebates to border industries. Now the hon. member may say to me: “This, too, is done because of a consequence of the Government’s policy.” However, there is also a subsidy on Railway rebates on the transportation of maize for internal consumption. There is also a rebate on the transportation of agricultural lime, of fertilizer, of cattle threatened by drought. These are goods which must be transported under any Government and there is a rebate on them today. These days State aid is also given to exporters, in accordance with the Reynders Commission report, to enable them to maintain competitive and economic tariffs. It is highly necessary that we progress further and faster in this field. The hon. Minister gave his point of view in this respect in no uncertain terms during his budget speech. He intends moving faster in this respect.

I do not want this to stop at the State. It must be expanded to other sectors in our country, for example to organized agriculture. Over the years, because of the great expanse of South Africa, the Railways have rendered very valuable services to the farmers at a very reasonable price, in spite of the tirade of the hon. member for King William’s Town, a tirade which was highly uncalled for. In this respect the agricultural sector has been assisted over the years with low tariffs and, in most cases, unprofitable tariffs with the result that the Railways suffered a loss on the transportation of agricultural products, by road as well. It is not fair that this burden be laid on the Railways. While the hon. member for Maitland says: “We must do away with these uneconomic and social services, in respect of the transportation of livestock as well,” another member on the same side of the House says: “Look what the Minister is doing with these enormous increases in the tariffs on livestock”, and this while the Railways is recovering just a little more than 60% of the actual cost. I can tell the hon. member that the tariffs for livestock in Rhodesia were raised by 10% in 1973, by 100% in 1974 and at the beginning of the year they were once again raised by 10%. There are other forms of uneconomic services, including the passenger services, on which the Railways now suffer a loss of approximately R150 million per annum. A levy has now been imposed, and I want to know if the hon. member for Maitland expected that the Railways should continue to bear this immense loss. Passenger fares in England were raised by 87% in 1974 and by 12% this year.

You are off the track.

No, I am still on the track. It is that hon. member who is off the track. That is why he is putting up such a moan, because the random shot went home. Yesterday he waved his hands about and thought that no one on this side would go into these matters. Today he must swallow a bitter pill.

You are missing the point completely.

I will tell that hon. member what he is missing. It is on record that my complaints about socio-economic transport services are not a new line I am taking, now that it suits hon. members on the other side of the House. I have been taking a strong stand on this aspect for years. I have clearly expressed the opinion here that in my opinion, the Railways should not transport anything on which they cannot recover their direct cost at least, and I think the hon. members agree with me on that. However, I have not started to say this today; I have been saying it for many years. It is my opinion that if certain transport services have to be undertaken at a low tariff by the Railways in the interests of another sector, then the Railways must be compensated for this. This is in accordance with the Minister’s policy as well. Hon. members think that these matters can be rectified overnight, but they cannot. We have a tradition which dates from 1910, and this cannot be eliminated overnight. If we were to carry out the recommendations of the Schumann Commission today, as hon. members on the other side are asking in their ignorance, and eliminate all our uneconomic tariffs overnight, it would mean that passenger tariffs would have to be increased by 400% in order to cover the cost at least. Hon. members are talking through their hats, they are simply talking because they want to criticize and because their whole approach with respect to this budget is totally negative. Another matter which I have discussed here in the past and which I want to discuss again now is the necessity of making a positive suggestion for the Railways to rid itself of its burdens. If hon. members on the other side had only made an attempt to express a positive thought from their side, we could have made more progress by now. However, what have they done? They have merely made a fuss, and we are not one fraction nearer the solution of our problem. I would like to tell the hon. member what I have already said in the past concerning how the Railways’ burdens can be lightened. I have already mentioned what my standpoint is with respect to uneconomic social services.

I now want to deal with another aspect and this is the heavy burden of interest, the increasing burden of interest, which the Railway service must bear. I have already said in this House that I think the time is ripe for writing off all interest-bearing capital which is more than 50 years old. We must get rid of it, just as we got rid of the pre-Union interest-bearing capital which the Railways inherited in 1910. This could help to lighten the load of the Railways.

It is always the same old story, isn’t it?

The hon. member for Jeppe should rather keep out of this matter. If he wants to speak later on, he will have an opportunity. A third positive thought which I have expressed and advocated here is the indexing of railway tariffs, which would mean that there would be an annual average tariff increase in accordance with a certain inflation index. This would decrease the risk factor for the private sector and help them to plan more economically. It would mean that the tariff adjustment—on a yearly basis—would be lower and that it could be absorbed into the cost structure with less shock. It has advantages for the Railways as well. In particular, it has advantages for the Railways with respect to its trade policy and the cash flow of the organization, and, what is more, it will enable it to regulate the income of its staff and the income of its pensioners better than it can at the moment. The system which I am advocating today has its disadvantages as well and we will have to weigh these against the advantages which I have mentioned. One of them, in my opinion the most important, is that the resistance to inflation may be undermined because the private sector will tend to adapt their prices according to the increase in the tariffs. In this way a situation may arise where one has a kind of built-in inflation factor within one’s price structure. But we cannot simply dismiss this thought; we must pay attention to it.

Today I have another specific recommendation which I want to submit to the House. I want to refer to the very special influence which a strong Rates Equalization Fund for the Railways may have under such circumstances. It was not pleasant for the Minister to be faced with a fait accompli and to be forced, as it were, to increase tariffs, as he did in fact increase them. He did not do it because he wanted to. He simply had no other alternative. He made up this year’s deficit from the Rates Equalization Fund, but there was hardly enough money for this. Then he was forced to increase the tariffs. We have now learned a lesson from this budget, and we must remember it. The picture might have been completely different if the Railways had had a Rates Equalization Fund of approximately R250 million today, and this is a relatively small amount in comparison with the amounts with which the Railways work. Therefore I ask today that in the good days which lie ahead—and I am not so pessimistic as the hon. member for Durban Point and others who say that this is the end of the Railways—we should take the necessary precautions. There are better days ahead, and in those days, when the sun shines again—I say this to the hon. Minister and to the Railway Administration—we must inject money into our Rates Equalization Fund, money we can fall back on in times like these, in times when we do not want to increase tariffs.

What did the Opposition actually contribute from their side during the whole of yesterday, what positive action did they suggest to give the Minister an indication of how he may solve his problems? They made a terrible fuss and expressed a great deal of criticism, but without bringing us any closer to a solution. The hon. members on the other side expect, just like we do over here, that the Railways must always be ready to comply with all the requirements for transport. In times like these, therefore, we cannot emasculate the Railways, curtail its services or suspend services. The fact remains that if the Railways must do these things, and there is not sufficient money for it, the money must be found. In this respect the money has been found, through an increase in tariffs.

However, it was not necessary for hon. members to adopt such a totally negative attitude with respect to the budget. One hon. member after another tried to be a greater prophet of doom than the previous one. The hon. member for Durban Point cried out in the utmost despair: “I do not see a single ray of light ahead of me!”

If the hon. member had not been so obsessed with the tariff increases, he would have noticed the many good and excellent things in this budget, aspects of the budget of which every hon. member in this House may rightly be proud. There are things which the Railway Administration, the hon. the Minister, the Management and every staff member have every right to be proud of, achievements they can boast of.

Mention has been made here of the share which the Railways had in the historical bridge conference on 25 August last year, and I am pleased that the hon. member for Durban Point did give the Railways that little bit of credit when he referred to the fact that the Railway Administration had succeeded in continuing its railway service to Maputo on a practically normal basis during the past year. It is stated in this budget that one of these days, thanks to negotiations by the Railways, regular landings by aircraft of the S.A. Airways will take place at Abidjan on the Ivory Coast. This is an achievement; it is a ray of light we can see, is it not?

Mr. Speaker, this is not all. It is also said in the budget that the new harbour at Richards Bay will be opened within a few weeks. This is a milestone in the history of the S.A. Railways, because it is the first harbour which has been built since Union. However, this is passed over and no one says anything about it. It is great milestone, a great achievement, but not a single member, not even the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who comes from Natal, has bothered to mention it even in passing. He probably does not even know about it.

Sir, I can also refer to the success achieved by the Railways in the field of research. I refer specifically to the high-stability cross-anchor bogie design on goods trucks. Sir, this is a long term. But this achievement enables the Railways to have up to 200 ore trucks pulled by twelve diesel locomotives on a narrower railway line than is found in other Western countries, a train which is 2,25 km long. But this does not impress hon. members on the other side at all. To them it is nothing to write home about. [Interjections.] The section was built ages ago, but there have been new developments in connection with trucks. Sir, if we would only be a little more positive, we could praise the Railways for the contribution it has made to the combating of inflation, and we can also express particular appreciation towards the Railway staff for their responsible and controlled behaviour in withholding wage demands in spite of the fact that the consumer index has risen by 20% since they last had an increase. Now the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Maitland criticize the Railway staff. [Interjections.] I am still coming to that. I have not yet finished with the hon. member.

We on this side did not expect that hon. members on the other side would not criticize the increased tariffs. It is as plain as a pikestaff that the physical distribution of products represents an important element in the ultimate price which the client pays for it. It adds approximately 10% to the production costs on an average, in many cases up to 20% and 25%. The essence of what the hon. member for Durban Point said here is correct, namely that the tarriff increase will have an immensely far-reaching influence on the economy of the country, even though it represents only 1% of the national product and even though it has been exaggerated and dramatized out of all proportion here by the hon. members on the other side. It is also true, as the hon. member for Durban Point went on to say, that there will be shameless exploitation in that prices will be increased on the pretext that the transportation costs have necessitated it. This is so, and it does not help to warn against it. History has taught us that this has little or no effect.

But I now come to the main criticism of the hon. members on the other side, and I want to address myself in particular to the hon. members for Maitland, King William’s Town and Amanzimtoti, who tried to prove here that the loss in income, the deficit of the Railways, was due to factors over which the Railways did have control. I want to prove that this is not so. The first thing that the hon. members tried to do was to say that the Railways are not efficiently and well administered. Sir, I want to distantiate myself from that emphatically, and here I have the support of the hon. member for Orange Grove. He agrees with me that the administration of the Railways is efficient and excellent. [Interjections.] Sir, I say that the administration of the Railways is not only efficient, but far-sighted as well. You will remember, Sir, that last year the spear-point of the attack of the hon. members on the other side was directed at delays in the harbours.

We had a good case.

Yes, I will show you in a minute what a good case it was. You always think that you have a good case. At that time hon. members on the other side said that it was due to insufficient planning for the future. They said that the capacity of the harbours was too small, that there should be greater capital expansion in our harbours so that the harbours could handle all the traffic during times of pressure. What was the attitude of the Railway Administration at that time? Their attitude was that harbour expansion was an expensive undertaking and required much capital. Therefore the greatest care had to be taken in planning. It was also said that harbour expansion could not be based on peak traffic. It must be remembered that much of the cargo which arrives in our big harbours, especially in Durban, is cargo which would probably have gone through Mozambique’s harbours, and is probably of a temporary nature. Therefore one cannot enlarge harbours only to make provision for temporary cargo. Furthermore it was said that the possibility still existed that the Suez Canal might be opened again. Consequently it was felt that other plans should be made, and the Administration did devise a plan. It introduced a double shift system and eliminated the bottlenecks. Time has proved that the Railways were right in every respect and that hon. members on the other side were short-sighted and wrong, just as they are now.

Hon. members on the other side even tried to prove that the productivity of the Railways was not up to standard.

Who said that?

You said it. I am still dealing with you. The hon. member said that the productivity of the Railways was not up to standard. I deny that.

But who said it?

The hon. member made a terrible fuss about the increase in non-White staff and complained about the immense expansion of overtime and Sunday time. It is an indisputable fact, however, that the number of Whites employed by the Railways is still exactly the same today as it was five years ago, and in the meantime every branch of the service has expanded immensely!

What was it five years ago?

Does that not indicate high productivity? If I had not had so little time left, I could have gone into that further. In addition, the money which has been paid for overtime has not necessarily all been paid for more overtime which has been worked in recent times. The fact is that the Railways is experiencing a severe shortage of certain grades of staff, especially ticket examiners. For this reason the Railways must use clerks and people in higher salary groups to work on Sundays and overtime in order to keep the trains going. Naturally those people’s overtime and Sunday time are calculated on the higher salaries which they earn, and this of course pushes up the Sunday time and overtime. What would the hon. member like the Railways to do to keep the trains running after hours and on Sundays if they cannot do what they are doing now?

Who is talking about Sundays?

But the hon. member made such a fuss about R43 million more which was spent on overtime and Sunday time last year.

Did we have more Sundays then?

No, I said that no more Sunday time was worked. The overtime payments have increased simply because the people are paid at a higher rate of overtime, and the hon. member cannot understand this. I am afraid that my time has now expired.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parow spent half of his address dealing with matters where the Opposition completely agrees with him. Therefore that half of his address would have been better directed at the hon. the Minister. The whole question that arises here is not the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point is pessimistic.

It actually revolves round a statement made by the hon. the Minister himself when he introduced the budget against one of the gloomiest economic pictures that has ever been painted for us by the economic pundits on the Government side, more specifically by the Cabinet. This particular budget is the first Government budget that could give any credence at all to the anti-inflation campaign to which the Government is bound by its manifesto. We are here concerned with the hon. the Minister’s policy, and throughout all the addresses by this side of the House we have not in any way been critical of the actual details of the management of the Railways by the General Manager and his staff. We have concerned ourselves with what we regard as a budget that is going to play havoc with inflationary aspects in the economy. At this the first opportunity the Government has had to give some evidence of the part it is playing in the anti-inflation campaign, it imposes a series of increases which are going to keep the inflationary spiral soaring still higher and higher.

The hon. the Minister himself said: “In the absence of positive growth factors, as indicated by little or no increase in Government spending, no immediate prospects for an increase in consumer demand, a relatively weak balance of payments position, a high rate of inflation …”—he admits it—” … and no early boost for exports, the prospects of an early or vigorous recovery of the domestic economy are slim”. Let me say that this is the most damning exposition we have heard to date of the economic position. Does the hon. the Minister expect us to be jubilant over that particular attitude? Obviously, we must take notice of the fact that he is at least facing up to the situation. I am not terribly sure that, as other economists predict, the upsurge he expects towards the end of the year will in fact take place.

Let me just draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the responsibility which rested on him in presenting this budget. I read from the most recent publication of Assocom. This publication deals with inflation. I quote from it—

One need but look at the reports in Tegniek, the Afrikaans “nywerheidsblad”. This is a very important publication, in which it is stated that—

Furthermore, people like Dr. Chris van Wyk, managing director of Senbank, Mr. Hupkes, the assistant general manager of Federale Volksbeleggings, and others all specifically direct the attention of the country to the fact that it is the authorities that must ensure that they cut their coat according to their cloth in order to ensure that the rate of inflation does not increase. That is exactly what this brings about.

What are the facts? The facts of the situation are that leading wholesalers in the food, furniture and clothing fields have made statements that an increase in road and rail rates must lead to an increase in the price of commodities. They add: How much more will the consumer have to pay when the commodity reaches the hands of the retailer? The increased tariffs have been roundly condemned by most economic sectors, as I have indicated. These are facts. I do not intend dealing with the merits of the increases at this stage, but these are the facts. Leading trade unionists, industrialists and businessmen have expressed concern. They say that everything must go up and that the man in the street will have to foot the bill.

The most important fact to remember is that, while all sections of the public will be affected, the hardest hit are going to be the people in the lower income groups, such as the Africans, the Coloured people, the Asians and the lower wage earners, including those Railway employees who start off at the lowest possible stage within the Railways with a starting salary of R200 a month. Professor Beyers, chairman of the South African Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council, is amongst those who have expressed the greatest concern at the wide effects which this particular budget will have. Mr. Hope Hughes, president of the Housewives’ League, has also expressed grave concern. Is it any wonder, then, that the Opposition should at least voice the concern felt by the public right across the board from businessmen and industrialists to housewives? Everyone is concerned about what is going to happen in the field of inflation. I repeat, these are facts. Furthermore, what is the situation going to be when we receive the Post Office budget and, within a few weeks’ time, the main budget, if this forecasts the example which is going to be set to the public by the State as to how it is going to deal with inflation? The question that arises is how the Minister is to meet his problems with regard to the Railways. This is his difficulty. The Railways must obviously continue operating, and the lifeblood of the country’s transport system must be maintained. The hon. the Minister is faced with the problem of how he is to meet this situation.

The hon. the Minister stated in the course of his speech that he has initiated a system of management development and has also provided in his budget for a job evaluation. To this he has devoted R20 million. However, no details at all were given by the hon. the Minister in order that we may have some idea of what is taking place. The difficulty that faces us is this: What means have to be employed in order to keep the Railways operating and maintaining its basic activities and at the same time to ensure that the costs do not rise? This is what we would like to know. Why has the hon. the Minister not told us that? Why have the losses increased? Is it because of the uneconomic services? Is it because of a lack of efficiency? I am simply posing these questions; I am not alleging anything. Is it because of a lack of productivity, or because of an unsatisfactory use of manpower? Surely, the hon. the Minister has an obligation to explain all these factors to us in presenting the budget, instead of simply reading out a series of facts such as percentage increases and telling us that, if A and B add up to C, he must provide the full amount of C, even if he has to increase last year’s figures. It is a well-known principle that all passenger traffic throughout the world is run as a subsidized service to the community. In fact, if one looks at local authorities, one will perhaps find the position illustrated more clearly, because the figures involved are much simpler. For instance, when I was recently in Germany I found in the city of Stuttgart, I think, that they were spending as much as R20 million or 60 million German marks a year in subsidizing the passenger transport in that city. Johannesburg subsidizes its passenger transport to the extent of R6 million. However, the Cape Town transport system, which is privately run, is able to pay a dividend. That leads me to the next point.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with his cost reorientation and his endeavour, which we all support, to put the Railways in the position that it can maintain its undertakings economically. That is the objective. However, the hon. the Minister forgets that he is running a monopoly and, with that monopoly, he is not meeting all the important economic principles that apply to free enterprise, to the competitive system in the country. It is very easy to manage a monopoly. If you find you are short of money, you find that money somewhere, especially if the State is backing you in this manner. Therefore we expect very much more from the hon. the Minister than merely a story of his shortcomings and how he has to meet them. We want to know what steps he has taken and where he sees his bottlenecks and difficulties in the financial field, difficulties which he must meet and try to overcome.

The hon. member for Parow correctly raised the question of the interest paid on capital that has been used over many, many years and that is still being sought year by year. The hon. member for Maitland correctly reminded him that this matter was raised by this side of the House a year or two ago …

Many years ago.

Yes, many years ago. At that time we asked that some solution should be found in order to try to meet this particular problem. The increase in interest payable on loans amounts to more than R80 million in the present estimates. The Railways itself, as opposed to harbours, pipelines and Airways, has a loss of R55 million of which R50 million is in respect of the increase in interest payable on loans. This is an immediate indication of something which sticks out like a sore thumb or as the hon. member for Parow says, “soos ’n paal bo water”. That is what we have here. [Interjections.] Hundreds of millions of rand are year by year required for interest payments and this has a very crippling effect on the Railways.

I want to put another fact to the hon. the Minister. In this time of anti-inflation campaigns the capital requirements estimated for the coming year have, according to the estimates, increased by R180 million, which is a considerable sum of money when one realizes that it has jumped from R679 million to R862 million. This in itself has brought an additional R80 million in interest to be repaid. In addition it brings with it other costs because with new works, the need for further maintenance arises. It brings with it a host of other factors which contribute to increasing costs in the Railways.

We on this side of the House have not attacked the hon. the Minister for trying to meet his budget, but we attack him from a policy point of view because he seeks to increase capital spending and because of his failure to take away the subsidization which the Railways provides from its inner strength in its maintenance of uneconomic services and socio-economic services which are uneconomic although they are essential. We suggest that those services should be provided for from the coffers of the Consolidated Revenue Fund where the burden rightly belongs. If these costs are met from funds out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it will mean that this burden will not be the responsibility of a mass of people of whom probably 40% or 50% are in the lower income groups. The burden will then be carried by the general taxpayers who must be taxed in order to provide a service to the whole of the community. The taxpayers in the various strata of earnings will then be called upon to give support and to provide the necessary funds in order to maintain the service. That is a reasonable approach when we have to ensure that we render services of that nature.

Where it is intended to rationalize a tremendous undertaking of this nature, you must go through with it and not just attempt a degree of rationalization and stop there, or take a bite at the cherry year by year. I think that is where the crux of our trouble lies. Just to make one final reference to what the hon. member for Parow said, may I point out that I often wonder whether people do not stop for a moment to pay the highest tribute to the management because it has to manage one of the most remarkably complex undertakings of the country. On other economic principles it may not be unwise to consider dividing this particular industry into separate departments of Railways, Airways, Harbours …

That is an old topic.

It may be an old topic but it is of necessity becoming a true one because it is impossible to stand on a little pin point and manage a base which is nation-wide. The basic laws of economics demand that there must be some division of labour and some division of effort. It will also give a greater opportunity to take a closer look at certain areas which can of themselves engender what is required to bring about a more efficient administration, greater productivity, more satisfied employees and an entirely better standard for everyone. That is what we are looking for. We have said in our amendment to the hon. the Minister’s motion that this Bill be read a Second Time that we want to ensure that the burden is placed on the right shoulders. These uneconomic services must be placed on the shoulders of the State and taken away from the Railways, which will ensure that it can survive as an economic unit. That is one of the factors. At the same time it should be done in order to make use of all the important principles of free enterprise to ensure that the Railways is not run as a State monopoly only but, protected as it is from a capital point of view by the State, that it is run in such a way that it becomes a viable undertaking which can take its place among other economic undertakings in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppe said at the beginning of his speech that he would not elaborate much on the merits of the budget. I want to give him all due credit for having succeeded in being on his feet for only 15 minutes and only having been able to do this.

We have already progressed reasonably far with the budget debate and in fact it has been discussed over and over again. I remember that the hon. member for Maitland said yesterday that the hon. the Minister had come up with a new word, “rationalization”, which he did not understand at all. Seeing that the debate as such has covered the same ground so often, I should like to confine myself to this aspect and briefly discuss the rationalization of Railway activities in general and, in more detail, the development of the Railways as a multi-medium transport organization and the economy of the various services within that framework. I should also like to elaborate on the rationalization of Railway tariffs and furthermore on the rationalization of the management structure of the Railways.

The hon. the Minister made it very clear in his budget speech that it was the aim of the Railways to move towards an autonomous multi-medium transport organization in the long term. It is clear that the Railways should not, as in the past, be regarded in the narrower sense of a railway organization. This necessarily makes it essential, within such transport organization, that the various transport media should be reasonably independent of one another financially so that each service can pay for itself as far as possible. In this respect I want to agree with what the hon. member for Parow had to say. Not only should the harbours pay for themselves, but the Airways and the pipe-lines, too, should not display too large a surplus. When the Railways enters a new business field, as is the case with containerization, that new business must be able to stand on its own two feet and should not expect another sector within the service to subsidize it. Our ideal should therefore be that cross-subsidization be kept to a minimum. It will be necessary over the long term to be able to reach that position from where we are today, because such a step would have an enormous influence on the economy of the country and on price structures as such. Therefore we would not be able to eliminate the whole principle of cross-subsidization overnight, and I even wonder whether we would ever be able to eliminate it completely. If we were to express an opinion based upon the present state of affairs, then it would seem that the harbours and the pipe-lines should offset the deficits which might occur on passenger services. However, it is also being stated that goods pay for the losses on passenger services. As the hon. member for Durban Point expresses it: Goods are the goose that lays the golden egg.” That statement is completely incorrect.

No, I said high-rated traffic was the goose.

I say this is incorrect, because the high and low-rated goods result in the goods traffic as such remaining more or less in a state of equilibrium. The hon. member for Durban Point further stated that tariffs should be rationalized, but that uneconomical services—I believe he had passenger services in mind in particular—should be subsidized. Such a concept, however, is not quite sound. If we were to find ourselves today in the situation where compensation was granted for passenger deficits and we were to receive a subsidy, the amount received by way of subsidy could not be applied to afford relief in regard to goods tariffs in the process of rationalization, because within the goods set-up one is, after all, in a state of equilibrium. If one were to rationalize, as the hon. member advocates, this would result in one having, in the first instance, to lower the tariff for pipe-lines and harbours. However, the question is whether, in view of the fuel saving effort, we should effect a drastic decrease in the price of this commodity because this could possibly lead to a much higher rate of consumption of the commodity.

Is this not a means of production?

When we look at the results of working, we get the impression that harbours are in the position of having enormous surpluses. From that we could infer that harbours do in fact assist in financing uneconomical services. The situation of enormous surpluses in respect of harbours is fictitious. The considerable capital expenditure on containerization which, as indicated in the budget, will amount to a total of R375 million by the end of 1979, will necessarily have a detrimental effect on the profit situation of harbours, because a certain introductory period for the utilisation of the capacity is necessary before one can strive for a profit again. Therefore, the advantages of the services extend over a much longer term. In the meantime the position in the harbours is that a considerable capacity for conventional cargo does in fact exist, but that initially it cannot be used for anything else.

The point is that the surplus on our Harbour Account is not the result of exploitation of a monopolistic situation, but is the result of the fact that capital assets which were provided decades ago, were still reasonably cheap. The capital investments over a long period of time in the new harbour at Richards Bay, the extension of the harbour capacity in Table Bay, at Durban and at other places, are by their nature additional factors which tend to inhibit the profit situation in harbours. The results reflected by the harbour accounting today, are only only in respect of wharf operations on the marine side of the harbours. On the land side it is goods traffic which goes towards the goods service account. One would like to see everything that goes on in the harbour area being treated as a whole so that one can know the exact influence of that part of harbour activities which is not revealed in the Harbour Account, on the profitability of harbours. It would be unsafe to judge according to the present profitability of harbours. One would first like to see the harbour account as a whole and also wait a while to see what the effect of Richards Bay, of further capacity and of containerization would be on the trading results. Should there appear to be a larger profit situation over a longer term, then there would really be a case to be made for the reduction of harbour tariffs.

I have analysed the profit situation of the one section simply to indicate that the mere mentioning of the profit creates an incomplete image. The same goes for the Airways, where much capital is spent to create additional capacity which can only be exploited profitably over the long term. However, in respect of the Airways, other aspects of division also exist in regard to which we do not have clarity yet. The Railways are still performing certain warehouse services and personnel work for the Airways. It is also a fact that the pro rata costs of top management are not yet debited against the Airways Account. This is the same as in the case of the harbours.

In the Railways itself there are various sectors, among others the goods service, which, as I have indicated, are normally in a situation of balance or show a slight surplus. There is coal, which is showing a loss, but which, with the adjustment of tariffs, will again be in a surplus situation. While on the subject of coal, we should bear in mind that with the problem of Cabora Bassa which has suddenly cropped up, the electricity supply from that source will be coming at a later stage than was initially estimated and this will result in coastal power stations having to make use of coal to a much greater extent than in the past. This means that in the coming winter period the Railways will have to convey approximately 20% more coal to allow for the generation of electricity. The Railways are prepared for such a crisis situation. We only hope the mines will be in a position to produce sufficient coal.

A further aspect concerning Railways is the question of livestock. Here the problem is that the covering of costs is so low that the ordinary cost increases have an enormous influence on the profitability of those sectors. Because the matter has already been discussed at great length, I do not want to dwell on it.

To my mind, our biggest problem is that relating to passenger services where tremendous losses are incurred. Parcel services again are in a surplus situation. I want to concede to it that there is no indication of the extent of the surplus. Because parcel wagons form part of passenger trains, one can say that the two services should actually be seen as one, in other words, that the surplus on parcel traffic can be credited against passenger losses, as a result of which passenger losses could be substantially diminished.

To say that the Treasury, the Government, should offset the R148 million on passenger losses is not the whole truth. The Government should only compensate for that which it considers essential in the social and political interest. After all, the Railways cannot decide for the Government precisely where the line of division lies. The only thing the Railways can do, is to carry out thorough market research in respect of passenger services, something which it is in fact doing at the moment. It should then approach the State with this in a selective manner. The Railways could then say to the Government that the particular service which it renders, would never be economical, and ask whether the Government considered the service too essential. The moment the answer to this is positive, the Railways can rightly say that they want compensation for this.

I have tried to sketch the movement of the different transport services towards financial autonomy. However, this should not, as the hon. member for Jeppe has just done, and has been advocated by the Opposition through the years, be extended to management autonomy. Basically the accounting of the different sections is already separate. However, as I pointed out when I dealt with the question of harbours, a need does in fact exist for a further financial separation within the sectors. The main reservation is still that the overall connection within one transport organization should continue to exist. There are enormous advantages in the system of rationalization, as is also clear from the budget speech. In this way more passengers can be attracted to the Airways, which can transport them at a profit. On the other hand the Railways passengers, who are conveyed at a loss, are attracted away. This rationalization could only take place if there was financial separation and if it could take place within the context of a greater transport organization, because within the framework of that umbrella organization one could do some manipulating of tariffs and benefits. That, then, was a brief survey of the economy of the services. In respect of the rationalization of railway tariffs, the facts are revealed very clearly by this budget, and one need only underline a few of them. In order to strive for a multi-medium transport organization, the Railways will have to be prepared to operate on a freer basis of competition in the transport market. This is the essence of the investigation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Road Transport Bill. To enable the Railways to compete, it would be necessary for the three prerequisites which the hon. the Minister stated in the budget to be met. One of the most important prerequisites is that the Railways should be granted the opportunity to make its tariffs competition-orientated, and to enter into a competitive situation the tariffs would have to be as close as possible to the costs. This is what the budget seeks to do throughout.

If I may point out the philosophy of this estimate, then it is in fact the effort which it makes to lessen the gap between tariffs and costs and the striving for equalization of the services with due allowance for the influence this would have on the economy of the country and the cost structure of the country. It would have been the simplest, and seemingly the easiest method for the hon. the Minister to increase all tariffs across the board by 11,2%, because then we would have been able to obtain the necessary revenue and this would probably have had the least detrimental effect. On the other hand he could have decided not to increase the high rates any further, but to increase the low rates by 50%, 60% or 70%. This would also have given an average of 11,2%. Because these low tariff goods consist mainly of raw materials, such an increase could, in the nature of the matter, have had extremely detrimental effects on the economy of the country. I would like to demonstrate this to hon. members by means of an example. After the producer, the Railways, for argument’s sake, add R100 to a raw material as increased railage. The producer automatically places a profit percentage of R30 on that increased cost, the wholesale dealer adds his bit and the retail dealer, too, adds his profit to this increased cost. This is precisely what causes the inflationary influence on the economy of the country. It is not primarily that first R100 tariff increase; it is the profit-taking on increased tariffs. I believe it is urgently necessary that a request be made to commerce and industry—I do not regard myself as having a high enough status to make that request, possibly the hon. the Minister will do this—not to use these increased tariffs as a money spinner. There is simply no reason why the increased railage on a carton of 12 gross of stockings, which will now cost R1 more in railage, should lead to an increase of 5% per pair of stockings. This provides an additional profit of R85,40 or 854% for that dealer, and this is to cover increased costs of R1 per carton.

The last method which the hon. the Minister can adopt—and this is what he in fact did—is to strive to achieve a situation of equilibrium as regards a tariff increase which tends towards greater cost orientation, but not too much, with due consideration of the national economy. In this process the hon. the Minister did not merely differentiate. He also differentiated within the tariff classes in respect of distances, because higher expenses are paid over longer distances than is the case over shorter distances. For instance we find that for tariff class A there is an increase of 15% over long distances as against a mere 4% over medium distances. It will never be possible to place long distances on a cost basis, because if this were to happen, we in the Cape would have a miserable time of it. Lastly, with regard to this aspect, I want to put forward the suggestion that the biggest hurdle for the Railways, in a free competitive situation, would be the fact that it is forced by law to publish or make public all tariffs. We shall really have to devote attention to placing the Railways in a position where they can give their official at the forwarding point a margin with which to bargain. However, this is too wide a subject to be dealt with briefly.

This brings me to my last idea, namely the rationalization of the management structure of the Railways. The rationalization process which, as I have indicated, is taking place in various fields in the Railways, can only be of value to the Railways in any way if the Railways has the high quality staff at its disposal necessary to run and extend the autonomous multi-medium transport organization in a freer competitive situation in future. Human resources are the most valuable of all resources and everything should be done to develop this to the maximum, especially in respect of quality. In respect of the more junior staff, the Railways continued last year with their rationalization process and afforded salaried status to all staff members who did not yet enjoy that status. This placed them on a wage structure which involves long-term advantages for them as well for the Railways.

While the Railways were able to carry out the rationalization among the junior staff, nothing was done about the structure and the level of the top grades of the staff. It is this very group which, to me, is of the utmost importance, because the success of the organization is closely wound up with the quality of the men at the top of the hierarchy. South Africa and the Railways can today be proud of our men in the top echelons of the Railways. By means of a sophisticated selection process the Railways has ensured that the best available people were appointed to the management posts. This is only one side of the matter. The Railways will have to do everything in their power to keep those men. In future, management posts will to an increasing extent be occupied by younger men whose market ability is extremely high on the labour market today. We have from time to time had the privilege of working with some of these superb young men, and I take the liberty of saying today that we shall have to do everything in our power to keep those young men, should the Railways have to move towards freer competitive situation. The complexity of our present-day management technology, especially in an organization with the tremendous extent of the Railways, is of such a nature that specialists will have to be obtained on a very wide basis, even if it is necessary to attract people to senior posts from outside the Railways. However, they would then have to be retained. My argument is not theoretical, because at present there is already a serious erosion of the senior, and usually the most outstanding, staff of the Railways. The only solution to this problem is to adapt the structure and the level of top management to the requirements which multi-medium organization of this kind demands. In other words, the topmost levels of the structure should be strengthened so that the delegation of powers can take place much more easily, especially on the administrative and financial level, because when one broadens one’s base—and to me this is of cardinal importance—this should result in the due formulation of future policy directions and the planning of priorities receiving more attention in this way. Now it is difficult to establish definite guidelines in all respects, but when one compares the salaries of the chief executives of our State Corporations with those of the General Manager of the Railways, it becomes clear to one how far the Railways has lagged behind in this respect. Last year I urged that urgent attention be given to this and I want to repeat that plea this year, and I want to do so on the basis of a comparison between the private sector and the Railways, which to my mind portrays this backlog very clearly.

According to an authoritative report on the salary structures of South African firms during 1975, it appears that firms with an average staff of 250, a turnover of R10 million, capital assets of R5 million and an annual salary account of R1 million, pay their chief executives the same salary as the General Manager of the Railways is paid today. On the other hand we find that the Railways have a staff of 252 000, or 1 000 times as many, that they have a turnover of more than R2 milliard, or 200 times as much, that they have capital assets of more than R6 milliard, or 120 times as much, and that they have an annual salary account of almost R1 milliard, or 1 000 times as much. This gives us an indication of how unbalanced the situation is. Now I want to concede at once that I am not arguing that the staff in the public sector should receive salaries comparable to those of their opposite numbers in the private sector, but it is hardly possible to justify the imbalance which exists today. Sir, the Railways should be self-supporting. It should find its own revenue to cover its expenses. The Railways is now moving in a free competitive situation; in other words it will not be able to replenish its revenue from ever-increasing tariffs if it is not competitive. To enter this situation of free competition will not only mean that the Railways will have to rationalize to a greater extent in most areas, but that the people who will have to perform this task will have to be looked after at all times. This we will be able to do most successfully by adjusting the structure and the level of top management closer to the requirements of a multi-medium transport organization.

Mr. Speaker, there is much in what the hon. member for Tygervallei has said with which we in these benches find ourselves in agreement. The credit which is given to the top management of the S.A. Railways, especially in this very difficult international situation, and his general appeal for rationalization, follow very much along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He also referred to the possibility of separating the accounting departments within each of the operational areas of the Railways, so that a balance is kept between income and expenditure. We would approve of this, as we would of the suggestion that where the Railways on a particular service is operating in the national interest but is compelled to operate at a loss, that loss should be identified and should come out of general revenue. In these areas there is general agreement, as also is there agreement with the hope that the commercial people and industrialists, are not going to use the occasion of the increase in rail tariffs to add anything more on to the general cost of their products than the actual net increase of the rail tariffs. In these areas we find ourselves in very substantial agreement with the hon. member. One could not help getting the feeling, however, that the hon. member, like all the other hon. members on that side, with perhaps one exception, has tried to underplay the impact of this budget and the fact that this budget, whatever justification there may be for it on the Minister’s side, is disastrous as far as the collective action campaign to combat inflation is concerned. Not only will there be the direct effect of tariff and fare increases, but there is the psychological effect of the Government giving the lead in these increases. There can be no doubt that these two impacts on the general public are going to start an upward spiral of prices once 1 April is reached, and we have the actual fares and tariffs introduced.

Mr. Speaker, I want to use the few moments at my disposal to change the subject of the debate to something of a more specialized kind, a regional matter, which because of its importance also has national implications. I raise it at this stage in the Second Reading in order that the matter can be thoroughly discussed and returned to again in the Committee Stage. That is the whole question of Railway forward planning and Railway extensions in the Cape metropolitan area, taking into account the guide plan and the work that is being done in the field of decentralization within the Cape metropolitan area. There is no doubt that the Cape metropolitan area is an area with special problems, aggravated perhaps because of the lack of decision-making on the part of the central Government and on the part of regional and planning authorities. But now certain decisions have been made. I think the Minister is aware of these decisions in the field of urban decentralization. I am disappointed at the apparent lack of priority which has been given to the Railways’ part in these decentralization ventures in the Western Cape.

It is against this background that I want to look at the Railways’ part in this, particularly as regards the three essential problems of the Cape Western Region. First of all, there is a major shortage of housing, and particularly of Coloured housing. There is a shortage of 55 000 units, nearly 300 000 people are not properly housed. That is the one factor which will have a very definite bearing on Railway forward planning. The second problem is one of growth. Here we have in a very confined area a population of 1 million people which, by the turn of the century, is going to double to 2 million people. The third problem we have is that of space. Hemmed in by the sea on one side and the mountains on the other, there is this problem of space, and the question of land on which to put the people. These have resulted in certain decisions being taken, decisions to try to decentralize within the major urban complex. Whenever one goes for decentralization involving significant numbers of people who have to be rehoused, and one has added to that a decentralization of industry, then effective public transport for both goods and materials becomes an absolutely vital factor in the success of that decentralization programme. When one adds to that a very special set of circumstances affecting the Railways in the Cape Peninsula, namely the topography of the Cape Peninsula, it results in a situation that in a narrow corridor between the mountain and the sea you have to have an enormous volume of traffic coming to the central business district in an area which has been developed as an urban area over the past 250 years.

There are the three problem areas which one can identify. First of all, there is a bottleneck in the old Maitland-Salt River-Woodstock-Cape Town corridor. That is problem area No. 1. Secondly, there is the problem area of the decentralization which is taking place in the Cape Flats, and in particular at Mitchell’s Plain and the provision of Railway services to those areas. Thirdly, there is the decentralization which is taking place right now up along the west coast axis to Atlantis or Dassenberg and beyond. These are the three identifiable problem areas in so far as the provision of railway transport services is concerned.

Sir, may I make some comments on what I call the bottleneck area? I am pleased to note, although it is three or four years overdue, that the Minister has now defined certain long-term projects which the Railways have in mind. There is the quadrupling of the railway line from Maitland to Salt River, the sixfolding of the line from Salt River to Cape Town and the rebuilding of a number of stations. I think this is in fact three or four, and perhaps five, years late. I am disappointed, having got the good news that on the estimates there is going to be the figure of R40 million for this purpose, that the bad news follows, that in the coming financial year only R100 is going to be spent. I just hope that the Railways and the Minister will increase the priority rating which this work deserves within the total budget available for capital expenditure. I hope that the Railways, because there has been a lack of decision-making, not on their part, but on the part of the central Government and regional planners, is now going to share with the Cape metropolitan area a new sense of urgency to get on with the job of decentralization and of housing and transport that go with it.

The hon. the Minister is well aware that the Mitchell’s Plain scheme is under way and that on the 11th of this month the hon. the Prime Minister will open the scheme. The hon. the Minister is aware that within seven years there are going to be some 50 000 commuters, 50 000 people wanting transport into Cape Town from Mitchell’s Plain. He is also aware that he is unable to provide that service unless he can clear at least the bottleneck at Salt River. The question of eliminating this bottleneck, to accommodate both the west coast development and the Mitchell’s Plain development, is an absolute priority as far as the Railways in this part of the country is concerned.

I want to turn to the Cape Flats and Mitchell’s Plain problem areas. Let me say, first of all, that the existing service leaves very, very much to be desired. I do not think that the Minister, or even his department, is very pleased or proud of the standard of service which is provided at the moment to the Cape Flats. There is undoubtedly overcrowding of trains, especially on the line to Nyanga, and there is overcrowding at the station, especially at the station of Nyanga. There are too many unhappy reports in the Press, confirmed by the department, that there has been a breakdown from time to time of the supervision and the policing either on the trains or at the station. I want to raise in particular the ugly events of a few weeks ago, the events which were reported extensively in the Press, when people were molested on the train from Cape Town to Nyanga. This has had a rippling effect, with people jumping out at stations, the train being stoned at Bonteheuwel, the train being attacked at Netreg and then proceeding to Nyanga, where the fracas continued. The Police, who had been alerted, had to intervene. Nevertheless, some people were shot and others injured. This not only created a violent situation, but I think the hon. the Minister is also aware that it has had ugly racial overtones. The department and especially the local superintendent of Railways, acted very correctly. He immediately called a conference of the people concerned. He was quite correct in having a meeting with the citizens of Guguletu and Nyanga and also having a meeting with the citizens of Bonteheuwel and Heideveld. I want to commend him, as I think it was the correct approach, but what I would like to know from the hon. the Minister is what action has resulted from that. What action has resulted from the inquiry which he said that he was going to have, and after discussions which had taken place between the Railway authorities and representatives of the passenger and commuter communities? On the Cape Flats, because of a number of social economic factors, a high level of intolerance is building up. There are socio-economic factors which create, what some people call, a tinderbox area. The Railways and public transport companies, whether they are public or rail transport or bus companies, are always the target in an area where there is a concentration of people with a high level of frustration.

The Railways should go out of its way to eliminate any possibility of violence, especially if that violence could extend into an interracial conflict amongst sections of the South African community. I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us of the results of the discussions and the specific action which the Railways is taking in relation to that line and the stations along its route.

This leads one immediately to the Mitchell’s Plain situation because the line from Mitchell’s Plain is going to go into the Nyanga line. Although long-term improvements have been planned, we want to know from the hon. the Minister whether this added commuter population is not going to aggravate the position, especially at the connection between the line from Mitchell’s Plain at Nyanga. The original line was to go to Mnandi and Strandfontein. R6 million has been set aside for the first section as far as Mitchell’s Plain, and another R7 million for the second section. I want to know whether the schemes now under way, those referred to in the hon. the Minister’s speech, are in fact the schemes referred to in the original Railway Board’s report of 1974, which shows the line going to Mitchell’s Plain being extended to the African beach at Mnandi and then on to Strandfontein. I would also like to know whether the extension to Strandfontein—I know he is not proceeding with it now—has in fact been dropped altogether. I have raised this, because I believe that to drop a proposed railway line to any of the coastal resorts set aside for our Black population, our Coloured and African population, would be a very bad retrogressive decision. It is desperately important, not only to provide the transportation for people to get to their homes and to work, but in the crowded and frustrated circumstances in which those people live, I believe that it is desperately important to provide cheap accessible public transport to the hundreds of thousands of people, mostly of the lower income group, already living in the Cape Flats, to make it possible for them to have access to the beach amenities which are being provided along the False Bay coast.

The hon. the Minister may have heard of the situation last summer. The Railways were not directly involved but as Minister of Transport he will be concerned about the fact that the bus transport could simply not cope to get people there and it could also not cope to get the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people back again from these beach amenities to the areas within which they live. I want to stress that the provision of cheap public transport to beach amenity areas has become a priority as far as the Cape Flats is concerned.

Although the Mitchell’s Plain scheme is proceeding and an amount of R2 million has been provided for in the Railway estimates for the coming year, it is already behind. Already the houses are being built, and in fact certain houses are being sold, but the absence of effective public transport, whether it be buses or whether it be the rail transport—the Railways are the prime source of public transport for people who have to commute daily to the city—is having a negative effect on the whole scheme. The city council has completed 300 houses and has under way an extensive sales campaign to sell these houses. In spite of the brochures and the money they have spent, they have managed to sell only 47 out of the 300. I believe that, inter alia, lack of public transport and lack of railway facilities which were promised to be on time for Mitchell’s Plain, are having a negative impact on the development of that scheme. I would like the hon. the Minister to give this House an assurance that the Railways are going to improve its performance as far as the Mitchell’s Plain line is concerned.

I finally want to come to the West Coast— Atlantis line. If I have expressed disappointment at the slowness of the original decision to relieve the bottleneck at Woodstock-Salt River and my disappointment at the slowness in providing the Mitchell’s Plain service, let me say that I am absolutely astounded that in this budget there is no provision for any rail service to Atlantis, not even a long-range scheme. I am amazed that the hon. the Minister of Transport has made no reference in his budget speech to the question of a line up the west coast, and in particular to the new peri-urban growth point at Atlantis. As far as Atlantis is a decentralization project, it needs rail transport, both passenger and goods—I want to emphasize that—to attract industry and the people to that new area. Secondly, in so far as Atlantis is going to be a dormitory suburb, or a dormitory area for metropolitan Cape Town, it will require passenger service to take the tens of thousands of commuters who will be commuting daily 45 km from Atlantis to the industrial and commercial areas of Cape Town. If you are going to have schemes like that, you will have to provide the transport. Transport is an essential part of the infrastructure, and I want to know from the hon. the Minister: What is he going to do this year as far as transport to Atlantis is concerned? What about the schemes which have already been announced? “Dassenberg kry treinspoor uit die Kaap”—an announcement by the former Minister of Planning and the Environment.

Mr. Loots het gesê dat die behoefte aan ’n dienslyn ontstaan het in die lig van die plan om die gebied vir swaar nywerhede in die omgewing van Mamre en Dassenberg te ontwikkel. Met die oog op die langter-mynplanne, het die Spoorweë besluit om voorkeur te gee aan die spoorlyn tussen Chempet en Dassenberg.

Mr. Speaker, there is no provision for this in the budget, although the hon. the Minister of Planning announced in November last year that the Government was going to give preference to this scheme. I believe that the hon. the Minister realizes that there is a need for these services. His department has been present at nearly all the planning meetings in relation to Atlantis and Dassenberg. They have been represented on the Dassenberg Development Committee and on the Western Cape Liaison Committee. They will be fully aware of the need, and I believe that they are jointly responsible for the decisions that were taken in principle, that railway services should be provided. The brochure that has been published about Dassenberg says:“On the plateau will be a central business district with through passenger and railway commuter stations. Also on the outskirts will be huge marshalling yards to serve the industrial areas, with a goods station based conveniently near the commercial zones of the central business district.”

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. the Minister is aware that this transportation is needed for industry. It is needed to get people to the Atlantis area, but it is also needed because, at its most optimistic, the planners believe that 58% of the working population of Dassenberg or Atlantis are going to work in Cape Town. This is the plan for the development of that area, and within 3½ years from the end of this budget period there will be a need for eight trains going in and out of Dassenberg. At the turn of the century there will be a need for 50 trains and six railway lines.

It will happen!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member over there says:“It will happen.” Mr. Speaker, the houses are being built and people are moving in. The factories are nearly ready to open. I believe that the hon. the Minister must tell us what has happened. There is provision for the electrification of the line from Table Bay to the line from Kensington to Chempet and there is also provision for doubling and electrifying the line to Chempet. But Chempet is at the Caltex oil refinery. It is still 35 km from Chempet to Dassenberg! If this is urgent, if the planners agreed that it had to be, why is it not in this budget?

The hon. the Minister has an obligation towards the people who have been sold houses on the basis of an authoritative brochure which says that there is going to be this service.

Who is talking about authoritative brochures now? What about Anglo-American’s marina at Muizenberg? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, he also has to do it on the basis of a statement by the hon. Minister J. J. Loots, who said priority was being given by the Government—not by some other outside authority, but by the Government—for this purpose. I therefore believe that it is essential that the hon. the Minister explains to us what his proposals are for the line up the west coast, and in particular, what he is going to do to see to it that adequate rail transport—and by that I mean passenger and goods transport—is made available to the people of Atlantis. I believe that, unless he does this, there is going to be great difficulty in getting the project off the ground as a growing industrial area. What is more, there are going to be even greater difficulties in respect of growth at the rate which is required of Atlantis if it is going to ease the housing position in the Cape metropolitan area.

I put it to the hon. the Minister that the provision of a railway service to that area is a factor which will ensure that the minimum threshold of growth is reached. If that minimum threshold is not reached, I believe that the Railways, by not providing the required service, will have done a disservice to the people of the Cape metropolitan area and to the wider community.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to react to the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point. He actually confined himself to local conditions and I believe that the hon. the Minister will deal with him. However, I want to refer in passing to the fact that he only applied himself to one thing during his whole argument, and that was to ask for even more. All he wanted to do was to incur increased expenditure, but he was in no position to make any suggestions as to where the money for this purpose should come from.

Today I should like to tell hon. members of the Opposition that this budget presented by the hon. the Minister, was presented in the only manner possible, in the light of the prevailing circumstances. There was no other manner in which this could be done. Even though the economic climate is unfavourable and even though we are involved in a struggle against inflation, the measures taken by the hon. the Minister are nevertheless aimed at keeping the S.A. Railways fit and vigorous. This budget is once again proof of our confidence in the future. The Railways do not only have an economic role to fulfil. We often forget that the Railways also play a very important strategic role, a decisive role. Hon. members were unable to suggest any satisfactory alternative in the place of tariff increases. It is the privilege of the hon. Opposition to criticize, but I believe that, when they criticize, their criticism should be logical and should also offer the necessary alternatives. The Opposition should not use their opportunities in this House in an attempt to gain votes, as was done by the hon. member for King William’s Town here yesterday. It is unfair to incite, as it were, the general public in this way, because it does not keep pace with realities. It is a fact that the voters know the Opposition for what it is.

Yes, fortunately!

The voters know the Opposition for what it is.

Too well!

However, the voters also know that they have a very good friend in the NP. Every worker and every official knows that they can look up to the NP with great confidence, because the NP has always looked after their interests.

Mr. Speaker, there is also another aspect to the action of the Opposition I am concerned about. It is the fact that their criticism sometimes tends to reflect upon the management. I believe that we in South Africa can be glad, that we can think ourselves fortunate to have such competent and dedicated officials in our service. We can rightfully be proud of them. They really deserve our gratitude and appreciation for what they do, as well as for their dedication. Furthermore, I want to tell the Opposition parties that they should try and be more positive in their criticism. They should not try and confuse the general public. In these times they are expected, indeed we are all required, to act in a responsible manner. The campaign against inflation is not only the concern of this Government party. It is the concern of all of us. Just imagine in what, I can almost say, sneering manner Dr. McCrystal was referred to in this debate. If we do not fight inflation effectively, all of us will all go under. This also applies to the Opposition. The Opposition should therefore be careful in what they say.

We expect them to state their policy frankly. I do not want to elaborate on this any further, except to say that we have had no such thing on their part. Numerous questions were put to the members of the Opposition today and yesterday, but not once did they try and answer them. If they were to do this, we would achieve something. All I can say about the Progrefs, is that they are very quick to act as the champions of certain elements. But when it comes to the actual execution of policy, it is a different story; then they run away. We have been waiting for a long time for a reply in connection with the Sea Point swimming bath, and we have been waiting very long for the hon. member for Pinelands’ explanation in connection with non-Whites passing through Pinelands. Neither have we heard from the hon. member for Houghton what the actual situation in the Union Hotel is. When we are dealing with an Opposition which behaves in this way, we get nowhere with them.

Every inhabitant of South Africa ought to appreciate the role played by the S.A. Railways in the economy of our country in these times. While we are sitting here, there is a never-ending flow of raw materials to our factories and harbours. There are manufactured goods, agricultural products, livestock, petroleum products which are conveyed by rail, by road, by air and pipeline. This gigantic task is the responsibility of the General Manager and his top staff, supported by the thousands of loyal and spirited workers concentrated in this major enterprise. In the Railways high demands are made of a person. There we see how planning should take place. The Railways is a place where sound judgment holds, where skill, vision, ingenuity, capability and experience are concentrated in one whole. All this provides us with an efficient service in which the talents of every individual are interlaced, supported by study and research to give us the best. It is general knowledge that we are dealing here with a giant organization, the biggest transport organization and the biggest employer in the country—I do not even have to say that—the biggest capital investor and the biggest buyer of consumer goods. Because this is a fact, Railway budgets are very sensitive to things which happen outside. Later on in my speech I shall refer to the Airways in particular and indicate the important influence of increased fuel prices, increased cost of electricity, price increases in general, salary adjustments and increased steel prices on this Budget.

The South African Railways is a business organization and its books have to balance. At the moment the only manner in which we can bring about this, is by means of tariff increases. Higher costs can only be supplemented by tariff increases. There is no other way in which this can be done. We on this side of the House regret that it was necessary to introduce tariff increases at this stage, but it is necessary because the S.A. Railways is such an important component of our national policy. Most economists agree that tariff increases are necessary. They agree that this is the only way out. Most economists agree that these tariff increases do not necessarily have to bring about exorbitant price increases either. I want to associate myself with the plea of one of our previous speakers, i.e. that the Price Controller will take firm action against price exploitation in future. Excessive increases and profits should not be allowed. This Budget is not of the kind to justify this.

I now want to raise a few thoughts in connection with the Airways. A general characteristic of the Airways is once again its continued traffic growth. From April to December there was a fine growth of 4,9%. There was also an increase of 17% in postal traffic and of 3,8% in domestic freight. Therefore, a bright future lies ahead for the S.A. Airways. With the addition of the three Boeing 747 aircraft, we are able to fly directly to Europe and in this way can compete with other sophisticated airlines. This makes S.A. Airways independent of the landing facilities in other countries. I do not want to say anything more about this now. The three SB.747 aircraft will be delivered by the end of the year and early in 1977. Four Airbus have been ordered and will be delivered by the end of the year and early in 1977. These will be used on the domestic services on the Johannes-burg/Cape Town and the Johannesburg/Durban routes. This will make it far more comfortable for passengers and will also alleviate the pressure on the regional and internal flights. All this will contribute towards coping with the expected increase in air journeys. We must congratulate the hon. Minister and the Management on their farsightedness in providing this increased capacity. As in other fields we also have proof of thorough planning in the Airways, of increased productivity and of a motivated staff relationship. This Budget encourages the public to make use of the Airways and in this way to make a service which is already profitable, even more profitable. The Airways is also very popular as a result of its splendid service and excellent treatment. Increased fuel prices together with the lower speedlimits on our roads meant that the number of passengers making use of the Airways increased immensely.

However, this also has certain disadvantages. For example: Many flight delays occur these days. I know that hon. members have already received many complaints in this respect and that they have asked many questions. However, I think it is high time that we see this matter in the right perspective. The first reason for these delays is due to technical problems. The most difficult and the most prolonged delays stem from this. In 1972 there were eighteen delays for every 1 000 flights. In 1975 the condition deteriorated and there were 27 delays per 1 000 flights. It is a fact that the reserve resources of the Airways are reduced by increasing the flying hours in order to improve productivity. In 1972 there were 6,3 flying hours per day. This increased to 7,2 hours per day in 1975—an increase of 14,3%. In 1972 the S.A. Airways had 28 000 seating hours per day. This seating capacity was increased to 38 000 seating hours per day in 1975. This does not include the additional sixth seat in every row. Mr. Speaker, I am not very small myself, but when I arrive at an airport and I see the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Umlazi, you can imagine how scared I am that I might perhaps land between the two of them. This is just in passing.

At the moment the two Boeing 707 aircraft undertake five return flights per day between Johannesburg and Cape Town, and those 707 aircraft which undertake overseas flights, are used as standbys whenever they are available. This full utilization of our air fleet results in favourable working results. The S.A. Airways try to meet the traffic demands and also to produce sound economic results. The increased flying hours and the full utilization of the air fleet have resulted in considerable savings, a saving amounting to 663 seats— which, if we calculate in terms of aircraft, amounts to the fact that we would need a fleet of six 737 aircraft to take up those extra seats. If we had had to buy that full capacity, it would have resulted in capital expenditure of R36 million, i.e. R9 million per annum, as well as their annual instalments, interest on capital, depreciation and insurance. The point I want to make is that, if we had not used these methods, our Airways would have incurred a considerable loss instead of a surplus.

These favourable working results are dramatic, but there is a price that has to be paid for this. We shall have to be satisfied, for a long time at least, to accept these delays and exercise patience. If we compare the S.A. Airways’ reliability and punctuality with that of major American Airlines, we have a very favourable picture. During the past year 92,24% of all domestic flights departed on schedule. In July last year 86,8% of our flights departed on schedule as against an average of 82,9% in the USA—United Airlines 84,4%, and American Airlines, 78,4%.In August our position deteriorated slightly—from 86,8% to 85,7%. The average for the USA was 82,7%—United Airlines 82,6% and American Airlines 83%. Unfortunately, further figures are not available. The point I want to make, is that the S.A. Airways’ record is better than that of the best airlines in the USA and this in spite of the fact that they consider delays of 15 minutes and even longer as delays, while our norm is only five minutes.

While we compare the standard of our service with that of other airlines, it is also necessary to compare fares. What is the position in this respect? If, for the sake of comparison, we take the S.A. Airways’ tariffs over short and medium distances as 100%, the tariffs in the USA over the same distances are 123% and 115%, respectively. In the United Kingdom tariffs over short distances are 123% and in Australia they are 143% over short distances and 131% over medium distances. In France they are 197% and 192%, respectively. The inter-European figures are shocking. There it is 252% over short distances and 235% over domestic/medium distances—as against our 100%. In spite of the lower fares applicable in our country, the S.A. Airways’ revenue exceeded its expenditure in these times of poor economic conditions. This took place—and we must stress this—in years when all the airlines in the world incurred astronomical losses. This profit is the result of the attempts of all sections of the Airways, but especially because full use has been made of our capital equipment. The question that has to be answered is therefore quite simple. The easiest solution would be to buy a few more aircraft. However, the question is whether we can afford it. As I have indicated, the level of delays compares favourably with America. The cost of eliminating delays, will be so high that we shall not be able to afford it.

Nevertheless the S.A. Airways renders a service to passengers which is second to none. I should have liked to have mentioned a few other aspects, but I am afraid that the time allotted to me has expired.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kempton Park dealt with a specialized subject. We on this side of the House share in his pride in the achievements of our Airways. However, I do not have the time to elaborate on that now. I shall also discuss a specialized subject this afternoon. Before coming to that, however, I should first like to refer to another matter.

†I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Durban Point that we on this side of the House—I am sure this also applies to the Government benches, although I am not sure whether it applies to the party on my left—condemn boycotts and sanctions and that it is our policy to trade with those who wish to trade with us, to stand by old friends and to make new ones, although we hope never at the expense of old friends. I was so glad to learn of the immediate repudiation by the General Manager of the Railways, Mr. Loubser, of a report that appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday under the heading “ ‘Sorry we can’t help’, Rhodesia told”.

Surely you know that it is not true.

It sounded so unlike the General Manager of the Railways; it sounded so inconsistent with the past policy of the Government, and it sounded so much as if we were pressurizing Rhodesia—which, I am sure, we are not doing. I could not believe that it could be true. Therefore I was very pleased that the General Manager immediately repudiated what he was alleged to have said according to the Sunday Times. However, the article did sound very much like the type of article which we have come to expect from the Sunday Times, which is the pace-setter for the SAAN newspapers. I should like to quote briefly from this article since it affects the Railways. Miss De Villiers, the new political correspondent for the Sunday Times, writes that South Africa cannot go to Rhodesia’s aid to counter the effects of the Mozambique border closure. South Africa would accept only normal traffic from Rhodesia, but as to Zambia and Zaïre she claims to quote Mr. Loubser as a saying: “We are ready to help them and any demands they make we will accept.” Then Miss De Villiers comments that South Africa’s willingness to help Zambia and Zaïre and its reluctance to accept more than the normal Rhodesian traffic contrasts sharply with the confidence in Salisbury that Rhodesia could divert to South Africa a third of its exports normally railed through Mozambique. All of this has been denied by Mr. Loubser, not only as to the facts, but also as to the interpretations that were placed on his remarks.

I want to say that this SAAN campaign against Rhodesia has been pursued with increasing venom for many, many months. One remembers “the end of the road for Smith”, “the rebel régime of Smith” headlines and the shocking leading articles which have been the hallmarks of the SAAN newspapers in this connection for some time. I had hoped that with the departure of Mervis, the relegation of Uys to a backwater, the demotion of Serfontein and the replacement of Strydom by Miss De Villiers here in Parliament, there would be a change in the attitude of the Sunday Times. However, in the last few weeks, besides the inaccuracy concerning Mr. Loubser, which is the one to which I have referred in order to illustrate my point, we have had these inaccuracies—

However, they are still there. Then—

However, Smith is still in. Lastly—

This was officially denied the next day.

I am glad that was the last one. The hon. member must now confine himself to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, this has a real bearing on the subject on which I am going to speak—the question of harbours— because the traffic which we are going to get from Zaïre, Zambia and Rhodesia necessitates the expansion of our harbours. Therefore, with your permission, I should like to conclude these remarks by saying that nothing will satisfy those newspapers other than Black majority rule in Rhodesia which they say is inevitable, South West Africa to be handed over to a Government of Swapo and White political control in South Africa to be abolished altogether, because it is “out” and Black majority control is “in”.

In so far as the railways and the harbours are concerned, we have kith and kin in Rhodesia, we have friends with whom we have been friends for a long time, we have a desire to help our friends in our neighbouring countries—it is also good business to do so and, indeed, it is imperative for us to do so. It is high time that someone who has responsibility and authority in the Government took this line and carefully spelled out precisely what is our attitude to our neighbouring countries.

As regards ocean shipping and our harbours, the position is that we are already handling an enormous amount of traffic at the moment, but that traffic is going to increase still more if we are going to take on the additional traffic which we can expect from Zambia and Zaïre and particularly from Rhodesia. As regards the magnitude of the traffic which we are carrying at the moment, I want to point out that in 1959-’ 60 our harbours handled a total of 12 million tons of cargo and in 1967-’68, 43 million tons. What is the position today? I have figures for the last nine months only, but in the case of cargo landed, for example, we handled 7,2 million tons of general cargo and 17,7 million tons of bulk cargo. While the general cargo showed a decrease of 20,6% on last year, the bulk cargo increased by 16,2% mainly through the increases in the tonnage of the petroleum products which we have handled. As to the cargo which has been shipped, it accounted for 20,9 million tons. The total cargo that has been transhipped, shipped and handled in our harbours has been in the region of 46 million tons for these last nine months. When I talk about our harbours, I refer also to the harbours of South West Africa in addition to those of the Republic. In the case of our harbours we had to cope with the following activity in terms of vessels that visited our harbours—781 foreign fishing vessels; 3 304 trawlers and whalers; 16 395 vessels of all kinds which, in fact, is only 500 less than last year. We had 9 476 calls by foreign ships in our harbours and our own ships have been responsible for 809 calls. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he has to give some thought to what is happening in this sphere, particularly the sphere of foreign trawlers and foreign fishing vessels, because despite our policy to which I have already referred of trading with those people who are willing to trade with us, I want to ask him what is happening about the Iron Curtain countries and the Cubans who are so freely using the harbours of South Africa and more particularly the harbour of Walvis Bay. These are the same people who are supplying weapons that are being used against our sons in the border areas.

I have refered to the increase in harbour traffic and I want to deal briefly with the reasons which I think can be advanced for the increase in harbour traffic. First of all, I think it is due to the fact that we have built massive oil refineries in Durban and Cape Town during the last number of years. As a result of the building of these refineries, we have been in the position to provide bunkers for ships which use our coastal waters as a result of the closure of Suez. Another reason is that I guess that from about a quarter to one-third of the total goods used in the Republic are probably imported. In the case of exports it is generally known that we are entirely reliant on the use of the harbours for the export of our manufactured goods, raw materials and agricultural products. I would therefore go so far as to say that ocean shipping and therefore the use of our harbours is vital to the sustaining of our economy. The only alternative form of transport that I can think of for handling imports and exports is air transport as our markets by rail to the north of us are very much limited and, as will be appreciated, the use of air transport will probably not be an economic proposition in our particular case. Therefore the case which I am making out this afternoon is that while we have indeed had increased activity in the harbours, we are always going to have an increase in the use of our harbours for both imports and exports.

What is the background to what I have said about the use of our harbours? I think it is correct to say that during the 15 years prior to the appearance of the Marais Report only R81 million was spent on or allocated to various harbour works such as the deepening and the widening of turning basins, harbour entrances, cargo handling equipment, shed and storage accommodation, ship repair yards and docking facilities. In the field of providing adequate harbour accommodation, we always lagged behind other sections of the Railways and Harbours Administration, but back in the early 1970s it seems as if it was realized that it was vitally necessary to expand our harbours. We therefore have had in the last few years a period of harbour development such as we have never seen since the time of Union. For example, from 1910 to 1954 we had only R58 million spent on the development of our harbours. From 1954 to 1967 R58,5 million was spent, and more recently we have had a crash programme. I know that this is a word which is much maligned in this House, but in fact we have had a crash programme for the development of our harbours only in the last three or four years. The crash programme was undertaken by the comparatively new but separate Harbour Administration of the Railways. It is in the hands of people who are becoming harbour specialists rather than people who are Railway officials and who are seconded to the harbours to do duty. We have had too, what I think we are going to see at the beginning of next month, what is probably a prestige development, namely the development of Richards Bay. I have been one of those on this side of the House who have had some doubts about Richards Bay. I am also one of those who believed that Saldanha could perhaps have been a better project than Richards Bay. Be that as it may, we have nevertheless been able to hear from the hon. the Minister during his budget speech that he gave an undertaking some years ago that Richards Bay would be complete by 1 April this year. In fact, we are going at the end of this month to see for ourselves, and if what we see is in fact what the hon. the Minister has told us we will see, I will be one of the first people to congratulate the Railways on a first-class achievement. You know, Sir, this will be a great occasion. It is the first deep sea harbour that has been built off the coast of South Africa since Union, and that says something for successive Governments who have been in control of the situation here in South Africa since Union.

Sir, why is harbour development in my opinion still so very essential, although we have had increased expenditure on harbour development during the last few years and we have this massive Richards Bay development? I think the reasons are these. First of all, world shipping is never going to return to what it was before the closure of Suez. Suez at its very peak was never able to cater for tankers and ore-carriers of a tonnage greater than 65 000 and even if it is now widened and deepened at enormous expense the bulk of the world’s oil and ore-carriers will still continue to use the Cape route because of their size and because of the greater reliability of the Cape route. Then there is a second reason. I think that is because of the conditions in the neighbouring States which at the moment seem as if they can only get worse. Beira has been closed for the last 10 years and Mozambique has now been closed to some of the African countries, our neighbours, in recent weeks. Zambia and Zaïre have no safe outlets to the sea except through the Republic. I think another reason is because it is so necessary for us to increase our business, and the harbours at the moment are one of the best money-spinners in the portfolio of the hon. the Minister of Transport. That is why I am disappointed that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to raise harbour tariffs. There have indeed been rising costs, but the harbours have shown a profit of R59 million. There has been a satisfactory result achieved by the harbours. A tariff increase of about R8 million less than a year and a half after the last tariff increase announced by the Minister, and less than six months after devaluation, will undoubtedly contribute to the already existing inflationary spiral.

I referred earlier to the fact that the harbours administration was more independent than ever before but I do not think, with respect, that the harbours have achieved the independence that they should have. If one reads the Nijhoff report of as long ago as 1937 one sees that it was specifically brought to the attention of the Government of the day that the amalgamation of the Railways and Harbours systems had resulted in the smaller harbour system becoming entirely subordinate to the larger railway system. While I think a lot of leeway has been made up and while I think the Harbour Administration is indeed much more independent than it was before of the Railways, I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear, before his term of office expires and a new Minister takes over, to ensure that there is a greater measure of independence conferred on the Harbour Administration as has been the case in respect of the Post Office. I think that large-scale harbour development is now more essential than ever before and the future I would like to see for South Africa is a ring of sea outlets around the coast of the Republic. Starting first of all with Walvis Bay which is indeed being expanded in terms of the budget proposals, I believe an enormous general harbour will one of these days be built at Saldanha Bay with a ship-repair yard. Then there are the developments which we know are taking place in Cape Town, which I think will be adequate for the requirements of Cape Town for some time. Then there is a matter which I referred to the Minister last year, viz. the absolutely vital necessity for the future to develop a deep sea harbour in the most suitable place, with ready access to the Karoo as its hinterland, viz. at Mossel Bay. Now I know that the harbour at Mossel Bay is not paying its way at the moment, but I can assure the Minister that if there is long-term planning which will involve the development of a deep sea harbour at Mossel Bay, it will more than pay its way in the years to come because of the untold riches that lie still to be discovered in the areas of the Karoo. Then we have the development at Port Elizabeth which we know about, the ore exporting harbour which is being developed at St. Croix. I do not believe there can be much more development at Port Elizabeth or at East London, and Durban, as you know, Sir, is already the ninth biggest harbour in the world. Richards Bay we will see for ourselves very soon, but I think it is vitally important that Richards Bay is there and will soon be functioning, as I understand it soon will be functioning, because of what has happened at Beira and at Lourenço Marques.

I want to conclude by making this plea to the Minister, which I did in briefer terms in the Second Reading debate last year, that not only should the Harbour Administration become a more independent department of the Railways than it is at the moment, but that serious consideration should be given at this stage to the development and establishment of a full-scale maritime department by the Government; in other words a maritime department which will not only have control of the harbours, but will also have control of lighthouses, a coastguard service, which I hope will be instituted to substitute for the excellent work which is being done by the NSRI, which nevertheless is inadequately financed, and not large enough for the fishing fleets, the merchant shipping fleet, oceanography, sea mining, oil from the sea, which I believe is going to be the big thing in the future, and lastly a matter which has been gravely neglected by the agriculturalists in this House, viz. the farming of the sea and of the bed of the sea.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simonstown who has just spoken, had a great deal to say on which I should like to compliment him. I want to begin by saying that, with regard to the remarks of the hon. member on the report which appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday and in which not only the Government but also the General Manager of the Railways was placed in an unfavourable light, we share the feelings he expressed here.

The hon. member referred to the question of harbours in the course of his speech. He is an expert in the sphere. The hon. member made a very positive speech here. I cannot argue with him about specific aspects with respect to these matters, and I cannot answer him on these, but he will receive his answer from the hon. Minister. There are indeed a few matters to which the hon. member referred which link, up with criticism which were made by other members on that side of the House and to which I shall return in due course. However, one thing is clear. There is one thing on which the hon. member for Simonstown and I agree, i.e. that the financial condition of the S.A. Railways is the the most part a reflection of the general condition of the economy of the country. If the maize crop for a particular year is poor, the Railways transport less maize. On the other hand, if the farmers have a good maize crop in a particular year, the Railways convey a greater volume of maize. In other words, the Railways must be there to meet the demand and the traffic offered to them. If the country is experiencing an economic slump, this also has an effect on the Railways. The effect of inflation also leaves its mark unmistakably. Therefore this Budget must be seen against the background of an economic slump and the fact that we have inflation and have to fight it in order to normalize our economy. Now I can understand quite well that an effective Opposition would analyse the Budget in this light and would test it against these factors and would then criticize it when they found it wanting.

Sir, I want to make the allegation that what we have before us this year is an excellent, brilliant Budget. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Point is laughing, but you know, Sir, last year when the Minister presented his budget and there were no tariff increases and nothing in the Budget out of which the hon. member and his party were unable to make any political capital, he also made certain remarks. Then, while shrugging his shoulders, the hon. member said it was a colourless and unimaginative budget; that there was nothing which indicated a new vision. Those were his words. What is more, he went further and said there were no new items in the Budget which were of any importance, and said: “I looked for something which would indicate a new train of thought as far as the activities of the Railways were concerned. ’ ’ That was what he said last year. But this year the hon. member has the opportunity to gauge last year’s budget according to the working results of the Railways, as reflected in the documents before us. I want to tell you, Sir, that besides the question of price increases to which I shall return later, there is nothing in those results which can positively be criticized by the hon. member for Durban Point and his party. After the hon. Minister had announced these tariff increases, the hon. member stood up and, big as he is, he turned the volume on as high as only he can do it and spoke about the ripple effect this would have throughout the economy and the shock waves which would be felt right through South Africa as a result of this Budget. I gained the impression that the hon. member derived great pleasure from it, because he was able to make political capital out of the situation. Now that the debate is drawing to a close, it seems as if the stone has sunk and only ripples remain in the ranks of the Opposition, and beyond that nothing. If one wants to criticize a Budget such as this, one has to have one of two points of departure. One has to accept that it is inevitable that expenditure catches up with revenue and that additional revenue is therefore required, and then one criticizes the methods of acquiring the revenue. We on this side of the the House do this by means of well-considered and rationalized tariff adjustments in order to provide us with the extra R200 million we need. The Opposition should tell us what their alternative is. The hon. member for Durban Point told us what his alternative is, i.e. that the State should subsidize the S.A. Railways from the general Revenue Fund. By advocating this alternative the hon. member admits that the S.A. Railways inevitably requires additional funds as a result of price increases and other factors which have been mentioned. Am I correct?

What about the fourth leg of my amendment?

That is the alternative the hon. member suggests, and he therefore admits it. This is therefore my first argument to prove that the Budget is indeed a sound one.

The difference between us and the Opposition on this point therefore concerns the following question: Where must the extra money come from? It is a simple economic law that one has to pay for services rendered and that the quality of the service one renders is influenced by the renumeration one receives for the service. No one usually objects to paying for excellent service. There is therefore an incentive in the fact that there is renumeration for the work which is done. The official who is worth his salt has the opportunity to provide the best service at the lowest price on his own initiative, so that he can eventually produce the best results for his organization. However, when money is received from another source to compensate for losses—this is what the hon. member for Durban Point suggests—it smothers initiative and dampens the dedication to a task which provides economically justified results. This is my criticism of the hon. member for Durban Point.

I do not understand it at all.

A further objection against the suggestion of the hon. member for Durban Point is that people are expected to pay for the services of the Railways which they never use themselves.

A second method of criticizing the Budget is to say: What is wrong with the Budget? Where can reductions be made? What should be left out? What should be done to prevent tariffs being increased? One expects an Opposition to say where one is wrong and which items we are budgeting for can be done away with. We are still waiting for members on the other side of the House to prove conclusively, that we have budgeted for unnecessary expenditure anywhere.

The hon. member for Maitland levelled the reproach that devaluation necessitated the increase in tariffs. We agree with him. However, we have already discussed devaluation in another debate and I do not therefore want to go into this any further. We do admit that devaluation was a factor which gave rise to the fact that we are now in the position where we have to increase our tariffs. The hon. member for Maitland also suggested a solution. What is his solution? He said that the Railways should keep its staff constant. He criticized the proposed increase in the number of posts. But at the same time he asked the Railways to expand its services. In the same breath he then criticizes overtime and Sunday time. The hon. member’s argument is a contradictio in terminus. This sounds like the old United Party story we hear at every election: Increased salaries, improved pension benefits, increased subsidies and reduced tax for everyone so that everyone can get rich. This is the same old story, the same argument. The hon. member for Maitland does not ask for services to be curtailed, but that should rather be expanded. Surely, this is inconsistent. I admit it pre-supposes an increase in productivity. However, I want to suggest that the increase in of the number of services rendered is far higher than the number of approved posts on the establishment.

What about the capital which was spent?

For the purposes of the argument, I do not want to take into consideration the number of vacant posts on the Railways which were referred to by the hon. member.

According to the hon. Minister’s budget speech there was growth in every sphere over the past year. Amongst other things, there was growth as far as high tariff goods, low tariff goods, coal and coke were concerned. There was also growth with respect to road transportation, air traffic, pipelines and harbours. This provides the Railways with a brilliant arrestation of increased productivity. I want to remind hon. members on the other side of what the hon. Minister said in his Budget speech. He said—

This is indeed a brilliant attestation of productivity. Surely, no one would want to suggest that there was no room for improvement. However, there is also such a thing as a limit to productivity. I think that the hon. member for Maitland would be the first to agree with me on this point. One can do just so much in 24 hours and no more. I know many Railway officials who render the maximum productivity which can be expected from any man. I agree that there are always people who can be more productive. There is always room for improvement. However, this should not be laid down as the general norm. On the managerial level ample provision is made to draw only the best. This is an aspect of the hon. Minister’s Budget to which the hon. member for Tygervallei referred and which I also want to commend. I want to quote the following words of the hon. Minister—

Here the hon. the Minister associates himself with what the General Manager of the Railways said, i.e., that the Railways is no longer a place where the lazy man or those who can serve no purpose anywhere else, will be appointed. This detracts from the image of the Railways, and I am pleased that we could escape from the psychosis which developed in the Railways, especially during the time of the United Party.

Was that the position?

Yes, that was the position during the time of the United Party.

The hon. member for Maitland is harping on a very monotonous theme. Last year the hon. member also adopted this tune. Then he said “Get rid of overtime by employing more non-Whites”. This is what the hon. member said last year. This year he adopts the same tune, but he leaves out the non-Whites. Last year this hon. member received his reply from the hon. Minister. This year too in his Budget speech the hon. Minister said—and I want to hold this up to the hon. member for Maitland—

Surely, this is the answer to the hon. member’s query and for that reason the hon. member’s argument is unfounded. The Railways is one up on him as it is.

I want to point out that the Railways remain the driving force for growth in South Africa and therefore the S.A. Railways make allowances for growth. The present Budget makes allowances for an economic growth rate of up to 3% for 1976-’77. In this process of planning there has to be on the one hand, a careful analysis of available capital and of physical abilities on the other. This is the case because the growth rate as far as the Railways are concerned, applies in respect of the services which it has to render, and if it is unable to render those services, it will have a retarding or paralysing effect upon the growth rate of the country as a whole. In 1974—when the hon. Minister introduced his first budget as Minister of Transport—the hon. Minister said it was the task of the Railways to create an adequate and effective transport infrastructure, which would consist of a co-ordinated system of rail, road, air, pipelines and trade, harbour facilities as auxilliary services. Today the Railways are playing a strategic role not only economically but also politically, especially in the light of South Africa’s position in the set-up of Southern Africa.

It is obvious that the wheels must keep turning because there is much at stake for South Africa these days, also in the political sphere. A great deal of success has been achieved in this respect as well. I have great confidence in the top management of the Railways and on behalf of this side of the House I, as the last speaker, want to say that we are grateful towards every railwayman who has done his share to keep the wheels turning during the past year. I see in the latest edition of To the Point that, in Britain they have increased the passenger tariffs from 10% to 17½%. This is the fifth increase within two years. If we compare this with our situation, it speaks volumes for the work which the Railways and its top management have done to keep the wheels turning in an effective way with as few tariff increases as possible. We must have confidence in our country and its economy. I have that confidence and it is shared by this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Transport has to present his reply it is customary for him to ask for an adjournment of the debate so that he may do so the next day. I have listened to the debate which has now come to an end and have come to the conclusion that my colleagues on this side of the House have already replied so effectively to the trifling attacks which came from that side that so little remains for me to say that it is not necessary to wait until tomorrow to say it. I am referring with appreciation to the contributions made by the hon. members for Witwatersberg, Vanderbijlpark, Klip River, Bethlehem, Tygervallei, Uitenhage, Kempton Park and Koedoespoort.

Unlike last year I was a little disappointed with the debate this year. Last year we had no rates increases and therefore one could have expected it to have been a colourless debate. It then became apparent that hon. members had each selected a specific topic to discuss, more or less as the hon. member for Simonstown did this afternoon. This year, however, hon. members opposite were completely oblivious to everything but the rates increases. The rates increases were, after all, necessary. In fact, they were predicted; they were expected. The accounts of the Railways are no secret. And now they decided to make use of rates increases to launch an attack. But hon. members must realize that there is a greater responsibility resting on them than merely to shout “Sa, sa!” at rates increases, to say they are going to cost the people more, that they are going to have a ripple effect and spread to other sectors, that they are going to cause the cost of living to rise, that they are not beneficial to the anti-inflation campaign, etc. As an alternative Government—the words “alternative Government” are seldom used these days, they no longer see themselves as such—they should at least offer an alternative to be better able to criticize what is being presented from the Government side. We have definitely had very little of that this year.

The hon. member for Durban Point, who was the main speaker on that side of the House, kicked up a great fuss over the rates increases. He said: “It is a black budget,” and all he was able to offer as a solution to the problem was increased Government subsidies. He admitted that costs had escalated and that something had to be done about them. It is very easy for him to say the deficits have to be made good by means of increased subsidies. However, he knows that that cannot happen. In the position in which he finds himself in the Opposition, he can easily put forward such a contention even though he knows that something like that is not possible. I should like to know from the hon. member how on earth he can expect the deficit of R199 million to be made good from the Exchequer.

It is being made good by the consumer.

Yes, it is being made good by the consumer, but the hon. member, in the prevailing economic circumstances, has an idea in his head—in spite of the problems with which the hon. the Minister of Finance is faced precisely as a result of these economic circumstances—and expects an amount of R199 million to be drawn from the Exchequer to make good this deficit. Surely the hon. member knows that that cannot be done. He expects the expenditure on uneconomic services, services which do not pay for themselves, to be made good from the Exchequer. Surely the hon. member knows that it is traditional that these services are not profitable, that there are deficits on those services. I am thinking here of an obvious example, that of passenger services, where we have had a loss in the region of R148 million this year.

However, we are gradually narrowing the gap—and this is also what I said in my introductory speech—between high-rated and low-rated goods, and at the same time we are adjusting those services which are not being operated economically. It is for this reason that we made the adjustments to the rates we did make. As far as the future is concerned, the hon. member is also aware that with new services we first make quite certain that it is possible to operate those new services on an economic basis. Therefore, as far as the resettlement services are concerned, an agreement was reached with the Government that deficits on those services would be paid in by the Exchequer. This is in fact being done. These days this creates certain problems— with which I may deal at a later stage— because the amount gradually increases and gets a little out of hand. The fact of the matter is, however, that those resettlement services are being rendered in terms of an agreement with the Government that any deficit would be made good. Therefore I also stated explicitly in my speech that when we build new railway lines we do so only when they are economically justified or when they are guaranteed, i.e. if any doubt exists as to their economic justification. If we now have to proceed with the elimination of the gap between the high-rated and the low-rated traffic and with the elimination of uneconomic services, we also realize that it will never be possible for us fully to achieve that ideal. There will always be a degree of latitude which we shall have to take into account. Two years ago, when we also had rates adjustments, we made an attempt in this direction, with which we are now proceeding, in accordance with the recommendations of the Schumann Committee—which were made more than ten years ago—to narrow that gap for the purpose of making uneconomic services economic in that way.

The higher rates as well?

Yes, naturally these are also being raised, but to a lesser extent— percentage-wise—than the lower rates were increased.

A striking example of this is that the rates on livestock were increased by as much as 50%. While I am dealing with livestock, I think I should dispose of this aspect straight away. It has already been said here—I also said it—that the rates in respect of livestock at present cover only approximately 51% of the costs involved. With this increase of 50%, it means that only approximately 76% of the costs will be covered, and that with the expected cost increase that still has to be taken into consideration, the cost cover for the 1976-’77 financial year will only be 67%. The hon. member for Durban Point, and other hon. members, particularly the hon. member for King William’s Town, seized upon this aspect and kicked up a great fuss about it. I should like to deal with the hon. member for Durban Point. Last Wednesday he referred to the rates increase of 50% in respect of livestock, and I told him by way of an interjection that the consumer was not paying for it. He kicked up a great fuss about this and said that I was naïve. Perhaps I could just refer the hon. member to what he said on that occasion. He asked whether I did not understand that increased rates made their effect felt on the consumer. I told him: “The consumer does not pay these tariffs.” To this the hon. member replied with great bravado: “The consumer does pay it! Does this naïve Minister not know that when he puts up railage rates by one cent on an item which costs R1, everyone else gets in on the bandwagon?” He carried on in that vein.

That is quite correct.

The only point I made—which is a truth which the hon. member still does not seem to understand, for yesterday he made that same statement again—is that the livestock is despatched from wherever it is produced, to the abattoirs, say, in Johannesburg. There it is slaughtered and sold on the hook. The costs involved in the conveyance of that livestock are paid by the farmers.

What about the poor farmer?

In any case, I need not explain the matter any further now, for the hon. member confirmed that my statement was correct, and I take it that the hon. members on that side also accept it, i.e. that there is not necessarily a connection between the transport costs and the price obtained for the slaughtered arrival on the market. That is of course true. Mr. Cilliers, the director of the Agricultural Union …

They are going to ask for a higher floor price. Then the price has to rise.

If the floor price goes up and the selling price is higher than the floor price … It is not the floor price which is going to have this effect either, but the price which is obtained for the animal on the market. [Interjections.] No, Sir, it is not the floor price. The price which is obtained for the animal on the market is the price which is passed on to the consumer. There is no connection between that price and the transport costs of the animal. The transport costs of the animal are paid by the farmer. I just want to set the hon. member for Durban Point straight, and ask him to make certain of his facts before he discusses this matter on a subsequent occasion. I now want to proceed and state my standpoint in respect of this matter. I know that to increase the rates on livestock by 50% is a tremendous increase. The hon. members on that side, and particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove, said that they were with us in our attempts to eliminate these uneconomic services and to rationalize. They are with us. The hon. member for Jeppe is saying “Yes” to this. They are with us. Then what should I do now?

But …

Yes, Sir, I am coming to that “but” …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister …

In any case, I shall still reply to the question you want to ask. I know what it is. The fact of the matter is that I am increasing the rates for the conveyance of livestock in an attempt to ensure that the service is ultimately as much of a cost-orientated service as possible. If livestock producers cannot bear those increased transport costs, I agree with you that it is not I who should subsidize the service, but someone else. Then the producer of livestock or the person who cannot bear the costs, should go to that other person and ask him for a rebate or a subsidy.

But you are that other person.

I am not that other person. After all, you agreed with me a moment ago that I am not the person who should do the subsidizing. Ask the hon. member for Jeppe, he understands this matter better. I am not the person who should do the subsidizing or should pay the rebates. Hon. members are saying that it should be subsidized, and I agree with them. If the price of the product does not justify the increased costs, they should approach someone else, not me. All that I have to do is to do what I am doing now, and with which hon. members on that side agree, i.e. that I have to rationalize, that I have to move closer to a cost-orientated service. This is what I am trying to do in respect of livestock.

The hon. member at the back there said that he wanted to ask me a question. He wants to know why there are objections when applications for road transportation licences are made. I told the hon. member for King William’s Town yesterday … [Interjections.] That is what the hon. member wants to ask, is it not? [Interjections.] I interrupted the hon. member for King William’s Town yesterday and told him that private carriers may convey the livestock, but that they should then do everything. To a certain extent this is the right thing, for they cannot take the best part of the livestock while what remains makes it even more uneconomic for the Railways that it would otherwise have been. I shall go so far as to give this hon. House the assurance now that I shall ensure that no objection will under the present circumstances be made by the Road Transportation Board. If those transportation services are able to convey the livestock on a more economic basis, I shall ensure that no objection is raised in those cases. However, this does not mean to say that we no longer wish to convey livestock at all. When I made the interjection—which was intended for the hon. member for King William’s Town—the hon. member for Durban Point thought I was being irresponsible, for I can easily say a thing like that because I know that it is impracticable. I will in no way be allowed to cease to convey livestock. It is part of the service, part of the work the S.A. Railways has to do, and that we will consequently still have to do it. I have now furnished a reply to the question which the hon. member on the opposite side put to me. Those hon. members …

The price of meat will therefore not go up?

Oh, do not be absurd!

If the price of meat goes up … [Interjections.] I should like to reply to that question.

Vause, then you will just have to eat sausage.

If the price of meat should go up—and the hon. members who know more about meat can say whether they agree with me or not—it will be a direct result of supply and demand.

Yes.

The hon. member for Graaff Reinet says “yes”. He knows far more about it than I do. It will be as a result of supply and demand, and not because of increased rates. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members said that I was ostensibly being so pessimistic. This immediately brings me back to the hon. member for Durban Point, who said that I was allegedly being very pessimistic. This also brings me to the hon. member for Jeppe, who quoted a passage here just now and also pointed out how pessimistic I was supposedly being towards my colleagues, the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. This puts me in mind of the well-known example of the bee who sucks honey from the flower, while the spider sucks poison from the same flower. The hon. members, and this afternoon the hon. member for Jeppe again … He is the spider. He reads only that portion which suits him.

For the purposes of the record I should like to quote the entire passage in the Budget speech (see pages 4 et seq. )—

In the absence of positive growth factors…

This is what the hon. member quoted a moment ago—

Surely this is also something the hon. members are asking for—

There the hon. member stopped.

Yes, that is what you said.

That is what I said. However, I also said this—

That is where you made the mistake.

What mistake did I make?

Who is being pessimistic now?

Order!

In other words, my speech is not filled only with pessimism, but also contains elements of optimism.

For you are a realist.

Precisely, Sir. This is also to a large extent in accordance—the hon. members are looking for differences of opinion now—with what is being said by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance. I also said this to them—

In other words, the prospects of our containing inflation to some extent are good.

I also made provision in the Budget for an increase of 2% to 5% in passenger traffic, an increase of 5,5% in goods traffic, an increase of 30% in coal traffic and an increase of 10% in air traffic. Is that pessimism? Is that a “gloomy” budget? After all, that is what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said.

The loss is greater.

“A gloomy Budget.”

Yes!

And they quoted me as allegedly being so pessimistic as to present a “gloomy” budget.

Why did you stop in the middle of a sentence when you spoke about the upswing effect in 1976? Why did you not finish the sentence?

You can complete the sentence if you wish.

Read it.

I do not have the complete paragraph in front of me at the moment. I only read that …

You said nothing about 2% and 3%.

Order!

Surely you can read it yourself, Vause.

… with a growth rate of between 2% and 3%.

I said it, and there is nothing wrong with that. That is what it is likely to be for the coming financial year.

But is 2% optimistic?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point—if I may dispose of his questions first—referred to the services which we are rendering through Komatipoort and Lourenço Marques or Maputo. Mention was also made of the services which we are rendering, or may perhaps have to render, to Rhodesia. However, the hon. member put a question to me which I cannot omit entirely to answer. I have to say something about it. He asked me whether I had the assurance that our people and our equipment in Mozambique were being protected. Mr. Speaker, how can an adult and responsible person put such a question to me? Surely it is not a responsible question at all. What does he expect me to do to protect our equipment there? And if I were able to do something, does he expect me to say so here? Surely it is in any event, the first place, not something which one can do something about if one’s officials are in Maputo to render certain services there, and if one’s rolling stock is being used between Komatipoort and Maputo, to then find means to protect that staff and equipment. If the situation there is insecure, this is even less of a fact which we would blazon abroad.

I just asked for an assurance.

All I can say to the hon. member is that I cannot give him that assurance. He will simply have to resign himself to that. The hon. member also kicked up a great fuss about how I was allegedly, with this Budget, causing the anti-inflation manifesto to miscarry. However, I want to remind the hon. member that it was never anticipated—and I appeal to my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is sitting here now, to verify this—that prices for services or for goods will not or may not be allowed to rise. Nor was it in any way anticipated in the manifesto that salaries would not rise. The mutual undertaking we did in fact enter into by means of the manifesto—and one which we also tried to carry out—was to cope with part of the increase in production costs by producing ourselves and in that way keeping the increase in respect of goods and services as low as possible. There was also an undertaking, by means of the manifesto, that the employees would themselves bear a part of the rising costs and that they would, to this end, keep their salary demands as low as possible. Therefore, it seems to me to be quite beyond the pale for the hon. member to make the allegation here—or rather create the impression—that there should be no rates increases at all, because any increase would ostensibly be in conflict with the anti-inflation manifesto. In his speech the hon. member spoke of increases which would result from the increased rates, and I should like to refer to this. In his speech the hon. member said the following (page D.1)—

The hon. member then continued, and referred to the increase in the rates for livestock, and made a few calculations to indicate how much more this was going to cost people. All that I want to prove with this is that the hon. member found justification in the rates increases for the fact that other people may increase their prices. However, he begrudges the Railways the privilege of increasing rates, while the Railways itself is being afflicted by increased production costs.

So where does it end?

The hon. member is as aware as I am that the Railways, in rendering its services, also has to cope with inflation and increased costs. I indicated many aspects of this. Therefore it is essential that we should raise our rates. The hon. member made a calculation and said that we were going to take R70 million more from the public than we were entitled to. I do not want to say that the hon. member is irresponsible, but I do think that a person with his intellectual ability could make better calculations. The hon. member made a calculation in regard to passenger services, and arrived at an amount of R14 million. He stated this figure in his speech. He said the passenger services would bring in an additional R14 million. In reality that increase on passenger services relates only to a part of the passenger services. In this way the increase as far as long-distance passenger services is concerned, relates only to return journeys. Single journeys are not affected.

I merely took half of that.

Nevertheless the hon. member referred to an amount of R14 million while the actual amount is only R2 million. The hon. member then referred to the Airways. In that regard he made another calculation and said that we would obtain an additional revenue of R26 million from Airways, because the rates were being increased by 10%. However, the actual additional revenue which we are going to obtain from the Airways, is only R7,1 million. In this way the hon. member arrived at an additional amount of R79 million which the Railways is allegedly going to receive without my having furnished a proper report on it.

What is 10% of R256 million?

Order! The hon. member will be afforded an adequate opportunity to make further speeches.

I just want to mention here that the R260 million also includes international flights, while the 10% relates only to internal flights. That is where his calculation went completely astray. [Interjections.] The hon. member also doubted whether we had had a 42% increase in the price of oil. He said that as far as he could remember the price of petrol had gone up by only 4 cents or 5 cents per litre. I just want to remind the hon. member that we purchase our oil products duty-free. As a result of that the increase in the oil price is far higher for us than it is for the consumer. Therefore the hon. member may safely accept that the price increase in the case of oil products was 42%. The hon. member then made another calculation, to which I cannot omit to refer. He said that if we introduced increased rates which would bring in R200 million …

What other figures are incorrect?

All your figures are incorrect.

He then worked on that figure of R200 million and arrived at R400 million or at R600 million …

Even on television!

A very handsome star!

He said that in the end the figure would no longer be R200 million, but more like R600 million. Then he made another calculation. He said that this would consequently cost the average family an additional R120 per annum. I repeat that this rates increase will bring in an amount of R200 million. If this leads to the addition of further amounts, the hon. member should not lay the blame for it on my shoulders.

But you started it.

The hon. member need not blame me for it. All that I am responsible for is the R200 million. I also want to make a calculation now. The average salary of a Railway worker is R3 500 per annum. If one were now to distribute this R200 million among the 250 000 workers on the Railways, on the same basis as the hon. member distributed it among the number of families in the country, it would mean an increase of R40 for the period of 17 months, or R28 per annum. If this is now related to the average income of the Railway official, we shall see that it is not a very substantial amount, and I am certain the hon. member will agree with me. There will only be an increase of R28 per family per annum, and not R120, as the hon. member tried to indicate.

I first want to deal with the few speeches made here this afternoon, and I can then deal with the few other subjects which I should still like to discuss further. The hon. member for Jeppe also began with a reference to my “gloomy budget”. I have already referred to the paragraph which he quoted in that regard. The hon. member spoke of a monopoly on the Railways, but what is wrong with having only one railway service in South Africa? Does the hon. member wish to advocate that there should be another service, or does it mean an underestimate of his ability to ensure that the officials of the Railways and I do our work well. This entire Parliament is here to ensure, every year, that the activities of the Railways are carried out properly, and therefore there is no sense in referring to a monopoly and creating the impression that there is exploitation on the part of the Railways.

That was said in another sense, and the hon. the Minister knows it.

The hon. member will be given another opportunity to discuss this. The hon. member also referred to the uneconomic services. I have already commented on that. The hon. member for Sea Point touched upon certain interesting matters. These could have been discussed to better effect during the Committee Stage, but since the hon. member has raised them now, I should like to reply to them. The hon. member referred to the incident which occured on a train at 9 o’clock on a Sunday evening. He referred with praise to an investigation which was instituted by the System Manager. He asked me what the result of the investigation had been. I can inform him that the System Manager has already held talks with the Coloured and Bantu groups and intends holding further joint talks soon with the leaders of the various groups. Therefore I am not yet able to give the hon. member the final outcome. However, I do want to tell the hon. member that we have in the meantime made arrangements for plain-clothes policemen to be present on the trains. As a result of their presence 20 youths who caused trouble similar to the previous trouble have already been charged.

The hon. member also referred to the railway line to Mitchell’s Plain, and from there to Strandfontein, which is under construction. I think that the hon. member also has the report before him which I have here, namely the report of the Railways and Harbours Board in connection with the construction of that line. At the bottom of page 3 of that report it is stated—

I think that is self-explanatory. Initially the railway line is being built as far as Mitchell’s Plain and if circumstances subsequently warrant it, and the availability of funds permits, the railway line to Strandfontein will be constructed.

This number is in terms of accommodation.

Yes, I understand that. As I have said, we shall have to allow ourselves to be guided by circumstances as to when the construction of the line as far as Strandfontein will be proceeded with. At the moment we cannot carry on with it.

The hon. member also referred to the Chempet/Atlantis railway line. That matter was submitted to the Cabinet by the Department of Planning, and the Cabinet approved of such a railway line being constructed. However, no final decision has as yet been taken as to when that line will be constructed. The intention is that that railway line will subsequently be taken over by the Railways and then extended further north as far as Saldanha.

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to refer to what the hon. member said here, and relate it to the standpoint which his colleague, the hon. member for Orange Grove, adopted. As I understood it, the hon. member for Sea Point completely nullified the arguments of the hon. member for Orange Grove. The entire theme of the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove was that we were spending too much on capital works.

He said your priorities were wrong.

The hon. member for Sea Point, his leader, requested on the other hand that I should spend more capital funds on something in which he was interested. I think I can safely say that if one looks into this one will find that every member in this House has his own priorities. Everyone in this House will want to ask for more rapid progress to be made with a certain project, and that another project may be left in abeyance for a while. Therefore I want to say at once that as far as capital works are concerned—I am saying this more specifically with reference to the criticism levelled here by the hon. members who discussed capital expenditure, about which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti also had a great deal to say—I have already said in my speech—this is also part of the anti-inflation manifesto—that the Railways should concentrate on eliminating problems that give rise to increased costs, and take steps to prevent such problems from arising in future. I should like to ask hon. members what procedure should be adopted in this regard. In each of the nine systems of the Railways there is a planning committee which draws up the priorities of the system concerned in respect of capital works which have to be carried out there. Their findings are sent to the planning division of the General Manager’s office, and that planning division then examines the recommendations against the background of the needs of the entire country, also taking into consideration the transportation projections made by the Railways itself, as well as by private bodies. From there it goes to the Planning Board of the Railways, where the recommendations go through a further sifting process. Eventually they go to the General Manager and he then decides what recommendations and submissions in respect of capital works should be submitted to me for approval. My reply to the criticism levelled at priorities in regard to capital spending is therefore that the Railways spends only those amounts on capital works which it regards as being absolutely necessary to prepare the transport infrastructure of South Africa for the economic upswing when it comes—the economic upswing will come, I have no doubt about that.

The hon. member for Simonstown made various observations. He referred, inter alia, to Rhodesia. I just want to say that the report, the correction, which appeared in this regard in The Cape Times, has my blessing. What was stated in that report represents the standpoint of the Government in respect of the provision of assistance, support, services, etc., to our neighbouring states. This applies not only to Rhodesia, but also to Zambia, Zaïre and other neighbouring states to whom we are able to render such services. Within the limits of our physical means we shall continue to make our services available. The hon. member went on to make a number of interesting observations in regard to our harbours. He suggested that a “maritime department” be established. I shall give attention to that matter again.

†At this stage I think it is opportune for me to reply to the hon. member for Houghton. I do not know whether she expects a reply from me.

Of course I do.

I am not particularly anxious to cross swords with her on the issue she raised. I have often crossed swords with her in the past and I have always enjoyed it, and I cannot remember ever having come off second-best.

Well, do not deprive yourself.

On this occasion it is a little more difficult, because I do not think the hon. member could possibly be objective about this matter.

That is right.

Nor can you.

I shall have to be particularly careful about what I say, because I would not like women to be unkindly disposed towards me—I love them too much. Nevertheless, I have my views on the matter and I suppose I should proceed to give the hon. member and the House a few of my views. To start off with I should like to say that I believe that, intellectually, a woman is as good as, if not better than, a man. However, I am also of the opinion that, physically and emotionally, they differ from men. [Interjections.] Not only are they emotionally different; also physically they cannot match the men.

That depends on what you want to do.

Having said this, I should like to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Houghton. First of all, a young lady by the name of Miss Fleur Wales-Baillie applied to become a pilot in the Airways on 13 January 1976. Her date of birth is 26 June 1941. In other words, she will be 35 on 26 June this year. She holds an airline transport pilot’s licence and has done 3 074 flying hours. Breaking down the flying hours: in jet turbo props, she had 745 hours; in piston-engined aircraft, twins and multi, 1 619 hours; in piston single-engined, 716 hours—a total of 3 074. She has practically had all her flying experience outside of the Republic of South Africa. She passed her matric in 1959 in the following subjects: English, Afrikaans, French, Geography, Biology and Domestic Science. The applicant was informed in writing on 27 January 1976 that her application was not successful and she was granted an interview with Captain Pienaar, the Assistant General Manager, Airways. So in case the hon. member is under the impression that she had no interview with anybody in the Airways, I can tell her now that she had an interview with Captain Pienaar. She wanted to know the reasons why her application was rejected and the Assistant Superintendent (Staff) informed her that he had nothing further to add to what was stated in the letter of 27 January.

The applicant then responded by saying that the public Press would probably inquire further into the matter. Now, Sir, I might just say at this stage that if this is the attitude of anybody, man or woman, that the public Press must solve the problems of the S. A. Railways, then he or she would be unacceptable to me. [Interjections.] As far as we are concerned, she is disqualified, because at the time when she can be taken into the S. A. Airways—the earliest opportunity would be in August this year—she would be over age of 35 years—35 is the limit—and, secondly, because the advertisement, as the hon. member read out yesterday, required that she should either have Mathematics or Physical Science.

A science subject.

Physical Science or Maths. She did not have either. Now, for the purposes of the record, I would like to read the reply I gave to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Friday, 6.2.76, Q8)

And then I went on to say that “As far as is known, no leading airlines employ females as pilots.” The hon. member made the point yesterday that this young lady was already trained and that it therefore was not necessary to train her again.

I should like to explain that whenever we take in a pilot in the S. A. Airways, he or she—up to this stage it has been “he”—has to start with the Hawker Siddeley, but before starting with the Hawker Siddeley he has to complete a training course. After the Hawker Siddeley, he is promoted to the 737. Another training course follows and he is promoted to the 727. Another training course follows before he is promoted to the 707. Finally there is a training course for the 747. When a first officer is promoted to captain, he starts as a captain on the Hawker Siddeley once more, where he completes a refresher course. Thereafter follow refresher courses on the 737, 727, 707 and ultimately on the 747. These training courses are absolutely necessary. I should also like to tell the hon. member that the costs incurred to train pilots total R110 000 per pilot. The hon. member said yesterday that it was not necessary for a first officer to become a captain. In other words, she pleaded that this young lady should be admitted as a first officer only, and that she need never become a captain. Is that not the most terrible form of discrimination? [Interjections.]

I said that that was a transitional step.

There are other very good reasons why we feel that it is better not to employ ladies as pilots in the S.A. Airways.

You will change your mind within five years, mark my words.

That may be possible. If circumstances compel me, I shall probably change my mind. I should like to mention the following reasons, and I wish to draw attention particularly to the first one, which has regard to the physical condition of a woman.

If during flight the hydraulic system fails and the flight deck crew have to resort to manual reversion, brute force by both pilots is necessary in flying the aircraft. In an emergency of this nature it could happen that a female may not have the physical strength required. Secondly, we have had complaints—I should like the hon. member to pay attention to this reason—from time to time from members of the public when air hostesses were on the flight deck and remained there a bit too long. These complaints seem to convey the idea that a female on the flight deck could distract the attention of the crew and that that in turn could jeopardize safety.

You should have more females there. [Interjections.]

Whilst we do not subscribe to these views, it is quite possible that similar and even more serious complaints may be received if a female is in fact employed on the flight deck. I should like the hon. member and other hon. members to imagine a very attractive young lady who as a first officer sits on the right-hand side while the captain is sitting on the left-hand side next to her. [Interjections.] Let us assume there are 250 or 300 passengers on board. At the most inopportune time the captain may become interested in saying hello or something of that kind to the first officer. [Interjections.] This would not be the fault of the lady; it would be the fault of the man, because after all he is human. [Interjections.]

I think it is clear to the hon. the Minister that there is nothing wrong with the imagination of hon. members.

I have a very long medical report form here, but I do not think it will be appropriate to read it except only to mention the following aspect which concerns flying. If a woman was pregnant and decided not to fly during pregnancy, she would be off work for one year. This of course is a very important matter to any airline, since continuity is of the utmost importance.

Surely, it only takes nine months.

If she has children she will be emotionally involved in their upbringing, especially during infancy and illness. The hon. member should try to imagine herself in the place of a married woman whose child is perhaps two or three years old and is not feeling too well. That woman may then have to go to Europe or somewhere else and be away for a week or ten days.

But that applies to males too.

There must be considerable emotional stress on such a woman. Bearing all these considerations in mind, we have come to the conclusion that however much respect we have for the capabilities of women, it would be better, as long as we can find enough pilots for the S.A. Airways, rather to have men as pilots.

*The hon. member put another question to me. She asked what our standpoint was in regard to the appointment of non-Whites as pilots. The question amounts to wilfulness— nothing else. The hon. member knows very well what our standpoint is in respect of the creation of posts for non-Whites. In my opinion there are few organizations in South Africa that have done what the S.A. Railways has done up to now in respect of the training and employment of non-Whites. The hon. member knows this. However, she has now chosen one of the most sophisticated posts one can find on the Railways, and she wants me to appoint non-Whites as pilots. Where is she going to find such a person?

Why not?

The question hardly arises. The hon. member knows what the policy of the Government in respect of these matters is. When posts cannot be filled because there are not enough Whites, and non-Whites consequently have to be employed, this is being done in consultation with the staff associations. However, this does not mean that we want to exclude the non-Whites completely from the posts. The hon. member knows as well as I do tremendous progress has been made over the years in regard to the training and employment of non-Whites. In fact, I think that the progress has been as rapid as could be expected. It was sheer wilfulness on the part of the hon. member to have put that question to me. The hon. member ought to have known what the reply to it was.

The hon. member for Maitland kicked up a great fuss about the number of workers in the employ of the Railways. The hon. member looked at the figures which we furnish in the White Book purely for the information of this House, not because these people are physically in our employ but purely for the information of this House. In this way the hon. member arrived at the figure of 266 000. I should like to inform the hon. member that this 266 000 is not included in the calculation for the purposes of the Budget and in respect of the expenditure which is associated with it. The actual physical availability of officials, plus an adjusted projection for the course of the year is included in the calculation for the purposes of Railway expenditure. The figures which the hon. member looked at are only made available for the information of this House. It is doubtful whether it is a sound policy to work with such information, for this is a striking demonstration of the degree of confusion which can be brought about in this way. I should like to furnish the hon. member with the actual figures. I still remember very well that when I took over the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport two years ago in May, 1974, there were 236 000 people in the employ of the Railways. However, I should like to furnish the figures I now have available, for these are more significant.

In December 1974 there were 107 000 Whites in the employ of the Railways. I am furnishing the figures rounded off to the nearest thousand. At the time there were 130 000 non-Whites in the employ of the Railways. The total was therefore 237 000. In December 1975, i.e. a year later, the number of persons in the employ of the Railways had increased considerably. This is in accordance with what I said in my speech. We availed ourselves of the opportunity which arose as a result of the downturn in the economy to fill posts which we were unable to fill before. As a result there were 111 000 Whites in the employ of the Railways in December 1975, and 139 000 non-Whites, a total of 251 000. These are in fact the latest figures I have. As I said in my speech, our numbers have shown a decrease during the past few months. Recently there have been signs of a flow of staff away from the Railways. During the period December 1974 to December 1975 there was an increase of 4 590 in our White staff and an increase of 9 520 in respect of non-White staff. Therefore, there was a total increase of 14 110.

It goes without saying that if the economic upswing which we expect does in fact occur, there will again be greater activity in the private sector. Then we will again lose some of our officials and the number of people in the employ of the Railways will diminish. I sincerely hope that this does not happen, for we have more posts than we have staff with which to fill them. But this is nevertheless quite possible.

The hon. member also spoke about productivity, and I should like to give him, as well as a few other hon. members who asked whether there was the necessary productivity in respect of the Railways service, a few figures. If we were to base the real wage index of all staff members in the year 1970-’71 on 100, then we would find that it had risen to 102 by the year 1975-’76. This means that the real wage index rose from 100 in 1970 to a 102 in 1975. During the same period the productivity index rose from 100 to 109,4. This means that while the productivity rose by 9,4, the real salaries of railway staff only increased by 2. This is a striking example of the increase in productivity on the Railways.

In my opinion the hon. member stated in a very irresponsible manner that we would have to reduce our numbers …

No.

… or that we would have to keep our numbers constant, and that we should not expand. I rectified this position for the hon. member. The hon. member also said that we should make less money available in respect of the Betterment Fund. In the past we paid R70 million per annum into the Betterment Fund.

Not betterment, but depreciation.

This year we made provision for R80 million. The same circumstances apply to depreciation, and this is called the Betterment Fund. What it amounts to is that we want to make a contribution from our own resources in respect of our capital requirements—as considerable as we can possibly make it—so that we do not have to look for so much money on the loan market. I accept full responsibility for that. I accept full responsibility for our not deviating from our policy that we should to a certain extent be self-sufficient in respect of our loan requirements. It would be very irresponsible to use those funds to finance current expenditure and then raise larger loans in the present loan money climate. Therefore the hon. member’s proposal is totally unacceptable, and makes no sense.

The hon. member for Orange Grove put certain questions to me and also discussed the capital requirements. The hon. member asked what I meant when I stated in a reply to him that where Whites were not available non-Whites would be appointed and greater productivity would in this way be achieved. I did not reply to the hon. member by way of an interjection, for the matter is by no means as simple as it appears. The hon. member for Uitenhage quoted yesterday what the hon. member for Orange Grove had said on 11 March 1975. It was the following—

I should now like to know from the hon. member what he meant by that. Why should the Railways supposedly become efficient now simply because it is employing non-Whites. My reply is not that simple at all, and I should like to explain this to the hon. member. Where ancillary units are appointed, as for example in shunting works, in which 5 200 non-Whites are already being employed, the result is that the work of the Railways functions smoothly because people who would not otherwise have been available are then available to do the work. It is the lack of availability of these people which causes the problems. Secondly, in our work evaluation schemes, the less skilled work is being taken away from the Whites; in other words, the Whites who perform skilled work of a higher order, are being upgraded. This was part of our rationalization last year. In this way the less skilled work is made available to non-Whites. They do this work for a remuneration which is better than the remuneration they were previously receiving. In other words, this change entails financial benefits for the Whites, but equally so for the non-Whites, too, for they are now to a certain extent doing skilled work. The final result is that we achieve greater productivity in this way. That is briefly the reply to the hon. member’s question.

The hon. member also put a question concerning Mr. Holahan’s certificate. Mr. Holahan is the Chief Civil Engineer of the Railways, and he issued a qualified certificate in respect of permanent way. He issues that qualified certificate because labour is not available in abundance and because material and in particular steel rails were not readily available at that stage. Another reason is that there may be certain restrictions in respect of the line which necessitates lower speeds over such sections of the line. As a result of that he issues that qualified certificate. This does not inevitably mean that our railway system is in a poor condition. Where the Railways cannot carry the load at prevailing speeds, speed restrictions are introduced.

During the past year there were unprecedented increases in the costs of commodities which are essential for the operation of the Railways. These are commodities such as steel, coal, oil products, electricity, etc. Apart from that, there was also an increase in many other commodities. Not only was there the normal expansion of the Railways, there was abnormal expansion as well. I am thinking for example of the line from Witbank, via Ermelo and Vryheid to Richards Bay, and of the activities at Richards Bay. That railway line and the harbour at Richards Bay now have to be staffed so that they can become operational next year. We expect that we will, during the coming financial year, convey 9 million tons of coal on that line, and export it through Richards Bay harbour. In other words, this is not only normal expansion, but abnormal expansion as well. This applies in respect of other examples which I could also mention. As a result we have substantial cost increases for the coming year, but primarily as a result of inflationary conditions, devaluation, etc., our costs increased out of proportion to our revenue and there was no alternative, in the midst of our attempts and in accordance with our policy of narrowing the gap between rates, but to increase the rates. When the hon. member for Durban Point moved his amendment, he said that it stood on four legs. I do not think there are any of the four legs remaining. The hon. member will agree with me that, all things considered, there was only one solution and that is the solution we adopted by raising discretionary rates in order to cause our revenue and our expenditure to balance.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—103: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T.N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe. P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

NOES—36: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading of this Bill speakers on this side of the House were at pains to make it abundantly clear to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs that we were supporting him in the Bill as it came before the House. We also want to make it abundantly clear that, while comments from the Government benches tended to indicate that we were now capitulating in the stand that we took when the original Bill was passed in this House in 1964, such comments are completely false. The difference is that we know that at the moment the hon. the Minister is faced with exceptional circumstances where the consumers of South Africa, harassed by runaway inflation, are perturbed at the possibility of being embarrassed by ever-increasing prices. We want to state clearly that we are not against the profit motive in free enterprise. I believe that every single member of this House will have the intelligence to realize that from the profit motive comes the main spring of a free enterprise, that legitimate profit in commerce and industry as such, contributes to the well-being and growth of our economy.

What we are against—and we are supporting the hon. the Minister in this—is not profits in industry, or profits flowing from commerce, but profiteering flowing from the misuse and mishandling of economic principles. It is for that reason that, in the two important clauses of the Bill, viz. clauses 3 and 4, amendments were moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, which sought to limit the range of freedom that the Government is now seeking in order to deal with these particular problems. We believe that the powers that the Government was seeking were too wide, and we want to place on record our hope—now that the Bill is approaching its Third Reading—that the hon. the Minister will have taken into account what we regard as the very valid arguments put forward by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, and that in the application of this Bill both the price control inspectors and the hon. the Minister himself will have due regard to the fact that the powers that are being granted, are to meet the deficiencies in the Bill in the legal sense and that they should in no way be abused because of this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his support of the Third Reading of the Bill. I dealt with the amendments in detail during the Committee Stage and I do not intend to take the matter any further now. There is only one further remark I want to make. This is that it is suggested that the private entrepreneur should have complete freedom to pursue the profit motive. Naturally it remains the basic premise, of this side of the House as well, that the Government must not interfere with the business decisions of the private entrepreneur, and that the Government must not place restrictions either on the actions of the private entrepreneur in his pursuit of the profit motive. Having stated this basic principle, however, I must add a reservation. This is that when the broad national interest so requires, the Government should interfere with the decisions and the actions of private entrepreneurs who do not act in the national interest. I should be neglecting my duty if I were not to take action in such cases. Consequently I am satisfied that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and I do not differ in our basic premises. I want to convey my sincere thanks to him once again for his support and I want to assure him that irrespective of the provisions of the legislation and irrespective of the hon. member’s reservations regarding clauses 3 and 4, it is the standing practice of both my department and myself to administer legislation as far as possible in consultation with the people affected by it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.