Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour. In this budget debate so far two traditions have been broken and one has been maintained. The first to be broken was that it was noticeable, contrary to the practice over the years, that not one single Government member tried to thank the Minister for this budget. The “mbongos”, the paeans of praise for the “brilliant” Minister, were missing. The other tradition that was broken was that the Minister replied immediately. He stood up at 17h00 and showed that he was almost word perfect—he had learnt the opening remarks traditionally used. This was the tradition that was maintained. He thanked his members for “demolishing” the United Party’s case, although none of them had got close to it. He said that he would be brief because there was nothing to which he had to reply, and that he had nothing to say. At 18h11 he sat down, having proved that he was absolutely correct. He had nothing to say, and he had taken 1 hour and 11 minutes to say it, and this despite the fact that he was not quite unaided in his task in replying. According to the establishment his own office has a personnel of 33 members, who are paid R298 035 per year to assist him. He has the parliamentary section of the General Manager’s office, with 63 members of staff, and then he has access to 2 999 other members of the General Manager’s office. This includes 28 financial research officers, 341 planners and R10 million in salaries for data processing. Those are formidable resources, Mr. Chairman, because most of these are very able men. Some of them are here. Some of them are outstandingly able men with all the qualities and qualifications to advise the Minister.

I now want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, Mr. Chairman. He was able to query two of the figures which I had quoted. By making use of his 28 financial research officers he was able to query two figures. He was also able to point out that it was the farmer who paid for the transport of livestock and not the consumer. Other than that, Mr. Chairman, he made no attempt at all, not even a superficial attempt, to counter the arguments and the inescapable logic of the case put up by this side of the House. Since he made no attempt to counter those arguments or to shoot them down, we must assume that he accepts them—that he agrees with our arguments. I want to deal with this in more detail. Let us forget about the red herrings, the querying of a couple of figures, the mass of words and the side issues, such as taking half an hour to explain that a woman is physically different from a man. We appreciate that; the hon. the Minister has made an advance; he has learnt something. Let us look instead at the basis of the argument which we put forward. I shall take the points head by head.

Firstly we claimed that there were excessive and unnecessary tariff increases. We supported our contention with facts and figures. The hon. the Minister queried two of those figures by which we showed that the public was being forced to pay R70 million more than they need have been asked to pay. The first figure on which the hon. the Minister stated that I was incorrect was my statement that a 10% increase in air fares meant R26 million, whereas in fact that applied to internal fares only. Is that correct?

That is right.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister says that is correct. I take a very serious view of this. His speech dealt with revenue figures dated November 1975. Why does he try to hide from this House the fact that there was a 15% increase in international air fares from 1 October last year, which does not appear in last year’s figures? So, Mr. Chairman, although there was a 10% increase in internal fares only, there was in fact for the current year a 15% increase in international fares which was only reflected for four months of last year. The hon. the Minister tries to hide that. Now am I wrong when I say that in fact the increase was R26 million? The facts are that there are 2,2 million passengers on domestic flights, according to the latest report, compared with half a million on international flights. I think I have been generous in taking an average figure of 10%, when the figure in respect of the 2,2 million domestic passengers has increased by 10%, while the figure in respect of the half a million passengers on international flights has increased by 15%. This is the one figure which the hon. the Minister queried—of all the factual, documented statistics I gave to show that he had overcharged the public. I think I was generous; I have underestimated in saying that the increase was 10% across the board.

The other figure which the hon. the Minister queried was that there was an increase of R14 million in-respect of passenger services. I accept this is possible but the Minister’s budget speech was so vague, perhaps so deliberately fluffed up, to hide the impact of the passenger tariff increases. He spoke of increases “from 20% to 49%”, and “from 4% to 20%”, so I accept that it was difficult to analyse his speech. I tried to analyse it according to the break-down of figures. The fact is that in the last year for which full figures are available, viz. 1973-’74, main-line passenger traffic brought in R52 million. Half of that—and I do not need the Minister’s R10 million worth of data processors to work it out—is R26 million, and even my little calculator works out that an increase of 7,4% on R26 million is R1,924 million. The hon. the Minister said that the total passenger increase was R2 million. Yet this is the figure on main line traffic alone. Obviously return journeys must average approximately half the total journeys taken. It is unlikely that one is going to have more single than return journeys.

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

No, the hon. member will get an opportunity to speak. This is a Committee Stage debate and I shall welcome the hon. member making his entry into this debate when his turn comes to speak. I am dealing with facts. If I am still incorrect, and if it is R1% million, then what about the other increases? What about the suburban traffic? What about the increase in respect of season tickets? The hon. the Minister cannot get away with that like this. But let us accept that the hon. the Minister is in fact correct and that I am incorrect. What would the difference be in that case? It amounts to a difference of R10 million to R12 million on the figures furnished by me.

†Instead of them having overcharged the public by R70 million, let us accept his figure. In that case he admits that the public was overcharged by R58 million to R60 million. After all, these were the only two figures that were queried.

I did not deal with all the matters you raised.

These were the only figures the hon. the Minister queried. He made a speech of one hour and 11 minutes and he has 28 financial research officers. He had every opportunity, and if he could not then query my figures it is no use coming afterwards to try to do it. He had his opportunity and I am now dealing with his speech which is reported in Hansard. Who is the hon. the Minister trying to bluff? I very generously did not take into account the minor issues. I did not take into account the increase of five cents per 100 kg in respect of handling charges. I did not take into account the 30% increase in truck demurrage or the 15% increase in delivery charges. Neither did I take into account the 20% increase in the special iron and manganese rate to Port Elizabeth. In passing, may I ask whether this is a special Iscor bonsella? Is the hon. the Minister increasing the rate to Port Elizabeth so as not to have competition against the Sishen-Saldanha line? Why should he pick out that particular line for a 20% special increase in respect of iron ore and manganese? Who pressurized the hon. the Minister into that little amendment?

The fact remains that the hon. the Minister has applied “Overkill” in order to meet his shortfall. He has asked for more than he requires, for more than he has told the country he is taking. The fact is that the country will pay that much more.

I would now like to look at the second leg, that concerning inflation and the collective contract to combat inflation. The hon. the Minister dealt with the question of meat. I am going to accept what he said without arguing the claim that the farmer will be paying. However, I would like to offer the hon. the Minister a deal. I would like to ask him whether he will back his confidence that the increase of 50% in the tariff on livestock will not increase the price of meat. Does he really believe that?

I gave you a reply to that yesterday.

If the hon. the Minister believes that, I would like to make a deal with him. Will he pay the increase in my wife’s meat bill over the next year as a result of the increase in the Railway tariff? [Interjections.] This is fair. If the hon. the Minister is so confident, will he pay the increase in my wife’s meat bill for the next year? This is a fair offer. Like Pontius Pilate the hon. the Minister washes his hands of the consequences of his budget. He says: “I am taking R200 million. I do not care what other people do with it.

It is not my business if other people take a profit on it. It is not my business if I push up the cost of production, if industry finds that it costs more to produce and if commerce and industry want more money for their goods. That is not my fault. I am only responsible for taking R200 million.” The hon. the Minister does not even accept responsibility for the removal of the special resettlement rate, which goes to central revenue and not to the Railways. This is in addition to the R200 million. However, this is the significant point: He does not deny what we claim will be the effect of the budget. He has only denied responsibility for the effect of it. The hon. the Minister is a member of the Cabinet and he shares collective responsibility with the Cabinet. Government members and the hon. the Minister supported a claim that the total effect on the GDP would be 1%. The revenue of the Railways forms 13½% of the GDP. If one increases that by 11,2%, then the minimum is 1,37% or 1,38%, on a direct relationship to the GDP. The hon. the Minister says it is going to have a lesser effect, a 1% effect, less than the direct effect even before any escalation has taken place. He says it will be R28 per family. Of course this is utter nonsense.

Against the claim of the hon. member for Maitland that the hon. the Minister had increased wages and staff, he again drew a complete red herring. He said: “But there are not 22 000 workers more; that is only what the estimates say and it is not the figure. ’ ’ This is a very serious matter. In the estimates before us we have a section headed “Summary of Staff.” This summary of staff gives the number of staff on the establishment and the amounts paid. On page 41 it says that this is based on the rate of emoluments as at 1 July 1975, and that has been adjusted in the amounts actually asked for. What the Minister is saying is that he is budgeting for 266 000 people, but in fact that is not what he is budgeting for. He is budgeting for less than that What does it mean? It means that the hon. member for Maitland’s argument is reinforced. The hidden wage increase is more than the hon. member for Maitland said, because if one divides the same amount of wages into a lesser number of people, then it is more per person.

*It has been an under the blanket wage increase of which South Africa has heard nothing. I should now like to know how the Civil Servants must feel. How do the people in the Post Office feel who were told, “No wage increases; there is a contract, a collective manifesto against wage increases. You must make a contribution in respect of the problem of inflation.” Now these people have to learn that the Railways have received a wage increase under the blanket. The hon. member for Maitland dealt with that, but there has been no reply from the Minister in this regard.

The third leg deals with socio-economic services.

†The hon. the Minister said that I knew the Government could not subsidize socio-economic services in the present economic situation—that it could not afford to subsidize uneconomic services provided for socio-economic reasons. What is the difference between R200 million being taken from Central Revenue, in a once only payment to Railways, and the Railways initially taking R200 million which escalates to R400 million or more, as I have said? That figure has not been denied, and I think R400 million is a very conservative estimate. In the one case R200 million is taken out of general taxation and in the other R400 million is taken not only out of the taxpayers’ pockets but out of the pockets of people who are too poor even to be taxpayers. Why should it then be impossible to subsidize socio-economic services? As a whole, it is going to cost the country less. It is going to keep down the cost of production. It is going to keep down the cost of food. It is going to keep down the cost of the necessities of life. All this will be possible and it will only be taken out of Central Revenue once, instead of twice or more out of the pockets of the users.

The hon. the Minister said he was closing the tariff gap between high and low-rated traffic. He claims he is implementing the Schumann Report. I suggest he reads the Schumann Report and that he reads paragraphs 582 to 585 in particular. The hon. the Minister will find that the recommendations of the Schumann Report, accepted by the Government, are that low-rated traffic rates should be increased and high-rated traffic rates should be reduced. It is not that one should close the gap, but that one should raise low-rated traffic to an economic level and that one should reduce high-rated traffic. What has the hon. the Minister done to reduce the gap?

High-rated traffic comprises 20% of the tonnage of traffic carried and approximately 52%, judging by the graph which is over the 50% mark, of the income. For the last year for which we have complete figures, 1974-’75, it was 22 million tons and R422 million. Low-rated traffic comprises 80% of the traffic and 48% of the income, the respective figures being 90 million tons and R379 million. Let us be generous again and take a round figure of 50: 50. It means that he has increased high-rated traffic by an average of 25 cents per ton, on the percentage increase he has applied, and that he has increased low-rated traffic by 9 cents per ton. In other words, he has not narrowed the gap; he has increased the gap by 16 cents per ton. This is based on his own figures, on his own budget which I have here before me but from which I have not the time to quote. He knows that it is true. The percentage on high-rated traffic and on low-rated traffic, applied to tons carried, means an increase of the gap by 16 cents. Where is the Minister closing the gap?

He said that he was optimistic because he forecast a growth rate of 2% to 3%. The EDP—and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs knows this—wants a 6% growth rate. Is that correct?

Yes, on an average for five years.

On an average for five years it wants a 6% growth rate. The hon. the Minister regards himself as optimistic, with a 2% to 3% growth rate.

You are overstating your case again.

Here is the Minister’s speech. He foresees a 2% to 3% growth rate. He said the growth rate for the last year was 4%, and he now foresees a growth rate of 2% to 3%. The average of the EDP is 6%. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister. He has said that he will have nightmares and sleepless nights when the growth rate cannot keep pace with the new workers who come on to the labour market. It is estimated that you need a 5% growth rate in order to absorb the new workers that come on to the labour market each year. What is happening to the hon. the Prime Minister’s sleep?

You want to take one year and then judge the whole …

Which year has exceeded 6% sufficiently to make up for a fraction of the shortfall in last year or this year’s growth rate?

In 1974 it was 7,2%.

7,2%? That is 1,2% over the average. Last year it was 3% below; next year it will be 4% below, and the hon. the Minister is happy. They may very well sleep happily because our unemployment figures only show Whites and Coloureds; they do not show Black unemployment. You have no scale by which to test unemployment, but at this rate of 2%, 3% and 4%, the hon. the Prime Minister is going to have many sleepless nights. He is going to have those nightmares of hands looking for work and not finding work.

I have tried to clarify three of the essential issues which we have raised. The fourth, viz. streamlining of efficiency, the hon. the Minister did not touch upon. He did not even get near it. That is arguable; it is a question of your concept of the task and the role of the S.A. Railways in transport.

There was so much praise in connection with efficiency from that side that it was not necessary for me to do so.

The hon. the Minister is satisfied with his own efficiency. I do not have time in this debate to deal with that aspect in detail. I have dealt with three things which are measurable, i.e. the tariff increases and the effect of inflation in South Africa. These are the measurable problems and the solution we offer is subsidization by central revenue of uneconomic services in the national interest. On those three measurable issues we have put up a case to which the hon. the Minister has not even tried to reply. We shall listen with interest during this debate to see what new arguments the hon. the Minister tries to find, because in the few minutes left to me I want to deal with one or two other detailed matters.

The first is the fact that in this budget pensioners have received no consideration whatsoever. I refer in particular to the old scheme pensioners, people who have to live on a pension on which it is impossible to exist and to maintain a civilized standard of living today. I do not have the time—one of my colleagues will deal with this in detail—but I want to place on record our shock at the fact that this body of men who have served the Railways during the whole of their working lives should have been completely ignored and should have had nothing done for them. They must wait now in the never-never land. They are not part of rationalization. They have no share in the hidden increases. Those people have to live from day to day and from hand to mouth. I believe that it is a disgrace that for them, for that small group of people, there could not have been some degree of reasonable relief. The hon. the Minister takes R200 million because inflation has hit the running costs of his department, because his Administration cannot operate against the burden of inflation. He takes it from the railway user, but he forgets the Railway worker who helped to build the Railways into what it is today.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to deal with the question of containerization. Again I do not have enough time to go into it at any length, but I simply want to state—I state it here for the record and I hope we shall have a further opportunity of debating it—that the estimated cost of R1 500 million for this programme of containerization—estimated to cost the Railways alone R375 million in three years—is a low estimate. In the experience of similar countries like Australia and the Far East it is going to push up the costs of inter-continental transport and the cost of handling goods to an extent which will shock the importers and the consumers of South Africa. I believe that the Railways have gone overboard in simply accepting what the shipping lines have said is going to be the position, and by tamely lying down to it instead of having planned an evolutionary process of transition from normal traffic to containerized traffic.

I want to deal briefly with a matter relating to South West Africa, which I have been asked to raise by a number of sources. Seeing that no South West African member will raise it— they never do—I shall do it That is the matter of Windhoek station, where there are no White catering facilities whatsoever. On a station which is at the end of long-distance journeys, for troops and for anyone else going through—I am referring particularly to the troop aspect now—there are no catering facilities. Yet the Railways have bought an old hotel nearby for R180 000. There is no reason why they could not let out to private enterprise facilities to provide catering on that station. There is catering for non-Whites, but no catering facilities whatsoever for Whites, not even a tea-room within 250 yards of the station. And also in respect of South West Africa—Government members fail to raise these things—I want to lodge a protest against the delay, against the build-up of goods waiting to travel to South West Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is in fact due to a shortage of diesel traction power to get those goods there. My information is that there is a heavy build-up at places such as De Aar and other stations, waiting for transit to South West Africa.

Sir, there are other matters. I cannot deal with them now in any detail. One is the Airways. Once again another year has shown that the Saafari reservation system is subject to excessive breakdowns and delays. Time after time when you try to book on Saafari, you find that it is out of order, and I want to know what is being done, when we spend millions on a modernized system, to make sure that it works at least for 90% or 95% of the time. It cannot be a coincidence that every time I and my colleagues want to book, it is just that one day of the year on which it is out of order; that is too coincidental. Whilst I am on this, I want to say that the delays on internal flights are also starting to cause concern. Businessmen are finding that they are unable to make appointments or to rely on the Airways to get them there. They make appointments giving themselves a normal margin, but the delays on internal flights are numerous. People missed appointments in Cape Town this very day because the Durban plane was delayed at East London. This is happening over and over again. Businessmen whose time is valuable, cannot be expected to give themselves a whole day’s or even a half day’s margin to make up for the delay in internal flights. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Durban Point has once again established the fact today that arithmetic certainly is his weakest subject. He always tries to make calculations and although I do not have the time, I nevertheless want to point out one big mistake which he made. He says that R1 818 000 was budgeted for in respect of the current financial year, while an expenditure of R2 211 000 has been budgeted for in respect of the coming financial year, and according to him this is a tremendously large increase of 21,6%. This was broadcast over the ether. May I point out to the hon. member that he disregarded the additional appropriation. This pushed up the estimates of expenditure for the current financial year to R1 922 million, which brings the increase down to 15%. This is the type of calculation and distortion of figures with which the hon. member tries to impress the House and the people outside too.

Order! The hon. member may not use the word “distortion”.

Then I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, and say that he is juggling with figures. But what is more, Sir, the hon. member is very well known for his double talk.

Order! The expression “double talk” is unparliamentary and the hon. member must therefore withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. I mean that what he says in the morning and what he says at night do not agree.

The United Party has been advocating for the past few years that the S.A. Railways and Harbours should accept a tariff determination policy based on costs. This has been advocated over the past few years, and the hon. member for Durban Point boasted during his speech here only last Monday that they were the ones who had advocated that policy. I quote from his speech—

The hon. member for Durban Point rejoiced in the fact that attention was being given to the United Party’s plea, as he put it, that the uneconomic services should be discontinued. But as usual he spoke without thinking, because on Monday during his Second Reading speech he condemned what they had advocated over the past few years and what he had boasted of only last Friday. Livestock is one of the most uneconomic services and it is with respect to this service that the tariff has been increased by 50%. Had the hon. Minister granted their request, he would have had to increase the tariff by 100% because the actual uncovered costs amounted to 51%. They wanted to have those uneconomic services, of which the transport of livestock is one, eliminated. In terms of their request they should actually have asked for a 100% increase in order to cover the actual costs. Now that the increase has been announced, it naturally does not suit them to do so. A little while ago I said that the hon. member’s arithmetic was one of his weak points. Unfortunately he then sat with another dullard and made calculations. He then made the allegation here that the price of meat would rise by an average of 15c a kg as a result of the tariff increase. Today he repeated that it would be the consumer who would pay for this increase.

Eventually, yes.

There he confirms it again. But the worst is yet to come. He then repeated what he had already said on television. Since the hon. the Minister of National Education is now present, I want to ask him please to spare us that. I hope we never have a repetition of it. I think we have enough clowns on television as it is. I regret that the hon. member for King William’s Town is not here now, because he maintained that it was the producer who would have to carry those costs. He was the one who declared very dramatically: the farmer has been fleeced! I now want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point who was right—he or the hon. member for King William’s Town? Who will have to bear the cost: The producer or the consumer? The hon. member for Durban Point says it is the consumer who will have to bear the cost and the hon. member for King William’s Town says it is the producer who will have to do so. This is the type of confusion which prevails in their own ranks. They now have two speeches which are recorded in Hansard: One speech is for the city and the other for the country. When the hon. member for Durban Point goes to the city, he says to the city dweller: “I told you that this was what the Government was doing to you. ’ ’ For his part, the hon. member for King William’s Town goes to the farmers and says: “See how I told them in there that they were fleecing you.” This is typical of them. For every group of people they have a different speech and a different policy. For this reason one can never get at them.

They remind me of the driver who was stopped by a traffic office. The traffic officer said to the driver:“I think you are driving this car under the influence of alcohol; I shall have to subject you to a test.” He then asked the driver to blow into a little bag. The driver answered: “Not that, please, officer. I have a terrible lung disease. I shall over-exert my lungs and this could mean my life.” So the traffic officer said that he would have to draw blood. “How?” asked the driver. The traffic officer explained that he would insert a needle into the driver’s arm and draw a little blood. “Not that, please, officer,” said the driver. “If I have the slightest scratch, I will bleed to death, because I am a bleeder.” The traffic officer’s answer was:“Then, Sir, you must get out and walk along the white line so that I can watch.” “Not that, please,” said the motorist. “Why not? asked the traffic officer. “Because I am too damn drunk to do it,” answered the motorist. This is just like the hon. members on that side. For every statement they have a different excuse.

Passenger transport is another uneconomic service. In 1974-’75 there was a loss of R148 million with respect to that service. Does the hon. member for Durban Point agree that these tariffs should be increased in the light of what they are advocating? After all, they asked that the recommendations of the Schumann Report be carried out.

With subsidizing, where necessary.

However, what are the facts? There has been no increase at all with respect to suburban first-class fares.

There has only been a maximum increase of 20% with respect to season tickets for journeys of 28 kilometres and above. In practice we find that only 11% of the first-class season ticket holders undertake journeys of longer than 28 kilometres. Therefore the increase affects only 11% of the people who travel by train in the suburban areas. I want to point out that the global increase amounts to only 2,2%. Nevertheless the hon. member for Durban Point says that the price of all season tickets has been increased by 20%. What he said during his speech, he is going to tell his constituency as well, i.e. “The price of season tickets has been increased by 20%. ” He will say this without adding that this is only in extreme cases. It is untrue that all the season tickets have been increased by 20%. He must tell us how the poor man is exploited in that way. These wild and untrue allegations are the reason why the UP looks the way it does.

It looks like a corpse!

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to the pipelines for the transportation of petrol. He said that the pipelines were nothing but a parasite feeding on our motorists. If the hon. member had wanted to take the trouble, he could have found out from any Railway official what the facts are. The truth is that should fuel be transported free of charge by the Railways, it would only make a difference of 0,77 cents per litre. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a little difficult to know how to react to the hon. member for Boksburg. [Interjections.] I will tell you why. He had only 10 minutes to speak and he spent three of them telling a joke. I must say, though, that the joke was the best part of his speech. What the hon. member does not want to realize is that this side of the House is not inexorably opposed to tariff increases. It would be foolish to adopt such a standpoint. What is of cardinal importance when it comes to tariff increases is the period in which we are living. Our whole argumentation was simply that with a view to the anti-inflation campaign, the hon. the Minister should have made a point of avoiding tariff increases at this juncture. This is our argument. [Interjections.]

What also surprises me is that every time the Railways want to raise their tariffs, hon. members on the opposite side produce the Schumann Report. Every time they need money, they refer to the Schumann Report, which they then want to put into operation. We know, after all, that the hon. the Minister can ignore the report and pretend that no such report ever existed. If I interpret correctly his frame of mind yesterday, he would have increased the tariffs in any case, even if Schumann had been dead. It is no argument after all, to try and hide behind the Schumann Report.

The hon. the Minister tried to deal with my arguments in a few seconds yesterday. One of the tings which worry me is that he asked how I could be so irresponsible as to propose that a specified amount be taken from the Renewals Fund in an attempt to curtail expenses. The hon. gentleman ought to know that this was not a proposal which was originally made by me. When times were much less critical than they are now, his predecessor took that very step with great success. The hon. the Minister would not want to suggest that Mr. Ben Schoeman was irresponsible, would he? In a period like this, with the economic pressure which exists, I believe it would be extremely advantageous to take precisely such a step.

But let us leave the matter at that. Let us see how the hon. the Minister dealt with my argument. He asked where I had come by the figure of 266 000. He said this was totally wrong and that the figure which appeared in the Schedule had only been given for the information of the House. But let us forget about the 266 000 staff members for the moment. I will come back to that later. I want to tell him that I have only one publication on the basis of which I have to determine what the expenditure of the Railways on wages will be for the year 1976-’77. I am not referring now to a cost factor which only amounts to 1% or 2%, but to a cost factor which amounts to 40%. Where am I to obtain the figures concerned? If the hon. gentleman maintains that it does not amount to R931 million, I would like to ask him in all humility what the correct figure would then be. If he tells me that the amount was lower, I would like to tell him that every million rand which the Railways save on their wage sheet could be used to reduce the loss of R199 million. Am I right or am I wrong? Surely this is as clear as daylight!

While the hon. the Minister is now saying that our figures should be accurate, and that we should not come along with calculations, I would like to tell him something else. Allow me simply to say in passing that when we have to exercise financial control and have to consider the year which lies ahead of us, we must have the figures to be able to do this, and not only forecasts of which it is then said that they are only intended for information.

This is basically how we should approach a budget. The forecasts which have been provided are the only information which I have. Let us look at the figures to determine to what extent my estimates were wrong. Here I have the White Paper “Memorandum by the Minister of Transport“. I assume that the figures which are supplied here are accurate. In this I find that the total expenditure of the Railways on wages for the eight months until 30 November 1975 amounted to R587 million. This was the expenditure of two-thirds of the year. To determine what the expenditure for the whole year was, we need only add a third. The total wage sheet for the year ending on 31 March 1976 then amounts to R783 million, while the estimate for last year had been R777 million. Therefore it was very close on target, and I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this. If this is so, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how far my R931 million was out. Does he mean to tell me that he will be employing 10 000 fewer than 266 000 people? For every 10 000 fewer people in his service, the Railways, according to his own memorandum, saves R35 million. This is the point I tried to make. I am looking for money to cover the R199 million. I am not trying to argue with the hon. gentleman on productivity in the Railways. I am only looking at the figures. I believe that from now on, if we want to do our work, the hon. the Minister must not tell us that it is not desirable for us to receive certain information because we might perhaps come to incorrect conclusions. He must give us the correct information, or at least information which is as close on target as is possible. How else are we to calculate this? I repeat that we are not dealing with a trifling sum here, but with an enormous amount, an amount which represents 40% of the total cost sheet of the Railways.

The hon. the Minister did not even deign to look at the other factor which I referred to. By the way, I am not suggesting, after all, that when the Railways open their doors on 1 April 1976, 22 000 extra people will be standing there who will have to be employed. Of course, I realize that the employment will take place over a period of time. But the way the matter is stated at the moment, it is a concealed profit; it is reserves which I believe should be used at a time of economic need to reduce the loss of R199 million. That was the statement which I made. He did not even condescend to answer me in respect of the question of overtime and Sunday time. I repeat: Any organization which finds that its overtime amounts to such an incredible sum should take a close interest in that condition. I am not saying that the railwayman is doing this, and I do not want the hon. member for Witwatersberg to come and play politics with me. As we all know, and the hon. member for Durban Point stated this clearly, there are few factors in the labour world which can be exploited as much as overtime. For that reason I am saying that the hon. the Minister should examine the matter. But he does not pay the slightest attention to this! What is more, if he is serious, and the increase in tariffs does in fact hurt him as much as he maintains, why does he not budget for a deficit of R30 million? Would there be anything strange about that? But he does not do this either. I say there is R20 million left in the Rates Equalization Fund, but he does not even answer me on that. I know there is R20 million left in it. The hon. the Minister really does make light of R20 million. I pointed out all the millions to the hon. the Minister, but he does not know what he has left in the kitty—he does not know what his remaining reserves are. That is precisely my difficulty. During the course of the next two days we shall also be looking at the other reserves. The point which I made still holds, and the hon. the Minister will have to examine the affairs of the Railways itself before he burdens the public of South Africa with R200 million, an amount which will escalate until it may reach R400 million or R500 million. Before placing such a burden on the shoulders of the public, the hon. the Minister should look to see whether he cannot cover the loss from the funds of the Railways. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Durban Point. He referred to “many sources”, and I am sorry to have to point out that the hon. member made inquiries at the Suidwes-Afrikaner as well. If the hon. member had known that little newspaper the way we know it, he would have agreed that if we had been living in biblical times and the Jews had been moving out of Egypt, that paper would have been the eleventh plague. These, then, are the sources where the hon. member made inquiries. However, the facts are as follows: This newspaper made inquiries of the System Manager of the S.A. Railways in South West Africa because there are no eating and other facilities for White passengers at the station. The answer was that the Railways had bought a building called the Sokoliek Building adjacent to the station. That building had previously been an hotel, but had not been used as one since the ’thirties. A refreshment room for Whites is being planned in the bookings hall. In reply to the question as to when this would be done, that newspaper was told that this would require planning and might only be possible by the end of this year.

When was it bought? [Interjections.]

Order!

I did not interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Durban Point put a question and then said that nobody would reply to it. I am replying to it and now he is wailing. Nor is the problem as great as the newspaper gave it out to be, because the fact of the matter is that there is a restaurant and a café within 200 yards of the station. The café is open daily from 07h00 to 21h30 and the restaurant from 07h30 to 21h00. Sundays both are open from 07h30 to 14h00.

It is 250 yards away.

Why did the hon. member not go to the trouble of measuring it out in centimetres? I suppose that if he had fallen down, it would have been only three rolls. [Interjections.] The trains do not stand over at Windhoek, and there are not many through passengers who suffer discomfort. As regards the trains which transport troops, the Defence Force provides for its own people and in addition every train normally has a mobile canteen. I think the local System Manager of the Railways is better informed on the situation than the hon. members.

I can show you letters from professional people in Windhoek. [Interjections.]

Those the hon. member may hand on to the other eleventh plague, which has also put up a candidate there. The hon. member’s people are too cowardly to put up a candidate. That other eleventh plague may then use that information and try to make out a case for it. There is going to be a by-election one of these days, anyway.

Is there?

Yes, and the hon. member does not even know this. I listened with great attention to the debate during the past two days. It could not have been an easy budget for the hon. the Minister to introduce, because it cannot be easy for any Minister to increase tariffs. The Railways budget affects South West Africa to a large extent and that was why I listened so attentively. The cattle farmer living in the most northerly parts of South West is directly affected by the budget. I wondered what would have happened if this had been 1970, because at that time those hon. members were still the alternative Government. After all, one expects every political party that wishes to attract the attention of the electorate to produce alternative suggestions. During the course of this debate, however, I have not heard one single alternative which is acceptable or would have facilitated the position of the hon. the Minister or South Africa.

It is a fact that the Railways have done much for South West. In spite of the criticism which is now being levelled at the Railways, one should keep in mind that the Railways had large accumulated losses in South West. These have been written off in the meantime. Long before the National Party came to power, in 1922, there had already been an accumulated loss of more than R500 000. Between 1 April 1922 and 31 March 1969 a further loss of R61 557 258 was accumulated in South West. Apart from that we should also remember that the split tariff was abolished on 1 April 1969. By abolishing the split tariff, the Railways made a big contribution to the economic upsurge of South West. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go in on what the split tariff entails, but I may just point out that on goods transported to South West a certain tariff was applicable as far as the border of South West. From there on, railage was payable at a higher tariff. When the split tariff was done away with, a uniform tariff came into operation, and this brought great relief for South West. However, not a single hon. member has the moral courage to mention what the Railways have done in South West to contribute to the economic upsurge there.

I had expected that at least some alternative would be proposed which could have served as a solution to our problems and would have given an indication of what the hon. members would have done if they had been in power. However, after I had heard the speeches of the hon. member for Durban Point, I came to the conclusion that they did not have any alternative plans. For that reason I think the hon. the Minister of Transport had no other alternative than to increase the tariffs. It is a fact that the railway tariffs affect South West Africa directly, especially the cattle farmers there. I am not saying this to criticize the Railways and you must not blame me for this, Sir, but the railway tariffs have affected the cattle farmers in South West Africa directly. In 1970 the railage for cattle from Windhoek was R6,40 a head. Due to my limited time I cannot mention all the figures, but after the last increase the tariff will come to R24,72. From Grootfontein the tariff was R7,26 a head and now it will become R28,12. One should also keep in mind that because of the long distances of South West Africa, the farmers also make use of buses, the tariff of which is not included in this. Should a farmer wish to transport his cattle by bus over a distance of 100 km, it would cost approximately R3,45 extra.

This is not all. Although it does not concern the Railways, I would be pleased if you would allow me to say that if the increased rail tariffs had been the only problem which the cattle and other farmers in South West Africa had to contend with, they would have been able to bear it. However, all the other consumer goods which they need have also undergone tremendous price increases. Seeing that I do not have much time left, I shall leave it at that. However, I would like to add that the solution which the hon. the Minister proposed, namely that the animals should be transported by road, is not a solution as far as I am concerned, because the roads would simply not be able to stand up to it. One would simply not be able to put 10 000 extra vehicles on the roads to transport the 300 000 cattle by road. Other alternatives will have to be considered to find a solution for the cattle farmers of South West Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Mariental will excuse me if I do not follow him. It was very interesting to hear his voice; we do not hear much of him in the House these days. I would like to agree with the hon. member that the hon. the Minister is not faced with an easy task in this debate at all.

The hon. the Minister replied to several points raised by hon. members in these benches during the Second Reading debate. Having heard these replies, I regret to say that some of the answers given have left me feeling even more unhappy than I was before the questions were asked. In the first instance, I would like to return to a question asked by the hon. member for Houghton concerning the training and employment of Black pilots in the South African Airways. The hon. the Minister described the question put by my hon. colleague as “moedswilligheid”, and nothing else. He told the hon. member that she knew perfectly well what the Government’s policy was and what the Railways’ policy was with regard to the training and employment of Black people. The hon. the Minister, who is very busy in his bench at the moment, castigated the hon. member for Houghton for picking on what he describes as one of the most sophisticated posts a person could get in the Railways, and for wanting non-Whites to be appointed as pilots. He explained again that the policy was that, when there were not enough Whites to fill positions, Black people could be brought in after consultation with the staff associations. He claimed that the hon. member knew this and that it was plain wilfulness on her part to ask a question of that nature. I think I have summed up what the hon. the Minister said quite fairly.

I would now like to put a point of view to the hon. the Minister. He and the Nationalist Party Government claim that they have been leading Black people—“hulle het hulle opgelei”—up to a position where they could become independent through the policy of separate development.

“Opgelei” is to train.

The Transkei is to become independent in October of this year. The training of Black people has been going on so that the Transkei can take its place as an independent and viable modern State. When I think of modern states I think of states which have airlines and railways completely ran by the inhabitants of these states. However, when I look at the Transkei I wonder where the top-level trained railwaymen and airmen are. When a train goes to Umtata through the territory of an independent Transkei, is it going to be ran completely by Black railwaymen? [Interjections.] Prior to the granting of independence, have the Railways trained enough Black railwaymen in senior positions to enable them to ran their section of the railways and to drive engines over their section of the track? Have the Railways trained people for this take-over? What exactly are the Government’s intentions in this regard? Can the hon. the Minister say that his conscience is clear and that when independence is granted, the Transkei and other future Black states will have a body of trained personnel at every level who can handle any job on the Railways? I do not believe that this is so. I see the hon. the Minister shrugging his shoulders and looking at the ceiling. However, are there trained executives and trained, skilled technicians and even pilots? It has been the proud boast of the Government that people have been led up to independence. The leading up to independence involves a certain responsibility. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has discharged his responsibility as far as the Railways are concerned. Or are people going to be left to stew in their own juice without even having had the opportunity of carrying out the sophisticated jobs which are part and parcel of any modern economy? I do not get an answer from the hon. the Minister. I hope I will hear from him later.

In this respect I would like to raise again the question of air hostesses of race groups other than Whites. I see that both Mr. Reddy, the Chairman of the Indian Council, and Mr. Sonny Leon have agreed that it would be a sensible idea to train Indian and Coloured women as air hostesses. We have Japanese and we evidently can have Chinese, but I think it would be logical to have others as well. I must again ask the hon. the Minister whether they are making any progress in this regard, because I believe that the good faith of the Government is in question once more in terms of the weeding out of discrimination.

One first has to be an honorary White.

I would like to return to a further answer given by the hon. the Minister concerning a matter I raised myself during the Second Reading debate. This concerns the qualifications in the Certificate respecting Permanent Way, Works and Buildings, issued by the Chief Civil Engineer, Mr. J. G. Holahan. I would like to quote from the hon. the Minister’s reply, and I do so from the uncorrected Hansard—

And now comes the disquieting part—

How much track is “sulke gedeeltes”? Is it only a few kilometres? If it was, I am sure Mr. Holahan would not have found it necessary to qualify his certificate. Is it hundreds of kilometres that are not up to standard? Is the staff situation on the Railways so bad that we are going to continue to have track in a sub-standard condition? For just how long is this unsatisfactory state of affairs going to be allowed to continue? How seriously does this slowing down of traffic affect the efficiency of the Railways? In his answer the hon. the Minister said that qualification did not necessarily mean that our railway system was in bad shape.

What does “necessarily” mean? Does it mean that the track is not up to standard and that the track is unable to stand up to traffic at certain speeds? I do not believe that this is any way to build up public confidence in the safety and efficiency of our Railways. We must have an authoritative answer from the hon. the Minister as to just how much track is involved. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister please to be specific, because I think we are entitled to be put in a position to understand the magnitude of the problem brought about in part by labour difficulties. How much track is sub-standard and where is it? This also applies to the maintenance of stations, buildings and other works. I think it is true to say that timely maintenance saves money in the long run. If a lot of maintenance is not being carried out adequately because of a shortage of staff, I think we are entitled to know about it, because it is going to cost us more money when this maintenance finally has to be done. Again, I am sure it would not have been necessary to issue a qualified certificate if the problem had not been serious. The same thing applies to harbours and dock-works. What is the position there, because here again we have a qualification?

The third answer given to me by the hon. the Minister, which I regard as unsatisfactory, related to increasing productivity when White workers were replaced by Black workers. I think the hon. the Minister realized that he had made a mistake in the answer he gave to me earlier on. On the traditional basis, that attack is the best form of defence, he quoted a speech I had made in 1975, when I said the following:

The hon. the Minister asked me what I meant by that. I would like to make it very clear to the hon. the Minister that I stand by every word I said. When anybody is selected to do a job, it should be on the basis of his ability and his competence and not the colour of his skin. I believe this is the way to true efficiency. If we are going to do away with discrimination in this country, we must not discriminate in jobs on the basis of the skin colour. I know this is a policy matter and the hon. the Minister and I disagree on this, but I would like to make it clear that when I say things I mean them, and that they are logical in terms of our philosophy. I found the hon. the Minister’s answer most unsatisfactory, because he did not really make anything clear at all, except to say that if one has no people to fill jobs, and one then puts someone in to fill those jobs, then you will be more productive. With all respect, this is no answer and it is not how I see increasing productivity. Of course productivity will be increased if one employs more people or if one puts people in vacant positions. This is not what I understand by increasing productivity. As far as I am concerned, increasing productivity means that individuals who are already in positions should be more productive. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to react briefly to what the hon. member for Orange Grove has just said about the preparations for the Transkei’s independence and about non-White employees on the Railways. I do not believe that it is our prerogative to tell a State which is on its way to independence how it should govern its own State. If they request us to do so, we shall respond, as happened in the case of their own Defence Force. We should like to assist them in this connection. It is really not for us to tell them how to govern their State. This is what the hon. member implied.

The question of increased productivity through file employment of non-White workers is elementary, after all. We do not want to teach sub-A children here. If I have one White working along with two non-Whites and I provide the two non-Whites with better training and skills, of course I am going to increase the productivity of those three employees. It is as elementary as can be. What is the hon. member looking for? It says quite clearly in the report that over the past year, 16 000 non-Whites received higher training to make them more productive and to enable them to fill White vacancies so that those Whites could become more productive in turn by filling higher vacancies. The hon. member is looking for something else, and I do not know what it is. As regards the view expressed by the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Houghton in connection with female pilots, they would do well to look at the instruction issued by their friend Idi Amin in this connection two days ago, then they might think twice.

The hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Maitland raised a terrible hue and cry today about staff. They referred to the 33 officials who cost R10 million and whom the hon. the Minister has available to him and said that we should have a smaller staff now that we can save by doing so. What do the hon. members really mean to say? Do they mean to say that the management is inefficient, that it is not streamlined enough …

I said they were very efficient.

The hon. member tries to back-track, but in his previous speech he said something different, i.e. that it was high time attention was given to streamlining the Administration. What does that mean? Does it not mean that it is not efficient and streamlined enough at the moment? Are the present officials not doing it? I am going to take the hon. member up on this matter.

As far as the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, he will forgive me, for we have known each other for a long time, and I want to leave him at that. A short while ago I had a guest outside who asked me:“But what is the member for Durban Point making such a fuss about?” So I told him: “Do not be concerned, my friend, I shall tell you. He is moaning and complaining just for the sake of moaning and complaining.”

I do not think the allegations which have been made here about the inefficiency of the staff can be allowed to go unanswered. A great fuss has been made about the R10 million, but it is only 1% and I challenge the hon. member to show me any other business enterprise which is able to remunerate its entire top management at 1% of its cost. These gentlemen are not here for the hon. the Minister’s convenience only; they are here to do their work and to administer the Railways. They are not here to make calculations for the hon. the Minister’s convenience; they perform a management function. It has been implied, by the hon. member for Maitland, amongst others, that no attempt has been made to get along with a smaller staff or to achieve greater production among the present staff. What these people lose sight of is that we are not concerned here with an ordinary business enterprise and industry which is able to say: “This section of mine is not profitable and therefore I shall close it down. Until we have better times, I can carry on with sections 1 and 2.” The Railways has to transport that one can of cream and that one calf. There is no choice and it cannot say: “It does not pay and therefore I shall close it down.” Is that what the hon. member means to suggest?

Who said so?

The hon. member said so by implication, through his unreasonable comparisons and demands. What has this inefficient staff—in the Opposition’s opinion—done to combat this situation over the past year? I want to mention a few examples. In order to eliminate cost-increasing bottlenecks, they expanded the infrastructure, also with a view to the good times that lie ahead. Examples of this can be found at Richards Bay, the marshalling-yard at Bapsfontein and the double pipeline from Durban to the Witwatersrand. These are places where bottlenecks may arise which may cause the costs of the Railways to escalate even further if they do not give attention to them. These are infrastructures created by them in order to eliminate potential cost-increasing bottlenecks. Their borrowings went down by R27 million this year. They saved petrol by introducing battery systems at loading zones, loading ramps, in workshops and now in the harbours as well. The Railways is still engaged in this. They are eliminating unprofitable journeys, flying aircraft more economically, using more seats, saving on man-hours and staff, undertaking fewer journeys for the same number of passengers, and now hon. members want to suggest to us that they need to be streamlined. We must make them aware of the situation in which we find ourselves. They do not understand or appreciate it. The hon. member went further and said that because their administration was so inefficient the time had come for us to consider subdivision, decentralization. Departments must be made independent of one another. Actually we must arrange it on a provincial basis. That was his final conclusion. Give each province control over the railways within that particular province. That was what he suggested. I censure him severely for having done so. What we should have done was to tell these people that we did not ask them; we did not instruct them, but we are grateful for what they did to cope with the situation.

Sir, a train normally requires three men to run it, but during the past year, according to reports available to us, 55,6% of the goods trains were operated by two men instead of the normal three. Did we ask them to do that? Are these people who fail to appreciate the problem with which they are faced? More than 49 000 trains ran in this way—with a crew of two instead of three. There is the electrification programme aimed at saving fuel. This they have streamlined and they are accelerating it. I honestly think we cannot allow it to go unanswered, this blow below the belt that has been struck at an extremely efficient, enlightened and competent staff. Sir, I can only tell the Opposition that they need not be concerned. With this staff the Railways will show this Government and the country that it can hold its own, no matter what has been suggested and insinuated against them here over the last few days. We may rest assured that the Administration, with their Minister, will contribute their share to the combating of inflation, and I look forward to the Budget next year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am most disappointed with the hon. member for Witwatersberg. I would like to assure him that we also want the Railways to transport and to build up the transport infrastructure of South Africa. But more than that, we on this side of the House want efficiency; we want economy, and we want to make sure that South Africa’s hardearned money is being spent wisely, and I am sure that the workers on the Railways would like to see this as well, because after all it is their money. Earlier this week, when I spoke during the Second Reading debate, I referred to the amount of capital which South Africa was spending on the Railways at present. I indicated to the Minister how I saw the effect this tremendous amount of money would have on our economy. I said it would increase the inflationary spiral that we have today. I asked whether South Africa could afford it. Are these tremendous developments really justified? Have the S.A. Railways really got its priorities right? It is the money they are spending being spent in the best possible manner? I put these questions to the hon. the Minister, and what reply did I get? He told me that each Railway system had a department under the planning manager. They drew up the plans and pass them on to the General Manager. From there it goes to the Planning Council of the Railways. Now I am going to offer a few examples to the hon. members on that side and to the hon. the Minister. I regret that I will have to give a few statistics, but I want to ask hon. members on that side to look at the figures I am going to offer and to ask themselves whether maybe there is not something wrong.

Let us take Cambridge, item 537 in the Brown Book, a tarpaulin repair depot. The original estimate was R209 100, and this is as recent as last year. All these estimates I refer to are the estimates for last year. Now, this amount was overspent by nearly R100 000. To date they have spent R302 000, and the Minister is now asking for an additional R300 000—an increase of 143,2% on the original estimate. I should like to go a bit further, to the signal depot at Cambridge. The original estimate was R442 000. They have spent R585 000 to date and the Minister is now asking for an additional R314 000— 71% above the original estimate. Take Empangeni in Zululand. They are building a maintenance depot there. The original estimate was R2,1 million. To date they have spent R2 028 million, but the Minister is now asking for another R3 million. This is an increase of 144% on the original estimate. I come to my own constituency, to a motor traffic terminal at Isipingo. The original estimate was R937 000. To date they have spent R1,24 million and they are asking for an additional R452 000— an increase of 48%. Let us go to South West Africa. At Usakos they are building a waterborne sewerage. The original estimate was R109 000. To date they have spent R115 000, and now they are asking for another R83 000—an increase of 75,8%. Sir, let us come to the Western Cape, to Klawer, a diesel depot. The original estimate was R315 000. They have spent R205 000, and they are now asking for R818 000—an increase of 259%.

May I put a question?

No, the hon. member can make his own speech. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member is wasting my time. Please ask him to sit down.

Order! The hon. member for Carletonville must resume his seat.

I know the truth hurts, Sir, and that is why they interrupt. At Springfontein they budgeted for R489 000 for strengthening bridges and culverts. They want another R394 000—an increase of 80%. In the Eastern Transvaal, a for additional tracks at De Wildt, they originally budgeted for R3,5 million and now they are asking for another R2,5 million—an increase of 71%.

Which item are you referring to?

Item 86. Then there is item 119:East London harbour, additional yard facilities, R301 000. To date they have just about spent R284 000 and are asking for an additional R299 000. That is a 99% increase. Then there is item 127; Kroonstad-Vereeniging, the extension of loops at Jordaan, Dover, etc. The original estimate was R877 900. They are asking for another R795 000—an increase of 90%. So I could go on. In fact, I have taken out 69 examples with a total original estimate of R211 582 700. To date the Railways have spent R91,6 million on these projects and are now asking for an additional R93 million—an average increase of 44,1 % on these 69 projects which are under way. Sir, I realize that we have had inflation and devaluation, but let us say that this required an increase of 20% on the original estimate. I think that would be reasonable over a one-year period. The savings would have been about R45 million, and this is the very question Could there have been more savings made on the Capital Account of the S.A. Railways? I should like once again to ask the hon. the Minister what the reasons for these increases are. Is it due to inflation or is it due to devaluation? If it is due to devaluation, surely he should have warned the hon. the Minister of Finance what was going to happen to the Railways capital budget and to his operating budget. I would like to ask whether this is due to design changes? In the Brown Book, when they do alter a scheme, you can see there that it is a change in the scheme, but for none of these items I mentioned was that note added to the item. So I conclude that it is not due to design changes to the scheme as a whole. I would appreciate a reply from the hon. the Minister in respect of these particular items.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, we see the pattern emerging very clearly again. It is quite clear that like the previous speakers, he wants to discredit the top management of the Railways. The only thing that was left for him to say was that these things were the result of bad management. This is the pattern which the hon. Opposition is following to discredit the top management and the Administration of the Railways in the eyes of the public outside. Fortunately, as long as this side of the House is in power, we shall not allow the Administration to be discredited in any way.

I should like to refer to the argument in which the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Durban Point were involved last night and in which the hon. member for Boksburg referred in passing, i.e. the statement made here by the hon. member for Durban Point. I quote from his Hansard—

Mr. Chairman, I maintain that this is absolute nonsense. This so-called meat wholesaler is talking through his hat in saying this and he does not know what it is all about. Otherwise the hon. member for Durban Point completely misunderstood him. I think that the explanation given to the hon. member for Durban Point was correct, but that he did not understand what the meat wholesaler meant by it. For the information of the hon. member for Durban Point I want to say how this matter works. The farmer loads his animals on the farm and sends them to an agent in the city. The animals are slaughtered and graded. The carcases are then offered for sale on the hook by public auction. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point: If any commodity is offered by public auction, what effect does an expense such as railage have on the price fetched at that auction over and above the effect of supply and demand? I want to go further and tell the hon. member for Durban Point that where the price mechanism is not interfered with, i.e. where there is a free market, an item such as railage can have no effect on the ultimate price, and the price is influenced only by supply and demand. As far as I know, the Meat Board has a floor price system in terms of which they take animals who did not fetch the floor price, and for the information of the hon. member for Durban Point, I want to add that the market price has been a good deal higher than the floor price for a number of years. Consequently that statement is a complete fabrication, for where the market mechanism is able to function freely, transport cost cannot have an effect on the ultimate price, since the price is determined only by supply and demand. I want to read further from what the hon. member for Durban Point said—

What absolute nonsense this is! Who made these sums? I challenge any butcher to tell me that as a result of an increase in the railage he now has to increase the price of his prime cuts by 10 to 15 cents a kg. How can one say that? What then of the secondary cuts? If the price increases by 2 cents a kg, then it means an increase of 2 cents a kg on all the cuts of that carcass and not an increase of 15 cents a kg on some and of 2 cents a kg on others. Where does he get that figure from? The hon. member will have to work on his arithmetic. He really shocked us with this kind of argument. In the process the housewife is conditioned to the idea of having to pay higher meat prices by the end of April. If the butchery increases its prices, she supposes that because the hon. member for Durban Point said that the prices would have to rise, this must be so. It is an evil day for us when a member rises in this House and makes statements which are not correct and which have the effect of preparing the housewife outside for a possible price increase which in fact has nothing to do with this step. The SABC stated in a report in its main news broadcast that night that meat prices would increase by 15 cents a kg—exactly what the hon. member for Durban Point had alleged. Can you see how far matters have gone already? I understand that this report was broadcast over the television service as well. Luckily I did not have to watch that. The SABC then broadcast another report in connection with this matter last night, but I want to request that this matter be rectified in the Press as well as by our other news media so that our housewives will know that this step will certainly not be responsible for price increases. [Interjections.] These hon. members may say whatever they like. They know that I am right. I want to recommend to the hon. Opposition rather to make the hon. member for King William’s Town their chief spokesman on Railway matters. At least he interpreted the matter correctly when he said that the farmers would pay for these increases and not the consumers. I want to make it quite clear that the increase in the tariff applicable to the transport of livestock has absolutely no effect on either the auction price or the wholesale price or the retail price of meat. It is a cost item which is borne by the producer alone, and those hon. members who are making such a noise will have to prove the contrary. They should rise here and prove the contrary.

I now want to dwell very briefly on the aspects raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town. In his usual confused and emotional tirade he painted a picture of the agricultural sector as the wronged, the forgotten, the neglected and the defenceless part of the population. I want to say to the hon. member for King William’s Town, because he is an agriculturist himself, that he can do untold and irrevocable harm to agriculture, particularly the image of agriculture, by making remarks of this kind.

The farmers agree.

The hon. member asked me what we as leaders of the farming community had done in this connection. There our hon. Minister is sitting. I told the hon. the Minister how upset I am, and it is no secret. The difference is only that this side of the House is also responsible for keeping the Railways going. That side of the House has no responsibility. For that reason they can criticize as much as they like. I have discussed with the hon. the Minister all the measures we could possibly take to soften the blow for the farmers. Instead of making such wild criticisms, this hon. member should rather join us in considering the steps we should take to make it profitable for the Railways on the one hand and to soften the tremendous blow to the farmer on the other hand. Last week we discussed possible measures with the S.A. Agricultural Union in an attempt to absorb the increase; we discussed transport rebates and we discussed bigger concessions in respect of transport permits, and in this connection the hon. the Minister has already told us that he will raise no objection to this. These are things we have already discussed. I want to come to one final aspect, and that is the question of slaughterings in production areas. We discussed these matters as well, and they are matters which the hon. member, too, could fruitfully discuss in his own agricultural group instead of making such wild criticisms here and talking about agriculture in an irresponsible manner.

In regard to slaughtering in production areas, I think that discussions should take place as soon as possible between the S.A. Agricultural Union, the Abattoir Commission and the Railways Administration, discussions aimed at finding a way in which abattoirs can successfully be established in the production areas. This will make it possible for animals to be slaughtered in the production areas and for the carcases to be transported, instead of having to transport live animals, which is a much more expensive business.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet devoted the main part of his speech, in fact the whole of his speech, to the argument he has with the hon. members for Durban Point and King William’s Town. I shall therefore not reply in the same vein.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer back to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, and in particular to his reference to staff and personnel. However, before I do that, and as this is the first opportunity I have of being involved in this debate on Railways, I want to refer very briefly to last year’s Railway budget debate, in which I raised a matter concerning a local situation here in Cape Town. I then raised about eight or nine points. I want to say that I have been quite astounded by the care that has been given to the answers to the particular questions that I raised last year, answers which I received not only during the last session, but also during the recess. I want to express my appreciation for the care and the concern that the management of the S.A. Railways has given to the questions I raised, and probably to all the other questions raised by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the speech by the hon. the Minister. In the first instance he talks about the need for emphasis on quality in staff matters, because this is one of the ways in which one does increase productivity. I want to say that we would certainly agree with that. When he refers to management at all levels and to a system of management development, it seems to me that he is on the right track, because if we are going to increase productivity and efficiency, there are two areas, in terms of personnel; where this can be done. Firstly, there is the management area, and then there is what one might call the labour area. For too long we in this country have neglected management training, and to know that this is being done now and that a personnel development unit has been established to work in this important field, is encouraging, and can only lead to greater efficiency. When one remembers just how many people the S.A. Railways employs, when we see on page 11 of the annual report that, at that date, there were 111 120 Whites and 133 811 Blacks, one realizes just how substantial a role good training and care of personnel must play in the better running of the Railways system. The hon. the Minister referred to the attitude of the general Railway worker towards inflation and towards the manifesto to which they have given their support, and to the fact that they have very patiently endured the absence of wage increases for a considerable length of time. I believe that we must take note of the fact that in April this year this will be looked at again, and if one’s figures are accurate, it seems to me that a reasonable increase will have to be given to Railway employees. This will be in the region of, I suppose, approximately R150 million, to put it at a fairly conservative level in view of the increase in prices and the cost of living. When one bears that in mind, and also bears in mind the hon. the Minister’s comment that this too will inevitably involve an increase in rail fares, because the money must be obtained somewhere, one realizes that further direct increases are on their way.

Mr. Chairman, I would not want to go against such increases. I believe that people must be encouraged, and must be given the wages which they deserve. However, I want to refer to one other aspect of personnel which does give me a little concern, and that is the representation which takes place at the various levels on the Railways. I understand that there are, for example, seven staff associations for White Railway workers. I shall not mention them all, because I do not have the time, but representatives from these various staff associations form a Federal Consultative Council which has, I believe, very ready access to the General Manager of the Railways or to the hon. the Minister of Transport, if necessary. It is true, if one has to believe the Press reports, that there is opportunity for these representatives to have very close access and entrée into the office of the hon. the Minister.

A senior official has said that these staff associations are very conservative and very powerful. I am not sure whether he is accurate, but he goes on to say that these staff associations and the Railways management run the railways and harbours. I do not know what the hon. the Minister is doing when those two groups are running the affairs, but I am quite sure that he is also involved.

The Coloured workers on the Railways—I do not have the time to quote their exact numbers, but they are not all that high—also have staff associations, or Coloured staff associations, where they too can make representations, and the Indian staff association has a membership of, I believe, less than 1 000. They too can make representations. By my reckoning, there must be about 100 000, if not more, African, Black, Bantu—whatever term one wants to use—workers on the Railways. They are represented by works committees, and I assume that these works committees are very much the same as they are in other parts of industry. One would like to know a little bit more about this, because it is very interesting to see that some people, some highly placed officials on the Railways, acknowledge that these works committees have no real power. Mr. Chairman, the reason why the staff associations are so powerful and so effective in looking after their members, is because they do have that power of representation, and they do have that direct access. When one learns about representations that are made, one does not see them coming on a co-ordinated basis from the works committees. These are very separate, whereas in the staff associations, representatives can approach the General Manager, or even the hon. the Minister himself to make direct representations in connection with wage increases.

It seems to me that the time has come, with the development taking place on the Railways, and with more and more people of different race groups being used on the Railways, to look again at the way in which the various staff associations and works committees are represented so as to give greater power to larger numbers in order to be able to have, on the one hand, a strong management—which, it seems, we do have—and on the other hand a strong labour representation, which is representative, not only of Whites or Coloureds or Indians, but of the total labour force.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. The hon. member for Durban Point said earlier this afternoon that not one member on this side of the House had stood up to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his officials on this budget. Mr. Chairman, I want to do so now. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his officials on the Budget which they have presented here under very difficult conditions. I shall tell you why I am congratulating him. We realize that it was a very difficult budget which the hon. the Minister had to present to this House. It was a very difficult budget and it takes a man of courage and enterprise to present such a budget. It is a very easy budget from the point of view of the Opposition, because they can criticize it from start to finish. However, if they had been in the hon. the Minister’s position, I wonder if they could have drawn up a better budget under the present circumstances. Therefore I think that it is my duty to congratulate the hon. the Minister. I know how difficult it is, but the hon. the Minister must know that the general public understand the situation. A day or two ago the hon. member for King William’s Town made a tremendous fuss here about how the farmer was alledgedly being exploited. Fortunately for him he also received publicity in the Press. However, today the hon. member for Graaff Reinet proved to that hon. member, as farmer to farmer, that this was not the case and I want to congratulate the hon. member for Graaff Reinet on that.

He was floundering about.

No, he was not floundering about. He was too far away from that hon. member to have been floundering about. The interests of the farmers are definitely being looked after and the Railways do not ask the farmers to thank them because they have been going out of their way for decades to transport the farmers’ goods. Have hon. members of the Opposition stood up here and said thank you for what has been done over the decades? No, they have not done so. They only say that we have turned our backs on the farmers. The task of the Railways is a difficult one, but the farmer will understand the position.

A psychosis is also prevalent amongst our dealers today. In the news at quarter past one it was mentioned that petrol prices would be increased because there had been a tariff increase of 13% with respect to the pipeline. However, if there is one group of people in this country that makes sufficient profit, it is the petrol companies. I want the hon. the Minister to inform his colleague that an increase in the petrol price must be fought tooth and nail. It is nonsense.

Since I travel by train a great deal, there is a thought which I want to express to the hon. the Minister today. I want to make a plea here today for a very small number of members of the Railway staff. I am referring to the conductors on the Trans-Karoo, the Trans-Oranje and the Rhodesian Express. One might well say that those officials knew what they were letting themselves in for. As a previous Minister Ben Schoeman, used to say: They tendered for the job. For thousands upon thousands of travellers, those officials are the display window of the Railways. They do their work very well. Every traveller can be proud of the way in which he is treated by those people. There are only six or eight of these people. The hon. Minister must not think for one moment that those officials have come to complain to me. I speak to those officials even though they do not come from my constituency. However, I regard any railway worker who talks to me as one of my voters, whether he comes from my constituency or not. He is one of my people. Should there be salary adjustments in the near future, the hon. Minister must please also remunerate those people for the overtime which they have worked and for all the inconvenience which they have had to suffer. It is not easy to be in command of one of these trains. It is an immensely demanding task, and that is why I am making this request for those officials. I specifically ask that their interests should be cared for. There are also assistant conductors on those same trains. However, their salaries, including overtime, differ considerably from those of the senior men. Even relief conductors receive much more per month than the grade I conductors to whom I referred.

There is something else which is bothering me, and although it is a little thing, I nevertheless want to make a request in connection with it. I believe that those men ought to be allowed free meals on those trains. I simply cannot accept that this would mean extra expenditure. I would like to have it laid down in their conditions of service that they may receive free meals on those trains because they work very long hours. I realize that mistakes can always be made, because those officials deal with many problems. For instance, they can be knocked up at any time of the day or night. The other day there were five people who were booked on the Trans-Karoo. One of the ladies had even paid the extra fare for a coupé. However, the names of these five people did not appear on the conductor’s list. I wish that hon. members could have seen how well that conductor handled those people. Eventually every one of the five people was satisfied and it gratified me to see what a marvellous display window that official was for the Railways. I therefore want to render all possible praise to those officials, and I hope, after my request this afternoon, that something will be done about their position.

Mr. Chairman, I found it very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Stilfontein. We had an admission from him that this budget made it very easy for the official Opposition to express criticsim. Unfortunately all of us have to pay as a result of the Budget. It reminds me of the saying I usually use during elections: Vote for the National Party and perish.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the issue of meat and the railage of livestock. I cannot understand how anybody can be so naïve as to believe that the increase of 50% in the tariff on livestock will not increase the price of red meat. How can anybody believe that? I only wish the hon. member for Stilfontein would go to the platteland and tell the farmers that he stood up here and congratulated the Minister on this budget. How can anyone believe that the increased tariff is not going to increase the price of meat to the consumer and that the producer is not also going to have to pay more? It applies to both sides. I have sold many cattle and sheep at livestock sales.

I was a butcher, too.

In June of last year, when beef and mutton were at a premium, the railage went up and this immediately affected the price of stock. Buyers told me at every stock sale from East London right through to Burgersdorp that their bidding price was reduced because it cost more to transport their sheep. [Interjections.]

Yes, it was reduced; so the farmer got less.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members do not want to listen to my story. They are afraid to listen to me.

No, but you are contradicting yourself.

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay must please keep quiet when he is requested to do so by the Chair.

It affected the producer so much that on 4 June last year the Eastern Agricultural Union Congress at East London—I was present at the congress and have its agenda with me—accepted the following resolution unanimously—

That was last year when, as I have said, mutton and beef were at a premium. The prices now are lower than they were last year. The resolution I have read out was accepted unanimously at the congress. This resolution came from the farmers and the producers. At that congress they said—it is on record in the minutes—that if the railage were to be increased any further, this would put the producer out of business. That is so. I have a funny feeling that the hon. the Minister heard a rumour that beef was going to be at a premium by November this year—hence the rise in tariff rates on livestock.

The details of the budget were announced on Friday and I heard over the radio this week-end that one result of the budget will be that the unfortunate consumer will pay between 8c and 10c more per kilo for red meat. This was announced over the radio.

Who announced it? Who was the authority.

The consumer will pay more. How can anyone explain that away?

Who said that over the radio? [Interjections.]

Certainly, it was not someone of the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I know they are wasting my time. They do not wish to hear my speech. As we have said all along in this debate, I believe we must cut back drastically on our overspending. There are many fields in which we could cut back spending. The hon. member for Maitland listed a number of items on which expenditure could be cut back.

In the short time at my disposal I wish to deal with another question, and that is the question of harbours. I have always believed that it is not the money we make that brings us wealth, but the money we save. Only saving brings wealth. Throughout this debate the theme of members on this side has been that we must save and cut back expenditure. For this reason I shall not ask the hon. the Minister this year for any more to be spent on East London’s harbour or on the Border area. We know that this budget is an all-time record, and yet the whole Border area, including the Transkei and the Ciskei, will receive only R16 million in this budget. I am not asking for a cent more because I believe we must cut back expenditure, but we must get our priorities right. I believe the hon. the Minister should reconsider the priorities in respect of where money must be spent. The East London harbour has done extremely well. I grant you that we have the grain elevator there. This elevator has moved more grain than any other elevator, although Durban came in a close second. All in all, East London has moved a lot of grain. Last year the tonnage handled in East London was an all-time record. In fact, of all our ports, the increase in the tonnage handled in East London was by far the highest. The increase amounted to 83,95%. I realize that it is due to the maize export, that has increased the tonnage.

My hon. colleague mentioned that a large sum of money, R2 163 900, is being spent on Cambridge, in the Border area. That is the highest figure for the whole of the Border area. The East London harbour itself will only receive a new tug boat. I sincerely hope we get it and that we shall not find that, while it is shown in the Brown Book as being allocated to East London, Durban or some other harbour receives it. However, it appears that we shall be getting a new tug to replace the old Schermbrucker tug and that this will cost a little over R1 million. The money being spent on East London and the Border area will be of little benefit, if any, to that area. On the other hand, the little village of Alice, which we believe is going to become the capital of the Ciskei, is going to receive a brand new railway station.

What is wrong with that?

What does Alice have that East London does not have? I am not asking for a new railway station for East London. I have asked for that repeatedly in the past. We all know that the East London railway station was built in 1880 by the old Cape Government, 96 years ago. Incidentally, if the present Government is still in power in 1980, we shall invite the hon. the Minister to come and celebrate the centenary of the railway station in East London.

That must be a very up-to-date station.

East London has one of the oldest railway stations in the Eastern Cape. Yet, as I have said, I believe that no money should be wasted. However, we want to know why Alice should now all of a sudden be given a brand new railway station. Is this to be a showpiece of Nationalist Party propaganda and ideology, or what is the reason for it? The railway station of Alice is not nearly as old as that of East London. There are many other railway stations which should also get priority over Alice.[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, time does not allow me to devote much attention to the hon. member for East London North. However, I was surprised at the fact that right at the beginning he launched an attack on the hon. member for Stilfontein because the hon. member had maintained that the increased railway tariff would not cause an increased price to the housewife. Only a sentence later the hon. member for East London North referred to the agenda of a congress by means of which he wanted to prove that the hon. member for Stilfontein was wrong. However, he proved by this that it is indeed the farmers who are pleading their cause because they are the only ones who have to bear the cost of this. The hon. member therefore contradicted himself within the first minute. The hon. member referred to Alice, but I think that I can openly say that Alice is better off than East London North in one respect, and that is its respresentative in the House of Assembly.

Where is the constituency of Alice?

The S.A. Railways, as one of the largest employers in South Africa, has become indispensable in this country. Without the Railways the economy of South Africa would grind to a halt. South West Africa is in the same position. It is a large country which is thinly populated, and the Railways are therefore heavily relied upon as a means of transport. The lines of communication are the infrastructure upon which the economy of South West is being built. We must remember that although South West is an underdeveloped country, it is an area in which serious attempts are being made to create a more comprehensive and pleasant lifestyle for everyone who lives there. The economy of South West rests heavily upon three pillars: the mining industry, the fisheries and agriculture. I want to ask hon. members to join me in taking a quick look at the contribution made by the Railways with respect to these three pillars. If one looks at the mining industry, an industry which is naturally a wasting asset, one sees that the Railways play an immense role in transporting minerals to the harbours. There are also new mines which are being opened, for example, the uranium mine at Rössing, which will make great demands on the Railways. In addition, there are copper mines which are being worked and will make even greater demands on the Railways. I am also thinking of the new salt works which are being developed at Walvis Bay and which from 1978, but especially from 1980, will make very high demands on the Railways. I even wonder if it might not prove impossible for the Railways to transport those products.

The second pillar is the fishing industry, an industry which is still impaired by over-exploitation in the past, but fortunately it is at present obtaining high prices as a result of devaluation and other factors. With respect to this industry, too the S.A. Railways and Airways play a tremendous role in transporting unmanufactured and especially fully manufactured products.

I now come to the third pillar, agriculture. The S.A. Railways have been agriculture’s greatest friend for many years, and still are. One cannot help thinking of the narrow gauge railway line and its replacement by a wide gauge railway line. It was not replaced because it was economical for the S.A. Railways to do so, but because a better service could be provided for the inhabitants of South West in this way. There was also the abolition of the split tariff, to which the hon. member for Mariental referred. This did not take place because it would benefit the Railways either, but because a better service could thus be provided to the inhabitants. As far as the agricultural industry is concerned, I want to refer to the fur industry in the first instance. This is an industry which is affected to a lesser degree by the increase in tariffs, because it relies chiefly on air transport abroad. The industry is also in the fortunate position of being able to obtain higher prices as a result of a more favourable market and devaluation.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister’s attention for the immense burden which is once again being placed upon the meat producer. The tariff increase of 60% during 1974 already tried the meat producers to the utmost. We brought this fact to the attention of the hon. the Minister by means of various representations. Since 1974 an additional burden of approximately R5 000 per annum has been placed on every meat producer. The latest increase of 50% makes the burden practically unbearable, especially over long distances. I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that while the railage without bus fare amounted to R7,32 per animal in 1971, it has now risen to R28,13. Therefore there has been an increase of 380% since 1971. The Schumann Commission recommended that there should be an increase of 60% on the price of 1971, but we grant that there were built-in increases about which the hon. the Minister could do nothing. If the hon. the Minister tells us that at this stage he is recovering only 76% of the cost, we have even greater cause for concern. For the average producer, the increase in the railage alone means an additional expense of approximately R2 400 per year and for the cattle farmers of South West Africa it means a global additional amount of approximately R2 million.

There is also the question of bus or road transport, and in this respect there has been an increase of 20%. However, we want to ask the hon. the Minister not to discontinue this service, because the moment it is discontinued, the private carrier will increase his tariffs disproportionately and exploit the producer as much as he likes. In this respect the service is a guarantee to us against further price increases on the part of the private sector.

We are concerned to read that the chairman of the meat Producers’ Association says that this is the greatest shock which has ever hit the producer. If the manager of the Meat Control Board in South West referred to this as “a knock-out blow in the stomach for meat”, we have cause for concern. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet and other hon. members who pointed out that the increase in tariffs does not mean an increase in the consumer price of meat. It is only the farmer who pays it.

I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that we are grateful for his concern about South West Africa. Although his remarks were not exactly flattering, we in South West are rather fond of the hon. member, especially because he seems to be a good meat consumer. [Interjections.] The hon. member is concerned about South West, but the UP has run away from South West—they are political refugees!

Who captured South West? [Interjections.]

Although they are political refugees, they nevertheless consider that they have the right to come and tell us what we should do.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if there are not any alternatives which can be considered. Is it not possible, for instance, for the Railways to use the trucks in both directions? Would it not be possible to take over the Sishen-Saldanha railway line so that a shorter way for the transportation of livestock can be found along that route? If this could be done, it would shorten the travelling time by three days, which would mean that there would be less weight loss and less bruising. Road transport has also been mentioned, but for South West this is practically impossible, because distances of 1 600 km on an average would have to be covered. If there is no cargo to transport back, this will be quite impossible. However, should the hon. the Minister decide that even cargo for the Railways could be transported back, it would be a possibility. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: The Cabinet, the Government and the National Party are the architects of South West Africa, you planned South Africa and you built it, because you made South West Africa what it is today and you can be proud of what you have accomplished … [Interjections.] Go and see what it looked like under the UP Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to certain works which have been accomplished by the Railways, open works and lines which have been constructed. When referring to this, I have to deal ultimately with the main speaker of the Opposition and his constituency. There are various items for which he strived for his constituency in Durban. Unfortunately he is away now and that is to be regretted. Under item 137, for which he strived, he received R28 700; under item 138 he receives R1 977 000; under item 561, R851 000; under item 562, R1 639 000; under item 564, R225 000; under item 565, R9 361 500; under item 56, R91 400; under item 956, R442 900; and under item 1526, R835 400. The total amount which the hon. member received and for which he strived for the City of Durban, amounts to R19 462 300. We know the hon. member as an honourable member but we nevertheless want to ask him what courage he had in his convictions when he asked for concessions for his constituency and at the same time reproaches the Railways and the Minister that levies are being imposed today. Higher Railway tariffs are levied in order to meet obligations which have to be met, and one constituency receives almost R20 million.

What do the farmers get?

I am coming to that. I ask whether this is fair. There are 165 constituencies in the country. If everyone demands an amount of R20 million it would cost the Railways R3 300 million should the Minister have to grant everything which was requested. Sir, this is not fair. I expect the hon. member to come to the Minister and ask him to postpone certain works, and that he should at least cut it by half in order to meet the Railways, if he had any feeling of patriotism and if he was interested in the future of the Railways. I think that it is the hon. member’s duty to rectify this matter, because it is a fact that he demands too much from the Railways and today he reproaches the Railways because of the increased tariffs. Surely, it is not only his constituency which is important. There are more constituencies which are important. Or does he consider his constituency the most important in the country? No, I think the hon. member owes it to the Minister to ask for certain of his works to be postponed. Do hon. members expect the Railways to be laid low by tariff increases in order to make the Railways a sound undertaking? What would it mean for South Africa, as the hon. member for Omaruru said, if the Railways should be laid low in this time in which we are living? Of what use would the future be for us if the Railways were laid low and could not meet their obligations in these times in which we are living? We know that we are living in a time when anything can happen, and that the Railways should be sound in order to carry out these duties if necessary.

If transport in our country were to suffer and be laid low and be unable to fulfil all its secondary duties, we shall not be able to face the future. Does the Opposition expect the 266 000 Railway officials not to receive their wages or wage increases in future? Do they expect them to work for wages which are too low? We on this side of the House will also work for the interests of our constituencies, as we have been doing in the past few hours and days. We pleaded for the interests of South Africa, for the interests of the Railways and for the interests of our people. There are also those in the Railways who do their work with great dedication and sacrifice in order to keep the transport services going. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Omaruru said, i.e. that a high tariff is being levied in respect of livestock. There is not the slightest possibility that the tariff increase will eventually have to affect the consumer. This is not so. We who know more than this, reject this. It does not exist. But I want to put one question to the Minister, and we do not ask this because we do not understand it, but because agriculture and the transport of livestock must continue and because we cannot afford it. Therefore I ask that attempts be made to transport livestock in a cheaper manner so that all of us can make ends meet.

The hon. member said that to transport cattle from South West costs him R28 per head of cattle, but then certain aspects have not been included yet. There is the cleaning of trucks, feeding and watering of cattle and when all this has been taken into account, it costs R35 per head of cattle. It costs R20 from our part of the world. I want to ask the Minister to make every effort. Perhaps we could use two-decked trucks for sheep in order to make the transport cheaper and easier, so that the farmers can afford it.

Finally, I merely want to plead for certain Railway officials. We know that there are highly paid people. Whether they deserve it or not, does not matter, but there are also officials who belong to the low income group. There are the checkers, the shunters, the goods shed workers and the unskilled labour. They are the people in the low income group on the Railways, who cannot live a decent life on a salary of between R220 and R230, or even R250. We want to request that even though these people are unskilled, the Railways should take care of them. We know the interest of the Opposition is only of recent origin, but we are genuinely interested. These are people who we have known for years, people who have devoted their lives to the service of the Railways and who are still doing so today with love and great responsibility. They do their work with great enthusiasm and responsibility. Today I want to plead that the Minister will also lend these people a helping hand. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prieska said it was unfair of the hon. member for Durban Point to ask that Railway tariffs should not be increased now because, as the hon. member for Prieska said, the Railways must be kept in a sound condition. But immediately afterwards he made an impassioned plea that the tariffs for the transportation of cattle have now been increased to such an extent that the farmers can not really afford it. In actual fact, the hon. member for Prieska therefore did what the hon. member for Durban Point had done, i.e. to warn about and express his displeasure at Railway tariffs having had to be increased to such an enormous extent under these circumstances. I also want to contribute my share and say that I think that under these circumstances it is extremely unfair that over the past few years we have had these increases in the tariffs for the transportation of cattle and that the hon. gentleman thought it fit to increase the tariffs again by a further 50%. I want to say that there is not one single farmer in South Africa, a meat farmer or whatever kind of producer he may be, who can be satisfied with the Budget of the Minister of Railways, because it is not only the meat producer who is going to be affected by this budget. We know that there is an increase in the tariffs for the transportation of goods generally. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that this will have a ripple effect on every single farmer. The farmers, and the meat producers in particular, already have the problem that there has been no price increase for his product compared with a year ago. Indeed, the prices are beginning to stabilize; there is a downward trend, and in some cases prices even dropped over the past six or twelve months. The producer is already receiving low prices, but now the hon. the Minister has pushed up the costs to the farmer as far as the transportation of his product is concerned. Hon. members on both sides of the House are quite correct in saying that it is the producer who will have to shoulder the increase.

In other words, Vause is wrong.

No, the hon. member for Durban Point is not altogether wrong. The hon. member is not altogether wrong. Hon. members on the other side of the House know what happens when we have increases such as these. The immediate effect is on the producer because he must bear the costs. What hon. members on the other side lose sight of …

They do not lose sight of it; they simply do not want to know it.

The hon. members do not want to know it. They know that when the farmer sends his product to the market, there are people who in turn deliver it to the consumer. The farmer can walk into many shops and, after the increases have taken place, he will find that the dealer and the butcher will tell him, and particularly the housewife, that the increase in the price of the product is due to the increase in railway tariffs.

Then tell your people not to do it. Surely, it is your people who do so.

Exploitation of the situation does take place, and often one will find—hon. members will find this now, too—that it is the consumer who has to pay the extra cent or two per kilogram under the pretence of the increased railway tariffs. I do not hold the hon. the Minister responsible for this. However, the fact is that this situation is ripe for the exploitation of the consumer. Hon. members will find that this will be the result of the increased railway tariffs.

Tell the dealers not to increase their prices.

I want to make my contribution by saying that the increase in railway tariffs will bring about a considerable increase in the production costs of the farmer. As a result of inflation and devaluation, most of the farmers have recently been placed in the situation where they are dealing with an enormous increase in the cost of mechanization and in the cost of all the means of production they need, whether it be machinery, stock remedies, fertilizers or whatever it may be.

Now we have another general increase, which will place the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in a very difficult position. He will find that when he has to determine new maize prices, when he has to determine new wheat and cereal prices in the new season and the dairy farmers approach him for an increase in the price of milk and butter, all of them will tell him: Minister Schoeman, your colleague in the Cabinet caused us to pay a considerably higher railway tariff, and therefore we want higher prices for our products. The hon. the Minister of Transport gave immense impetus to an increase in production costs in South Africa. What is more, he also gave immense impetus to an increase in the cost of living in South Africa. Under these circumstances it is unfair that we should have to deal with increases which will affect the farmers and the producers and which, without question, will ultimately affect the consumer.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said that we on this side of the House are completely negative. However, they have already discussed these matters with the Minister, but we are not told what was discussed. He has said that other steps were discussed, but he does not mention them. He said that they spoke about transport rebates. If hon. members on that side of the House did speak about transport rebates, let us hear what they are. Let them say clearly what it is all about. The hon. the Minister of Transport told us it was not his responsibility. Have they noticed whether the hon. the Minister of Transport was there? He was not there, because, as far as I know, he was in Ceres. I want to ask whether representations have indeed been made that there should be transport rebates by the Department of Agricultural Economy and Marketing, as we had in the past?

There were, but we have no money.

Oh! There were indeed representations of this nature. Then it is no use the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet getting up in this House and saying that representations have been made. What do such representations mean if no one paid any attention to them? What does it mean when the hon. the Minister of Agriculture tells us that there is no money? In that case the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet could just as well not have made representations. If that is the position, why did the hon. the Minister of Transport say it was not his responsibility? In that case he should have said in this House yesterday afternoon that representations had been made to him, but that it was impossible to assist these people. The hon. the Minister of Transport, however, tried to pass the buck. This is what he tried to do. He tried to create the impression that he is not responsible.

Surely, he is not responsible.

If someone else were to accept responsibility, for example the hon. the Minister of Finance or the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, would he have assisted? It was therefore a bluff all along in order to create the impression that they would help the farmers of South Africa in one or other way. This is the situation we have reached today. There is no opportunity of assisting the producer of South Africa. The fact of the matter is that the Government and the hon. the Minister of Transport are in a dilemma. They can do nothing but what they are doing at present. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, my fellow farmers and I are concerned about the increase in the transport rates on livestock. However, the hon. member for Newton Park has come up with an entirely different approach. He wants to blame the hon. the Minister because he foresees that people are going to exploit the situation—in other words, that owing to the increased rail tariffs, people are going to charge a higher price for certain meat products because the producer has to pay more for the conveyance of his cattle.

One must be reasonable. It is true that only 51% of the transport costs are covered by the existing tariffs and it is also true, after all, that after this tariff increase, only 76% of the transport costs will be covered. I now ask …

What costs?

The real costs of the conveyance of livestock. Must the hon. the Minister now convey livestock at enormous cost just because people might exploit the situation? Owing to our country’s dependence on the importation of capital goods and certain other commodities essential to internal growth, the high rate of inflation of our trading partners has a detrimental effect on our general price level. Add to this the devaluation of the Rand and the increase in the prices of steel, coal, petroleum products and electricity, and we get a Railways expenditure greater than ever before. It is a fact that these price increases have a detrimental effect on operating expenses and on the capital expenditure of the Railways. In spite of price increases and the problems associated with them, we must not forget that the Railways has been able to carry out its primary task, the conveyance of people and goods. They have carried out this task efficiently.

Hon. members of the Opposition want to know to what extent the Railways contributes towards the joint action programme against inflation. In his budget speech the hon. the Minister quoted examples of contributions in this regard. The biggest saving any department can effect lies in the efficiency of its planning, service and achievements. I want to make the statement that the higgest saving lies in the efficiency of any organization. If one examines in depth the operation of the S.A. Railways and the people who control the Railways, then it is clear that a superficial, emotional and facetious speech of the kind made by the hon. member for King William’s Town really does not do justice, in these circumstances, to this vast and efficient industry. In his usual whirlwind fashion the hon. member reproached the hon. the Minister for the increase in the tariffs for the conveyance of livestock. I give the hon. member for King William’s Town the same reply which I gave the hon. member for Newton Park. I just want to repeat that I share their concern about the situation, but I have no alternative solution except that perhaps it is now time to construct regional abattoirs in the production areas. In this connection one thinks at once in terms of a regional abattoir for the slaughtering of sheep at De Aar and the slaughtering of cattle at Vryburg. If a decision could be reached in regard to this matter I feel that the hon. the Minister and his department would very soon be able to provide the necessary refrigerated wagons. Possibly the provision of refrigerating facilities for road transport on reasonable passable roads could be considered. It is not such an impossible situation. I know of cases in my constituency of milk being conveyed over a distance of 150 km daily. Very serious consideration must be given to the possibility of regional abattoirs within the production areas.

In these times of rising costs, one tends to overlook the efficiency and achievement of the Railways. I want to repeat the statement I made a moment ago, viz. that the greater the efficiency, the greater are the savings in a department. I want to point to a few of the Railways’ achievements. They are achievements which increase efficiency and effect savings. I am referring here to the unique signalling system. A centrally controlled signalling system with unique train control has been developed. This system was designed by our own people and has various advantages, of which I want to mention a few. For example: On a section of line 200 km long there is a saving of 51 personnel units, viz. trained technicians who may as a result be employed elsewhere in the service of the Railways. Furthermore, this results in greater efficiency, more rapid movements of trains, greater safety in train control, a resultant drop in the accident rate and, as a result, savings are effected. Furthermore, it results in a saving in manpower, elimination of accidents and more rapid traffic. All these are cost saving factors and are consequently anti-inflationary. Another achievement is the cross-anchor bogie developed by one of our own railway engineers, viz. the Scheffel system. It was named after him. It is a unique design which has evoked interest in America too. This system is of tremendous potential benefit for South Africa. It reduces the wear and tear on wagons and railway lines and heavier loads can be conveyed at a higher speed and with greater safety. This system entails incalculable savings in respect of greater speed, movement, a greater load per wagon and avoidance of accidents. The hon. member for Durban Point, too, referred to the Railways’ computer system. The Railways has the biggest computer system in the country and is a pacesetter in this sphere. The staff of the Railways does its own programming, and wagon control throughout the country is done by way of these computers. The advantages which this system entails are: improved control of the movement of every wagon, and the periods during which wagons stand idle can be restricted to a minimum. Furthermore, there is better utilization and full use of existing wagons. Centralized control of the contents of the truck can also be exercised, so that it is possible to know exactly what is in the truck and on which section of the line it is situated. Consequently there is better utilization of capacity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for De Aar will excuse me if I do not follow up his argument. I should like to say a few words on a different aspect of the Railways altogether.

†Broadly speaking, I suppose it is true to say that for every one White passenger the Railways carry, they carry between four and five people of colour, and obviously, the vast majority of them are Black. From this point of view, the Black people of South Africa are, in a sense, the Railways’ best customers; certainly the Railways’ best potential passenger market. It is about these people, the great silent majority—the voiceless majority, if I may call them that—and their travelling facilities that I want to say a few words. Let me say at once that one is grateful that the Railway Administration has taken steps and are still taking steps to try to provide a better service for these hundreds of thousands of people who travel daily by rail. I am thinking of booking facilities which have been extended for main line trains and of the attempt—I call it nothing more than an attempt—to provide light refreshments for these people on these journeys, many of which last for days. I am also thinking of the policeman/commissionaire officials who have been appointed to assist third-class passengers and protect them from assault and exploitation. These are all steps in the right direction and one is grateful for them; but I would like to emphasize that there is infinitely more that has to be done in every single direction.

I know of Black men who simply refuse to travel from Johannesburg to Louis Trichardt over the weekends, because of the hopeless overcrowding on these special trains that are provided, and because of the danger of being robbed and assaulted. I would not be surprised if this reluctance to travel under these conditions is a factor in the reduction of third-class journeys during the year by 580 000. This figure is astonishing and puzzling, particularly in the light of the previous year’s increase in this category, when there was an increase of 2½ million people travelling in this class. There must clearly be other reasons for this drop and I hope that these reasons will be given. I happen to have this kind of contact and I must complain of the state of the coaches in which many of these second-class reserve passengers travel. These are, to put it mildly, utterly deplorable. The coaches are dilapidated and sadly in need of paint and a whole lot of other commodities. I do not know this for a fact, but I am told that the conditions of many of these third-class trains is infinitely worse, and my imagination simply stops working when it comes to that kind of situation. I know this is diverting prospective third-class passengers to other forms of transport. Anybody with any form of contact with Black people knows this. As for the basic facilities, such as refreshments and food, these are so hopelessly lacking on main-line trains that one can just hope, for the sake of the convenience of these people, that there is going to be an improvement.

When we come to the suburban traffic situation, we are up against a potentially very dangerous situation. Here again the proportion of non-White daily passengers on the Railways is well over three to one. In the past year there were 448 million third-class passenger journeys, compared with 133 million first-class passenger journeys. Here again it is the old story of overcrowding, only this time it is infinitely worse. Here again one is grateful for and one takes cognizance of improvements that have been made and which are constantly being made, e.g. that trains of greater carrying capacity are being provided on journeys from Johannesburg to Soweto, sliding-door instead of swing-door coaches—which is an important safety factor when one sees people clinging and trying to get into these coaches. The problem remains. Earlier this week the hon. member for Sea Point pointed out the overcrowding on the Cape Flats trains. But any commuter between Johannesburg and Soweto will be able to cap any kind of story that comes from the Cape Flats as far as overcrowding is concerned. In spite of everything that the Railways have done, the conditions are still appalling, with the resultant danger to property and life. I repeat that there has been an improvement, but it is not nearly enough. The Railways are carrying every single day over 568 000 Black People on the suburban lines into and out of the so-called White towns and cities of South Africa. Over 200 000 are carried in each direction every day in the Johannesburg area, over 111 000 in the Durban area, and over 78 000 in Cape Town. When we look at these figures, we realize not only the enormity of the problem, but also the number of people who are directly concerned and who have a very stong vested interest in the whole situation. It is no wonder that in a place like Johannesburg you get lift-club organizations seeking the Transportation Board’s permission to take the workers to and from the city. This is in spite of the fact that every day—and this is an incredible achievement on the part of the Railways—411 trains run between Johannesburg and Soweto, nearly all of them, incidentally, uncomfortably over-crowded.

In spite of this, taxis, buses and even private cars to these areas are carrying capacity loads in the mornings and again late in the evening. I mention these factors because we are dealing here—and I think it is important for the Committee to realize this—with one of the most sensitive areas of human relations, sensitive and also potentially dangerous, if I may say so, for peace and order. It needs very little imagination to appreciate the explosiveness of a situation in which a tiny and relatively insignificant incident could spark off trouble and set in motion a chain reaction which could reach alarming proportions. I believe that the Railways Administration is aware of this, but the public and the Government need constant reminding of how delicate the situation is and what care must be exercised, not only to ensure that nothing goes wrong. What is just as important in this kind of situation, is to see to it that irritation of individuals and groups of people is reduced to a minimum. I need only to refer in passing— and those members from the Transvaal who know what is going on in their home towns will know of this—to the bus boycott on the East Rand at this very moment and they will also be aware of the tension which a situation of this kind is creating in that community. This simply serves to underline what I am trying to say to this Committee.

This brings me to the question of fares. We have been told that the Black commuters from resettlement areas in most of South Africa’s large industrial areas will have to pay more for their train fares following the Government’s decision to abolish its R20 million a year subsidy. It is not clear how many commuters are directly affected by this and how much more they are going to pay. One knows for certain that countless passengers in all the large industrial areas of South Africa are affected as a result of the withdrawal of the Government subsidy. Some of them we are told—I do not know how many—have to pay up to 49% more. How many are there, and what is the total sum involved in this whole operation? I can only paraphrase what my colleague, the hon. member for Orange Grove, said about this matter the other day, namely, that it is inexcusable from any point of view that this subsidy has been reduced. We are not blaming the South African Railways because they have to operate their undertaking on a business basis, but the Government shifts people away from their places of work and lands them with additional transport burdens which they are unable to bear. It is, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has pointed out, a scandalous situation that the poor section of a community, many of them—we know that this is a fact—living below the poverty datum line, should be saddled with this additional burden at a time when inflation has made it almost impossible to make ends meet.

Mr. Chairman, when one listens to the Progressive Party, one realizes that in fact, it is a party which has not yet earned its place in this House.

[Inaudible.]

I wish Red Riding Hood would listen. When it comes to real politics, there are certain matters about which they can interject, but when it comes to running the country, they fail dismally. They are always harping on the same things, matters like urban transport and the poor Bantu. Show me a single instance of the group they represent here, viz. Anglo-American and others, being the first to grant increases to Bantu? It is outrageous that we sometimes have people in this House who are always wanting to make political capital out of matters, but when it affects their own pockets, as in the case of Union Hotels in Pretoria …

Order!

… then they only pay 27%.

Order! There is a ruling by Mr. Speaker that hon. members may not refer to the private affairs of companies.

I do not even care!

Mr. Chairman, that is true. I never … [Interjections.] In any event, the fact is that these members always want to deal with everything on a political basis.

[Interjections.]

If, for example, they co-operated with the Government and implemented decentralization, as is the case in Newcastle today, it would not have been necessary for 25 000 Bantu to be conveyed by train—instead, they need only have walked to work across a railway line. Their place of employment is just across the railway line. That is decentralization. That is planning. Johannesburg’s urban complex was planned in such a way that the Railways lose millions of rand per annum because they have to convey people in one direction in the morning and convey the same people in the opposite direction in the afternoon. The urban Bantu areas bordering on Johannesburg could have been decentralized. The Government could have undertaken the planning for this on the same basis as has been done recently in the case of industrial areas, but those hon. members continually agitate against decentralization and tell people: “Do not co-operate with the Government. Forget the Bantu. We want them as servants. We do not care. We will only complain in the courts and in the places where the newspapers can listen. There we shall complain about the poor Bantu.”

Have you ever heard of the locational factors of industry, you stupid man!

Please! Whenever I get a compliment like that from the hon. lady I am very flattered. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that it has become necessary at this stage to indicate that the increase in rates is not necessarily inflationary. When money is spent productively, or spent on something which can earn revenue, such as the wide-bodied aircraft, for example, then that is not inflationary. [Interjections.] It is not. You laugh! The moment one makes the change from a horse and cart to a better vehicle and is able to convey more people with the same staff, there is additional revenue. Then expenditure is productive. [Interjections.] I shall reply to all the hon. member’s questions after we have left the chamber. My time is too limited now. [Interjections.] The fact is that smoke screens, one after the other, have been raised in this House with the sole aim of creating the impression that this budget is inflationary. That is not the case. We are stating the facts. The public asked that there should be free competition with the Railways, that the Railways should no longer enjoy Government support and should no longer receive preference. That is all well and good, but when we adjust our rates, and when we convert it into a free enterprise, you all complain. Now you are all complaining about it.

I want to put it to you that now, for the first time in the history of the S.A. Railways, you are really seeing what the Railways means for South Africa. The Railways has carried the burden of the farmer. This has been necessary and it will undoubtedly be continued in the future. The Railways has carried the burden of industry, and that of the Government which, in accordance with its policy, must pay large amounts in subsidies. However, when we take note of the management affairs of the Railways, there is no one who would label that management as weak. In fact, no one has stood up in this House and said so.

[Inaudible.]

None of you has said that there is weak management and I confirm that the management is not weak. We on this side of the House convey our appreciation towards the workers, from the General Manager to the man in my constituency who has worked 24 hours a day when it has been necessary to do so. It has occurred that I have paid a call on a house four or five times without finding the man at home. At the time that man was engaged on the work of these Railways, and we thank them for this. We do not want these people to be attacked.

The hon. member for Durban Point says that after every shock there is a ray of light. Shall I what that ray of light is?

It would be if you were to stop talking now.

Must I tell you what that ray of light is? [Interjections.] The ray of light is the fact that there is a future for the Railways and its workers. There is a future for us because we are budgeting realistically for this year. It is pointless to try and shy away from price increases year after year. The man who has to bear the burden of the price increase must face it squarely. The hon. member for Durban Point said, and I quote—

This, now is the hon. member for Durban Point who is telling us what the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs says—

That is exactly what the Railways is doing. Expenditure or investment of capital does not necessarily amount to inflationary action. It is for this reason that we can summarize briefly the whole tirade of the United Party and the progress. I again quote the hon. member for Durban Point—

Then he continues—

He goes on to say—

He says here that “after removing the bones and the waste that the prime cuts will be 10 to 15 cents more.”

Now, if you sell the waste and the bones …

You quoted incorrectly.

No, I did not. If you sell the waste and the bones, I can assure you there will be more than 15 cents, because they ask far more than 15 cents for a pound of bones nowadays. If you were to add the waste … If you take the waste from a prime cut, I can tell you it is something like 18 cents a kilo. And then the farmers make a profit. [Interjections.] That is the Opposition’s whole argument in a nutshell. If you keep the prime cuts and remove the waste from the bones, you will see that a profit will be made by the Railways.

Mr. Chairman, various speakers who have taken part in the debate before me have availed themselves of the opportunity to refer to the strategic role of the Railways in the country’s economy. It has been argued—in my opinion quite rightly—that a properly developed transport network is the main artery of a sound national economy. In the course of the debate it has been shown conclusively by this side of the House that the South African Railways has made an outstanding success of establishing infrastructures and services where they have been required. In the present economic climate that is truly a notable achievement. It attests, not only to sound transport policy, but also to managerial ability comparable with the best in the world. The transport network to which I referred in connection with the establishment of an infrastructure is not only a national asset. In the recent past a dimension has been added which directly affects the South African Railways. The dimension to which I refer relates to the role played by the S.A. Railways in the stabilization of inter-state relations.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred to the historic bridge conference on 25 August. That conference, indeed, ushered in a new period in transport in South Africa. Whether we want to admit it or not, the economic realities of Southern Africa make it essential for neighbouring states to liaise with each other, not only on the political level but on the level of transport as well. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred in passing to the coming independence of the Transkei which is to take place in October. What will the transport position be in the Transkei? I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Witwatersberg who indicated that it would be an autonomous State in its own right. If the aid of the South African Government is required as far as transport is concerned, the South African Government will support the Transkeian Government in this regard as well, because surely we have never evaded our responsibilities towards neighbouring states in the past. The states on our borders are particularly reliant on import and export, the export of raw materials and the import of vital goods. The S.A. Railways, with its well-developed network and its accessibility to harbours will, in this uncertain political climate, play a vital role in the stabilization of inter-state relations. With the development of the infrastructure the Railways is not only a national asset; it is a national asset with far-reaching international implications as well.

In the few minutes left to me, I want to refer to a few aspects affecting my constitutency. Over the years a traditional point of difference has developed between the local authority of Bellville and the Railways Administration, concerning two matters in particular. Up to the present, all negotiations have failed to provide any solution. In the first place I am referring to Railway properties situated between Modder-dam Road and Chari Malan Street. In the second place I am referring to siding facilities at the quarry belonging to Hume Limited. I am aware that the Railways Administration envisages massive developments at Bellville. Developments to the value of R78 million are envisaged there over the next five years. R50 million has already been provided for the present financial year.

The land for this development is available to the south of the existing station complex, but the Railways is also in possession of this land to which I am now referring, situated in the middle of the central business area of Bellville. This factor at once has two cardinal consequences for the local authority. In the first place, because this land is still undetermined and situated in the central business area, it is not possible to carry out orderly town planning. In the second place it places an unjustified economic burden on the taxpayer. The local authorities in particular plan on a long-term basis and because this land and the zoning of this land has not yet been determined, services like roads and water cannot be planned and it is not possible for controlled and orderly business development to take place around this area because, as I say, the eventual zoning has not yet been determined. Development in the business area is aimed at establishing large complexes which require parking. I therefore want to request the hon. the Minister to consider this matter because it directly affects the inhabitants of Bellville. I want the hon. the Minister to consider whether an exchange of land could not take place, because the Railways does not need this land for expansion. Would it not be possible for the Railways to initiate negotiations with the local authority so that the land could be exchanged for land which the local authority can in fact part with?

Then there are the siding facilities for the Hume Limited quarry. I think that Bellville is unique in that it is the only suburb the main street of which is still traversed by sidings. The company I have mentioned has an agreement with the Administration. The agreement is valid until 31 December of this year. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister not to renew this contract after the expiry date because these siding facilities are no longer required for their original purpose. They are now being hired to a third party who uses them to convey waste material. This leads to a great deal of inconvenience; it is a potential safety risk, causes tremendous traffic congestion and is a source of irritation to the inhabitants of Bellville, since for a distance of 9 km it runs through a residential area.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville must excuse me if I do not react to what he said in his speech. He made a particularly good plea here on behalf of his constituency. I want to come back to the heart of the Budget, or should I rather say, the meat of the Budget. To the hon. member for Langlaagte I want to say that if he removed all the “waste” from his speech, there would be very little left. Nevertheless, I want to thank him very sincerely for his standpoint that no member of this House has anything to say against the management of the Railways. I want to use his argument against the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, who attacked the hon. member for Amanzimtoti by saying that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti only asked a lot of questions with the aim of embarrassing the Administration. It is ridiculous to say that; it cannot be justified. It is the duty of the Opposition to advance criticism of the Budget in this House.

Ask the questions in a straightforward way, then.

The hon. members for Graaff-Reinet, Omaruru, De Aar and Prieska are representatives of our “ver verlate vlaktes”, of constituencies where our farmers live, where the distances are great and the transport costs high. At times it was almost pathetic to see how these hon. members tried to defend the tremendous increase in tariffs for livestock. It is simply impossible to defend it.

Give the alternative then!

I am going to give the hon. member alternatives. It has been maintained here, and I want to refute it flatly, that the farmer loads up his cattle and sends them to auction at the abattoirs, and will carry the whole increase. However, livestock is not conveyed in that way only. The wholesalers sometimes buy direct from the farmer and must therefore convey the cattle to the abattoirs. Consequently this will affect the price which the consumer pays because the wholesaler will recover the increased costs form the consumer.

You only want to protect the speculators.

I am not defending any speculator. As I have said, it is a false statement that has been made here, because the position of the wholesaler must be borne in mind when we try to determine whether the increased tariffs are going to affect the price paid by the consumer.

Surely you know you are talking nonsense, Bill.

Hon. members opposite also suggested that consideration be given to the construction of abattoirs in the production areas. For how many years has this side of the House been advocating that! I fear it may come too late, because we have now invested so much capital in centralized abattoirs that if we were now to decentralize and construct abattoirs in the production areas, we would be saddled with that capital investment and would not be able to utilize it to the full. Nevertheless this is a sound and acceptable idea, but one would have to investigate the whole issue very thoroughly. In any event, new legislation is going to be introduced in this regard. One must also bear in mind that as the hon. member for East London North said, the increase occurred after agricultural unions throughout the country, including the S.A. Agricultural Union, had requested the rail tariffs to be reduced. The increase came at a time when the price of beef cattle to the farmer was dropping. On top of this, not only was there a 50% increase in the rail tariff for livestock, but an increase of 20% in the road transport tariff as well. This is what will cause the farmer to have to pay more to feed his cattle as well. It must happen that these increased expenses will be passed on to the consumer. The hon. the Minister must take this into account. He must not say that someone else should do something about it. The Constitution provides that the Railways has socio-economic duties in this regard which, in view of the factor of the security of the country, could not be more effectively carried out than by keeping the farmer on the land. If one has a totally depopulated platteland, depopulated of White farmers, who is going to produce food for South Africa, and who is going to defend the rural areas of South Africa? One cannot squeeze all the Whites into the cities. The cities are already getting too big.

The other day the hon. member for King William’s Town told the hon. the Minister that he had stripped the farmers as naked as Glenda Kemp and that they no longer even had a python to cover their nakedness. I want to maintain that there is in fact such a python. It is the steel rail of the Railways, which is strangling the farmer of South Africa to death today. Every time the farmer wants to convey his own product or have it conveyed by a contractor or his corporation, there is always an appeal from the Railways which states: “You may not do that; we shall do it”. After all, the hon. the Minister knows about the case of the United Dairies’ UHT milk.

The farmer is quite free to convey his own goods.

What about the farmers’ co-operatives? The farmer has just as much interest in the co-operatives as in his own farm. If the co-operative applies to the Road Transport Board for a licence and gets it, there is always an appeal from the Railways. They say that they want to transport the goods.

Conveyance in return for remuneration.

This increases the price the consumer is going to pay, and the hon. the Minister knows it. The goods have to be packed in a special way. The Railways delivers at a certain point at which a distribution system has to be established. Today all this costs a great deal more. Even last year it cost 6c per litre more for UHT milk. But because the Railways appeals, we are in a difficult position where the farmer cannot transport the product. These matters must definitely be looked at very carefully.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the issue of the conveyance of suburban workers. What he said is important but, while we are talking about the farming industry and the Railways, I want to say that it is, after all, a fact that the conveyance of suburban workers is subsidized to a far greater extent than the entire agricultural industry. Every city slicker usually points a finger at the farmer and says: “You live on a subsidy.” At the moment, the suburban worker is more heavily subsidized than the entire agricultural industry. It is said that the farmers simply have to carry this increase. I believe that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet should not have discussed these matters.

Why not?

Because his farmers are not going to be very fond of him after what he said. He should rather have discussed wool. He has a much wider knowledge of that.

You still have to learn what I have already forgotten.

The hon. member for Prieska at least admitted that a cheaper way to convey cattle would have to be found. That is indeed the point. If it cannot be done by way of subsidies, then another way must be found to convey that livestock more cheaply. The responsibility for this is not the farmer’s, but the Government’s and this hon. Minister’s in particular.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat referred to various speakers on this side who denied that the increase in the tariff for the transport of livestock would be passed on to the consumer. The hon. member himself also championed the cause of the farmers. It is very clear to me that like his colleagues, the hon. member is so bankrupt politically that they even want to make political capital out of this ticklish situation. Surely it is an acknowledged fact that in a free economy, demand and supply determine the price of a product. This was very clearly indicated earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet.

I should very much like to turn to another matter, a more positive matter concerning the Railways, a very pleasant subject. When we think about the Railways, we see a beautiful Boeing in the air and the beautiful trains on our railway lines but I think that we often forget the man behind all these things, namely the employee of the Railways. When I consider that the Railways has about 245 000 employees, and when I look at the industrial unrest prevailing in the world, unrest which forces itself on the governments of countries, then the employees of the Railways indeed set an example to the rest of the world. When we are dealing with the employees of the Railways, we find that this man or woman in the service of the Railways can be appealed to at any time of emergency, so much so that I should like to label the employees of the Railways as people with loyalty to their work. Indeed, the employees of the Railways are a very happy family, because these are the people who, when overtime or long shifts have to be worked, or when an exceptional effort on the part of the workers is asked for, always provide those services promptly.

Here I should very much like to refer to the cargo congestion in our harbours a year or so ago. When that cargo in our harbours increased to such an extent that an additional levy of 20% was imposed on cargo, the Railways appealed to its employees to work to eliminate this cargo. I have personal knowledge of the efforts made in this connection, resulting in the excessive cargo in our harbours, on which the levy of 20% was placed, being reduced rapidly. In fact, I get the impression that the employees of the Railways do not work for themselves, or even for the Railways, but in the interests of the Republic of South Africa. The workers of the Railways have really set an example to be followed in this connection.

Another aspect is the quality of the service provided by the workers of the Railways. Here I can personally attest to the fact that in Port Elizabeth, during Christmas time, when there was a great deal of pressure in connection with the despatching by farmers of perishable products from the Golden Valley station to Germiston, the System Manager made an effort even on Christmas Day to provide the necessary facilities for the conveyance of those products. I regard that person, as I regard the Railway employees in general, as a person who really provides service of a high quality. However, it is not only the quality of the service that strikes me, but the volume of service as well. It has been said here a number of times, inter alia, by the hon. member for Maitland, that although the number of employees on the Railways has increased, there has not been an increase in productivity on the part of those employees. Sir, the statistics show us that over the past decade the productivity graph of the Railways has gradually increased. Over the past financial year it has increased by 3,03%. Here we have quality service, but service in respect of volume, too, provided in the interests of the Republic of South Africa. When discussing these two aspects, I see a motivating power behind this attitude on the part of the Railway employees, viz. managerial efficiency. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Amanzimtoti tried to make a dig at the Management of the Railways, I want to state here that the efficiency and the volume of service rendered can be seen as being motivated from management level. For this the Railways, specifically the managerial level, from the highest to the lowest ranks, deserves the greatest appreciation of this side of the House. Perhaps it is true that some of our aeroplanes have not been flying according to schedule recently, but I believe that this aspect will be attended to by the Management.

But then I, too, want to join that chorus— the hon. the Minister must forgive me—who have expressed their concern about this increase in the tariff for the conveyance of livestock. I know that the hon. the Minister promised yesterday that he would support the case for the private conveyance of livestock and that he would assist us in this respect. Now, I wonder whether it would not be possible to take a closer look at the issuing of road transport permits by the Road Transport Board. Here I have in mind three farmers who join forces to buy a truck to convey their livestock. In such a case a transport permit is not issued to them. There is another aspect of private transport. Why should a farmer who conveys livestock to the abattoirs not be able to convey, say, fuel to his farm on the return journey? [Interjections.] In this case, where a few farmers join forces to buy a large truck, is it not possible to examine the conditions on which a transport permit is issued to our farmers? After all, we wish to promote the better utilization of transport. Can we not bear this aspect in mind as regards the issuing of transport permits?

Mr. Chairman, I refer specifically to item 651 and I should like to deal with it because it relates to the construction of a goods shed in Capital Park in my constituency. Right at the outset I want to say that if I were to maintain that this decision on the part of the Railways had the unqualified approval of the inhabitants of Capital Park, Gezina, Eloffsdal and Roseville, I should be far from the truth. Personally, I am unable to express my unqualified agreement to this step, because I must voice certain misgivings and refer to certain difficulties. It is true that as far back as 1967 it was decided in principle that the present goods facilities at Pretoria West were no longer suitable and that alternatives had to be sought. We are aware that the existing passenger facilities at Pretoria station are entirely inadequate. Subsequently, other possibilities of extending these facilities must be sought, and the fact that the goods facilities are inadequate owing to the increased establishment of industries justified and made essential the extension of goods facilities. Now Capital Park has been selected for this project. This, in itself, we accept, and we wish to abide by this decision. However, what we are concerned about, and what makes the inhabitants of the surrounding areas feel unhappy, is the fact that by taking the existing facilities, the existing goods facilities, from the heart of an industrial area and placing them in a residential area, two fundamental problems in particular come to the fore, problems which will require very careful scrutiny.

The first is the issue of road traffic. We are taking the existing facilities away from the ultimate destinations in the industrial area of Pretoria West and the central business area of Pretoria, where the highest tonnage of goods is undoubtedly delivered, and are establishing them a long way off, so that the goods will have to be reconveyed back to those areas by road. I made inquiries as to the number of vehicles conveying goods to and from the goods shed. I shall give the figures briefly as they were supplied to me: On 29 November 1974, 399 heavy railway vehicles were needed to convey the goods; on 2 December of the same year, 350; on 20 December, 481; on 24 December, 428; on 27 December, 128; on 30 December, 222 and on 31 December, 310. A total of 2 774 vehicles were required. This works out at about 350 heavy vehicles per day or, to put it another way, between 45 and 50 additional heavy vehicles per hour. If the goods facilities were to be constructed in Capital Park, it would mean an additional loading of about 50 heavy vehicles per peak hour, or 350 heavy vehicles per day on Voortrekker Road and Paul Kruger Street. Those who are acquainted with Pretoria, and these two streets in particular, will know that this additional loading simply cannot be absorbed by the two streets as they are at present. It is a fact that it will be necessary to co-operate and have joint consultations, planning and action if this problem is to be dealt with. I was grateful to hear that the Administration has already been in touch with the City Council of Pretoria in order to discuss the problem and hold consultations about it. Voortrekker Road and Ninth Avenue are being converted into one-way streets, but this will have to be done quickly. The detailed plans for the subway under the Koedoespoort railway lines and Ninth Avenue have already been submitted to the Administration by the City Council. No further delay in this regard can be afforded. May I appeal to both the Railways and the City Council to regard this as a high priority.

A second facet of this road transport plan which will have to be scrutinized is the link between the envisaged goods set-up and the north-western bypass road. On another occasion I sounded a warning to the effect that if the provision of an effective route to link with the bypass road was not given timeous consideration, problems would be foreseen. Such a link would greatly facilitate the conveyance of goods to the industrial area.

A third matter for concern in this connection is the access road to the area in question. The access road leads from Fransina Street, a narrow street in a residential area. The Administration informs me that a strip of land to the South of this street has been handed over to the City Council for the construction of a suitable road. I want to ask that this road should not cut into the residential area without further ado, but that the open spaces to the north of the railway line be used.

The second facet of this set-up relates to the increase in railway traffic which this will cause. Those who know Capital Park will know how irritating the noise of shunting trains can be, but now we are going to have more railway traffic there, which will necessarily result in more noise. That is why I am grateful that provision is being made under item 914 for the electrification of the north-western and eastern areas of the marshalling yard in question. It is expected that this will result in electrical locomotives being used there by 1979. I am told, too, that by 1981, steam locomotives will no longer be used and that diesel locomotive will do the work which is now being done by steam locomotives. Not only will this alleviate the noise problem, it will also combat air pollution which is a serious problem in this area.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister, the Railway Administration and the City Council of Pretoria in advance for their undivided and constant attention to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, we can understand why the hon. member for Gezina feels unhappy about the delay on the part of the Railways to solve Pretoria’s transport problems. I trust the hon. member will pardon me if I do not follow up what he said.

†Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about a problem which has not been touched upon in this debate at all. We have heard about the problem of the rail user who is being penalized and made to pay the money the hon. the Minister requires. There is another person who has been completely forgotten by the hon. the Minister. In this regard I am referring to the Railway pensioner who retired before 1969 or 1972. This is probably a sore point with the hon. the Minister, but it is also a sore point with Railway pensioners. I would like to speak about the treatment loyal and faithful former servants of the Railway Administration are getting. They have apparently been designated to the scrapyard along with the other worked out equipment the Railways are getting rid of. There is bitter resentment amongst Railway pensioners. I could perhaps feel pleased about this because it is not to the political advantage of the Government, but this is not the only reason why I am raising this. I also have sympathy for the Railway pensioner because, like the hon. the Minister, I was a railwayman myself. Fortunately, like the hon. the Minister, I do not rely on a Railway pension, but, I remember others, something which I do not think the hon. the Minister does.

I would like to compare the Railways pension scheme to a large company which is owned by the workers who are the shareholders. When the amount the worker pays in towards his shares reaches maturity he is entitled to a pay-out according to the grade on which he retired and according to the service which he rendered. One would think that all these people would then be treated equally, who did the same work and worked the same length of time. One would think that the benefit should be the same. However, one finds that this is not so. I realize that there have been increases in pay and that the emoluments of the Railway servant have risen. This means that the pensions will have risen as well. However, the point is that those who went on pension earlier get nowhere near the same annuity or gratuity. One could take it the other way around. The man who went on pension in a grade got a certain figure. Another man going on pension today on the same grade gets something like four times as much in pension and gratuity.

We realize that this has been brought about by the application of the new formula, since 1973. Why can those people who went on pension before 1973, and particularly those who went on pension before 1969, not also share in the benefits of this formula? We must remember that this Consolidated Pension Fund has been generating moneys all the time. It has not stood still, but has been utilized, and has been earning interest, and the fund has been growing. One would think the shareholders would be entitled to some of the dividends on those increased profits. For the hon. the Minister to say, as he has said, in reply to these people, that the money in the fund is not sufficient, does not gel. If one looks at the memorandum issued by the hon. the Minister, one sees on page 9 the way in which this pension fund has increased. In the year 1971 to 1972 it increased by R19 million, in the year 1973 to 1974 it increased by R23,6 million and in the last eight months given here, it increased by R34 million. This is at a rate of virtually R4 million a month. The hon. the Minister cannot tell me that if a few rand had been spared from this terrific increase, it would have affected the fund. He may say that he has been advised actuarially that this fund cannot stand any payments to past pensioners. I cannot see how any draw on this fund can, in any way, affect the stability of the fund. The hon. the Minister has said that he takes the advice of his committee on pension affairs as to whether pensions should be increased or not. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say so, but I would like to point out that the Railway Pensioners’ Association is not even represented on the pension fund. The hon. the Minister has said they are represented if they still belong to the staff associations to which they belonged when they were working. Does the hon. the Minister really think that people who today belong to the staff associations and who are serving on this fund, are in the least interested in the plight of people who went on pension in 1969 or in 1972? The hon. the Minister may tell us that their pensions have been increased from time to time, and I am the first to admit this.

We are grateful for the increases which were given and we realize that a temporary allowance is being paid in order to give them a little more money and to put them above a minimum of R72 for a single person or R144 for a married person. We realize that they are getting a 2% increase each year which, if compounded, has come to something like 28% up to now. It is still nowhere near anything they require as a living wage. Under the new formula, the Administration has contributed substantially more to the pension fund since 1973. This is done in order to stabilize the fund, but I would like to point out that all pensioners are still members of that fund. Why should they not benefit from that stabilization of the fund? They should be entitled to improved benefits as a result of the stabilization of their fund. I would also like to remind the hon. the Minister that present-day members are contributing only 6%, which, as the hon. the Minister himself said, ensures realistic pensions, whereas the pre-1971 pensioners contributed 8%, and in some cases as much as 10% of their pay. For them it was a bigger sacrifice than for the people who are today contributing 6%. It may of course not be the same monetary amount, because today’s people receive a much higher rate of pay. The hon. the Minister may say he cannot treat the S. A. Railway pensioners any differently from the rest of the Public Service.

I feel that this is not relevant because they are working under different conditions. The Railwayman has given faithful service under all types of conditions which are not comparable with those in the rest of the Public Service. They worked faithfully through all types of weather, they worked through depressions and carried an extra load; they carried on through the war years and did more than was expected from them, and for all this they do not expect anything extra, but they do expect a fair deal when it comes to dishing out pensions. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that if he does not do something now for the Railway pensioners, he will lose their loyalty and support for ever.

*Mr. G. J. KOTZÉ Mr. Chairman, I do not want to quarrel in any way with the hon. member for South Coast about the subject he raised. I think it is a very good thing that he referred to it, because all of us have sympathy with pensioners and we have sympathy particularly with the Railway pensioner who has to make do with the minimum pension. We are very aware of the fact that these people find it difficult to make ends meet, and that they are having a hard time of it. We have made representations to the Minister from time to time to see what could be done for these pensioners. Unfortunately this is a situation which is bound up with the general situation concerning pensions in these times of inflation. This is the tragedy of inflation in that the pensioner, who is being hit hardest, is the very person who is affected. For that reason I say that I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member on that issue. The Railways are a large organization, and in such a large organization with so many employees it is difficult to keep all the employees happy. If there is on thing in which the Railways were pre-eminently successful, it was to keep its employees happy to a large extent. I cannot recall any incidents of Railway unrest or Railway strikes, and this goes to show that the Administration is taking good care of its employees. Recently I had the privilege to attend a function in my constituency when the first group of houses erected by the Railways in terms of a fine housing scheme, were handed over to Coloured employees. I found it very gratifying that day to see how proud those families were of the properties they acquired in terms of this fine scheme. It is a fact that when one provides people with sound housing, one ensures happy families and this creates a splendid relationship between workers and employers, which necessarily has to lead to increased productivity on the part of those workers.

It has come to my notice that the Railways are developing and expanding this housing scheme for their Coloured workers to an increasing extent. I believe that in doing so we are creating very sound relations between the Coloured workers on the Railways and the White workers. This spirit of goodwill between the White workers in the Railway Administration speaks volumes. The workers are very loyal to their employers. What is particularly noticeable is that even under difficult circumstances, sometimes as a result of circumstances quite beyond the control of the Administration, the workers remain loyal to the Railways. I want to quote you an example, Sir. On the occasion of a recent reorganization of services which is still being carried out—I am referring here to the example of the dieselization of the permanent way from Bellville to Bitterfontein—it was necessary for some of the drivers and guards who have been living at Malmesbury for many years, to be moved. I found it surprising to see in what good spirit they accepted this move. Mr. Chairman, at the same time I want to address an urgent request to the Administration to have thorough regard for the losses these people suffer as a result of the fact that they will have to sell their properties when it becomes necessary to transfer employees who have almost reached retirement age. Many of these people bought their properties when prices were low, and paid the instalments thereon for many years. Although they may obtain a relatively good price for their dwellings, now it will nevertheless mean that a financial burden is placed on them when they have to buy a house somewhere else. I shall appreciate it if the Railway Administration could meet people who find themselves in this position.

There is another minor matter I want to comment on. This concerns the question of demurrage. It is necessary that demurrage be paid when trucks have to stand over at a station because they cannot be off-loaded in time. However, it sometimes happens that—as the result of various circumstances—period consignments which are supposed to arrive at a specific station at intervals of days, are delayed. Consequently a large number of trucks meant for the same person arrive at a particular station on the same day. Of course, in such a case it is physically impossible to off-load those trucks during the required period. For that reason I want to ask for the Railway Administration to accommodate people in cases of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is desirable that I should now discuss certain matters which were raised here. I shall simply begin with the first speaker, and that is the hon. member for Durban Point who spoke first during this Committee Stage this afternoon. The hon. member raised several of the matters to which he also referred during the Second Reading debate. Inter alia he maintained that I had concealed the revenue which we obtained from the increased rates for international flights. I do not know how the hon. member can say a thing like that. Nothing is being concealed. As far as international rates are concerned, we are affiliated to IATA, and because the rates are raised from time to time, after negotiations, we are also obliged to apply those same increases to our international flights. This is in fact what we have done. However, the most important thing I want to tell the hon. member in this regard is that it is impossible for me to conceal the revenue to which he was referred. How can I do that? These increased rates, as well as any other increased rates introduced during the preceding financial year, are included in the calculation of the estimated revenue for the ensuing financial year. These increased rates are indeed included in the calculation of the expected revenue for the ensuing financial year, the year for which we are now budgeting. How the hon. member can therefore say that I am concealing it, or that I am disguising it in some way or another, I do not know. The hon. member’s calculations were wrong.

He is slow to learn.

His calculations were wrong, and now he wants to get out of it in some way or another. He tries to do so with his manner of presentation. We know his manner of presentation. It is usually excellent, but the contents are not always as correct as they should be. Now he is trying to lay the blame on my shoulders.

The hon. member raised the question of the R70 million once again. You will recall, Sir, that in his speech during the Second Reading debate he referred to an amount of approximately R70 million which we, over and above the indicated amount in the Estimates, had supposedly collected in some way or other, without giving an account of it. As far as the hon. member’s allegation is concerned, I must disagree with him entirely. It is not clear to me where all his mistakes are, but I have pointed out two. If he could show me all his various calculations, I think I would be able to point out all the mistakes. However, I cannot do so, because I do not know how he made all his calculations.

It is very simple; my figures are in the speech.

It is not all that simple. Yesterday I pointed out to the hon. member that he had made a serious mistake in regard to the Airways. For example, he took 10% of R267 million, while R267 million is the total revenue. It was therefore quite incorrect to have made such a calculation. There is also another mistake which he made in regard to the revenue of the Airways, a mistake which I am now going to bring to his attention. Before I do so, I want to point out that he made certain fundamental mistakes in his calculations. Firstly: Our calculation of an average increase of approximately 11 % relates to the increasable revenue and not the total revenue of the Railways. There is certain revenue which is not increasable—in other words, which cannot be increased by way of rates. It is in fact, possible for a slight error to creep in if the hon. member uses the total revenue of the Railways for his calculation. There are also certain rates reductions, to which I shall refer soon, which I do not think the hon. member took into consideration. There are also certain rates increases which could give rise to a reduction in the traffic. When any transport organization increases its rates there is usually consumer resistance. As a result of the increased rates we must therefore expect a reduction in traffic in certain respects. I do not think the hon. member took that into account.

Nor did the hon. member take into account the fact that we allow a rebate of 20% on certain flights.

I did.

If the hon. member did in fact include this in the calculation, I am very pleased, for I thought he had perhaps not done so.

I use 10% and not 15% for the overseas traffic.

If the hon. member included that in the calculation, fine, but in my opinion due regard should be had for the fact that we are going to reduce our rates in respect of certain flights by 20%, as a result there will be a partial reduction in our revenue. In respect of livestock I expect—particularly with reference to what I said here yesterday— that there will be resistance and that there will be a decrease in livestock traffic. In contrast to the hon. member’s calculation of a revenue of R7 million from livestock, we expect a revenue of only R4,8 million as a result of a decrease in traffic which is going to occur. The hon. member also calculated that there will be an additional revenue of R148 million from goods. Our calculation of the revenue from goods indicates a figure of R119,3 million. How the hon. member arrived at a figure of R148 million I do not know. I should very much like to know how to arrive at such an additional amount. I would really welcome it. The hon. member’s biggest mistake—if I may say so—is in my opinion that his figures were based on the estimates for 1976-’77 above those for 1975-’76. Nor did he take into consideration that we suffered a loss in the 1975-’76 financial year. Therefore, provision first has to be made for that loss before we can come to the 1976-’77 year. I am simply guessing that this is the mistake which the hon. member made. That he did make a mistake no one can doubt. It may be that his pocket calculator is too small, or perhaps it does not function properly. However, this is the result.

I also want to indicate what the rates increase as a percentage of the gross domestic product is. The gross domestic product for 1974 was R21 229 million, in other words, more than R21 milliard. The rate increases provide an additional revenue of R201,3 million. This represents 0,95%, or a little less than 1%, of our gross domestic product. The hon. member went on to say that I ought to narrow the gap between high-rated and low-rated goods. After he had then made certain calculations, he said that I was not doing so.

However, one cannot simply proceed unconcernedly with that process. Somewhere there must be an end to the process of narrowing that gap. How the hon. member can infer from the Schumann Report that the rate on high-rated goods should be reduced and that the rate on low-rated goods should be increased, I do not know. If we were to do that, we should bring about a complete disequilibrium in the economy, particularly since our low-rated goods are usually raw materials, goods with a low value. If we were now to increase the rates on those goods as excessively as the hon. member envisaged, it would have an extremely inflationary effect on our economy. He said there was a 16 cent increase in the difference per ton. I should now like the hon. member to listen to this, because it is very important information. Rate category 1 prior to the rates increases was 12,65 times higher than rates category 15, while it will be only 11,37 times as high after 1 April, the date on which we will put these increases into operation. Therefore this means a narrowing of the gap between rates category 1 and rates category 15, which I am now mentioning here as an example of what we are trying to do and what we are actually doing. This will result in the gap between rates category 1 and rates category 15 being narrowed by 10,1% as a result of the process we are now putting into operation.

And on an average?

I have not made the other calculations now.

You take one of those which are applicable.

I have mentioned rates category 1 and rates category 15 as an example to indicate what the effect of our efforts is going to be. The hon. member also referred to the number of workers, but when I deal with the hon. member for Maitland later on I shall have more to say about this. Then I shall also explain the matter to the hon. member for Durban Point.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h15.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was interrupted, I was replying to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Point.

Up to that stage it was still a very poor reply.

But I am still dealing with the hon. member. The hon. member also discussed the effect which this Budget would have on inflation. In this regard I should just like to point out one aspect to him again, apart from all I have already said before in this regard. I indicated yesterday afternoon that it had never been the intention with the manifesto that there should be no increase in the price of goods or services. Nor had it ever been the intention with the manifesto that there should never be any increase in salaries, although it was in fact the intention that these should be limited to a minimum. However, there was one outstanding feature and aim of the manifesto, and that was that productivity had to be promoted. That is indeed what we did on the Railways, as I indicated yesterday. In other words, that aspect of the manifesto, the promotion of productivity, we have carried out properly.

The hon. member then discussed pensions, as did the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast referred more specifically to the pensions of those who had retired prior to December 1973. I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast at this stage that as far as that particular point is concerned I should like to discuss it with him more specifically tomorrow. As regards pensions in general and in particular the lower pensions to which the hon. member for Durban Point referred, I just want to indicate to him that the pensioners are not being completely left out in the cold, as he alleged. He is probably aware that there is an annual automatic addition of 2% to the pensions, which of course is not sufficient to combat inflation. That goes without saying. But it is nevertheless significant to look at the increases which have been granted during the past few years. If we take a pension which amounted to R100 per month on 1 October 1958, we find that it has gradually increased. In addition to the 2% there was a 15% increase in 1971, a 10% increase in 1973 and a 10% increase in 1974, i.e. apart from the annual 2% increase, with the result that the person who received a pension of R100 per month in October 1958, is now receiving a pension of R235,77 per month. In other words, since 1958, there has been an increase of 135%. In addition to that I also want to say that, as the hon. member knows, it is customary for social pensions to be reviewed every year in the budget of the Minister of Finance. The same does not apply to the Railways. It is customary for the pensions of Railway pensioners to be taken into consideration on the occasions when salary adjustments are made. This was what happened in the past, and my view is therefore that the position of our pensioners will be reviewed when consideration is again given to salary adjustments for the staff.

Why not when there is rationalization?

Evidently the hon. member does not have a very good grasp of rationalization. Rationalization has a bearing on many other things. It definitely has no bearing on pensions. I shall say a few words on rationalization in a moment, with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Maitland, for I still want to deal with him because of certain things that he said yesterday.

The hon. member for Durban Point also discussed the Saafari System which he said was frequently defective. I should just like to indicate to him here to what extent the system has recently been defective. In July the system was defective for 8,75 hours, or 1,17% of the time. In August this figure was 1,25%; in September, 2,30%; in October, 2,02%; in November, 3,4%; in December, 0,89%; and in January, 1,10%. In other words, the Saafari System was properly operational for approximately 98% of the time. To that I must add that the system is considerably overloaded, and that we are making extensions to it which we calculate ought to alleviate the position soon.

I must be very unlucky to have such bad luck with it every time.

The hon. member also referred to aircraft on our internal routes which allegedly do not depart or arrive on time. I must honestly admit that this has given me quite a headache. It has given me a headache because we are dealing with physical problems which are simply not always possible to solve because of the fact that as a result of the fuel crisis—and I believe this is the major cause— there has been an increased utilization of our Airways which was completely beyond our expectations. Therefore we were compelled to schedule flights so frequently that the turnaround time of the aircraft was tremendously curtailed by that, to such an extent that if an aircraft has to be grounded because of a minor technical fault it causes a chain reaction. That aircraft is then delayed as far as the flights which it has to make during the course of the day are concerned. It is late in departing, and as a result is late in arriving.

In addition there are many other problems as well, of which hon. members are already aware. I think hon. members will agree that our aircraft have recently been very full. The only other step we can take to have a greater measure of certainty that there are no delays owing to technical faults or other circumstances, is that we should schedule fewer flights; and if we schedule fewer flights, it means that we will have to tell people that we cannot accommodate them. At present we are doing our best, and we are already making quite considerable use of the 707s between Johannesburg and Cape Town, but when we put the new 747 SPs into service, it means that there will be more 707s which we will then be able to use over the longer distances such as the flight between Cape Town and Johannesburg, and that we will be able to effect a measure of alleviation, to an even greater extent when we receive the first Airbus at the end of the year and put them into service between Johannesburg and Cape Town and between Johannesburg and Durban. I referred a moment ago to the 747SP, and I could mention, just for the sake of interest, for the information of the hon. member, that we intend taking delivery of the first 747 SP aircraft soon, and that I have accepted an invitation to accompany the General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Airways), Captain Pienaar, to Seattle to take delivery of the first SP aircraft. [Interjections.]

And what about me?

That is not the news. The news is that it is intended to make a non-stop flight from Seattle to Cape Town. It will be the longest non-stop flight ever made in the world in a commercial aircraft. It is really to effect this achievement for South Africa that I am going.

I think that I have, with this, disposed of most of the points raised by the hon. member for Durban Point.

The hon. member for Boksburg spoke after him, and I can only say that that hon. member dealt quite successfully with the hon. member for Durban Point as well as with the other arguments advanced from that side of this Committee. [Interjections.]

I come now to the points raised by the hon. member for Maitland. He referred again to the figures indicated in the Estimates. I should like to explain to the hon. member that we are budgeting for 266 000 posts, as they appear in the White Paper. The additional appropriation will of course be utilized only if it is possible to fill all the posts. At present our staff comprises a total of 251 000. The indications are that this number will not increase substantially, particularly not if there is an upswing in the economy. Recently, in fact, the numbers have already been dropping slightly. Much more than that I cannot say. The Estimates are based on the number of persons whom we are actually able to employ. It does not relate only to the posts which are available. The possible employment of additional officials is also taken into account. After all, it goes without saying—the hon. member also knows this— that if there is insufficient staff to complete the work during the normal working hours, far more overtime will have to be worked. Therefore, the fewer officials we have, the more overtime will have to be worked.

The less traffic and work there is, the more officials are required.

No, that is not true. The hon. member knows, and I also stated in my Second Reading speech, that our revenue has been substantially constant. As I have also indicated already, we are budgeting for an increase of 5,5% in goods traffic. Therefore there is no question of a deterioration in the work or in the volume of the traffic. There is no question of anything like that. The reason we have these problems with which we have to cope, is because of an increase in expenditure and not so much a decrease in revenue. In fact the traffic has not decreased.

It has only levelled off.

Yesterday the hon. member made a major issue of the question of rationalization. He said this was the first time he had heard the word.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister what the total figure is in respect of wages which was included in the calculation of his Budget, on which he showed a loss of R199 million?

I shall furnish the hon. member with those figures on a subsequent occasion, for unfortunately I do not have them readily available.

The hon. member said yesterday that he was hearing the word “rationalization” for the first time. If I have made the correct conclusions from his speech, he criticized me for the fact that there will be additional expenditure for the Railways as a result of rationalization. I conclude further that he advanced an argument against rationalization.

No, I did not.

If the hon. member did not advance an argument against rationalization, what did he do? Why, then, did he then raise the matter?

It was just an interesting word to him.

Surely it cannot simply be because he finds the word interesting.

I wanted to know what you want to cover up with the word.

The hon. member is now suggesting that there was something I covered up with the word. However, I should like to furnish an explanation of what rationalization is, and what we have achieved with it. The hon. member must then tell me whether he is opposed to it, so that the Railway people outside may also know where he stands. I come to the conclusion that he is opposed to it, that he objects to the rationalization scheme we have introduced. On the Railways we are placed in an unequal position vis-à-vis workers outside the Railways because our people are not on a salaried basis. The change-over to a salaried basis not only constitutes salary benefits—i.e. if there is any fact in any such benefit—but also entails benefits in respect of leave, overtime payments, Sunday time payments, travelling facilities and public holidays.

The various staff associations have been making propaganda for years to be placed on a salaried basis so that these additional benefits could be included in their conditions of service. As far as these benefits are concerned, we were, as I have already said, lagging behind other employers. Another reason for changing over to this basis, was that it would mean a simplification in the regulations in particular and greater simplification in general. We wanted to eliminate the existing frills and effect a greater simplification throughout on the Railways. A start was made in 1974 with granting salaried status to station foremen and signalmen. As far as artisans are concerned their existing allowances were incorporated into wages and as a result they had to sacrifice additional bonus earnings. This is all part of the rationalization scheme. In addition a comprehensive work evaluation scheme was decided upon, which would eventually result in salaried status for artisans. This is a work evaluation scheme which will amount to our being able to do the same, or even more work, with fewer people. Although it will therefore entail additional benefits for artisans, it also means that there are greater benefits inherent in it for us and will result in greater productivity from our people. This is more or less what rationalization means, of which the hon. member was still ignorant yesterday.

What is the position of the artisans?

The artisan has also been placed on a salaried basis. He is now called a “technician”. The former technician is now a senior “technician”.

Has the production increased?

I have just said so. Through work evaluation we have effected a reclassification of the work, and this has resulted in our achieving increased production from fewer people. We cannot introduce such changes to the detriment of the workers. I must also point out that this is a non-recurrent change. The people have now been placed on a salaried basis, and with that the matter has been disposed of, in the sense that it cannot happen again. I am not denying that rationalization has from its nature resulted in additional expenditure. Rationalization was, however, something for which the staff associations had been working for years to achieve. They are very grateful that it has finally been introduced. I was consequently amazed that the hon. member for Maitland adopted the attitude that it would be a bad thing.

Who said that?

Why did the hon. member kick up such a fuss then?

I asked for information. You are now furnishing it.

The hon. member can obtain information from me at any time. All he has to do is ak ask for it. After all, I was not aware that he knew so little. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Mariental replied to questions concerning the circumstances at Windhoek, and for that reason I do not think it is necessary for me to say something about it as well.

He furnished no replies.

He also discussed the conveyance of livestock.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked whether we have trained people for the Transkei yet.

†I should like to tell the hon. member that we have already to a large extent trained people for the Transkei. Two hundred and five have been trained, which includes 60 clerks, 43 checkers, 60 road transport drivers, 6 train marshallers and 34 policemen. Twenty-five members of the staff are still in training at the moment. Only 68 Whites are still in the employ of the Railways in the Transkei. Of those, 22 are clerks and 13 footplate staff.

*The hon. member and other hon. members as well, including the hon. member for Pinelands, returned to the question of aircraft. He as well as the hon. member for Pinelands asked me about the employment of non-White air hostesses on aircraft. This is a question which has been raised before. A report appeared in the public Press to the effect that we had appointed two Japanese air hostesses, specifically for the route between Johannesburg and Hong Kong. This was done for several good reasons. I think that the hon. member will accept those reasons. The one reason is that we will be able to serve the clients on that specific route in their own language. We also intend appointing Chinese air hostesses on the same service between Johannesburg and Hong Kong. As far as the appointment of other non-Whites as air hostess on the Airways is concerned, I can only say that at this stage there is no need to appoint other than Whites as air hostesses. Under the circumstances this is not regarded as being justified. But if circumstances change, and we are compelled to consider it, we will of course look into the matter.

What about Natal?

The hon. member also referred again to the certificate of Mr. Holahan, as well as to the question of productivity which we discussed yesterday. In addition to what I said yesterday, I want to say that we were labouring under a great shortage of people who are prepared to do field work. People no longer wish to work in remote areas. We are experiencing a major problem in finding suitably trained people to maintain the railway lines far away from the cities and towns. We have since improved the remuneration a little, and it seems as if we are already reaping the benefits from that. We are training people as quickly as we can. At the moment there are 466 platelayers and 875 ndunas in training. We hope and trust that we will be able to cope with the shortage of people required to maintain the track, and that this problem will soon be solved. That is why the chief engineer could not furnish an unqualified certificate. However, this does not mean that we are using our railway line under circumstances and at speeds which it cannot bear. Where the track is not sufficiently in order and a speed limit has to be introduced, this is done. Therefore there is not that element of danger about which the hon. member is apparently so concerned.

As far as productivity is concerned, I want to ask whether the hon. member cannot understand that if people are appointed whom it was not possible to recruit previously from among the Whites, and a bottleneck is eliminated as a result of that, surely this would result in increased productivity. I explained this to the hon. member yesterday. Apart from that I also explained to him that we are, with the work revaluations, giving the skilled work of a higher order to the artisans and are diverting the skilled work of a lower order to non-Whites who are being trained to do that kind of work. The result of that, and of the simultaneous utilization of the money those people earn—productivity is closely related to financial expenditure—is that we are achieving increased productivity. That is what we meant by that.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg dealt thoroughly with the arguments raised by hon. members on the opposite side. I should now like to refer to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

†That hon. member was very concerned about certain items appearing in the Brown Book. He thought that the expenditure on the particular items had increased unduly and wanted to know what the reasons for the increases were. If I could give him all the reasons, I think the hon. member would be completely satisfied. However, I shall only give the reasons for a few of the items he mentioned. Time will not allow me to give them all. Let me start with item 57. He must bear in mind that the reason I am going to give him is not the reason for the original item, but for the increase. The reason for the work specified under item 57 is to provide for the use of long-welded rails to facilitate mechanized track maintenance and to replace steel work and masonry that has reached the end of its useful life. A revision of the estimate was held in abeyance as deviations of the line were contemplated, but these deviations are now being deferred. The additional amount is required to cover the increased costs of labour and material since the original estimate was prepared in August 1969.

Before I go any further, let me say that the hon. member asked me whether the reasons were inflation, devaluation or design changes. I should like to tell him that the most important reason in respect of all the items mentioned is design changes. However, devaluation and inflation also played a part. Let me now give the hon. member the reason for the increase under item 86, which concerns the doubling and electrifying of the De Wildt-Brits line in order to increase the carrying capacity of that line to cope with increased traffic demands. When the original estimate was prepared, detailed plans were not available. The additional amount is required for more earth works and also to cover the higher cost of permanent way, bridges, culverts, buildings and electrical equipment. Next I should like to deal with item 127, which is to extend the loops on the Kroonstad/Vereeniging line to accommodate 160-axle trains and also to prevent an accumulation of traffic at Kroonstad. The additional amount is required for axle counters, for block control working and for increased costs of labour and material. The increase is also required for higher tender prices for signalling work. I could go on to explain other items, but I fear it would not serve a very useful purpose. In the circumstances, if the hon. member would like the explanations for all the items he has mentioned, I shall willingly give them to him.

Do you always calculate estimates with no plans?

Well, what is your reply to that?

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need reply to that question. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, as an expert in that field, explained the question of livestock very well to the hon. member for Durban Point. I hope that the hon. member for Durban Point now understands it.

Do you accept my challenge that you pay the difference over a period of one year?

Sir, the hon. member’s account is too high. He eats too much; I would never be able to afford it.

Order! I wonder whether the hon. member should not specify whether it should be ox-tail, steak, chops or something else.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands would like to see stronger representation of non-Whites on the staff association committees. I should just like to inform the hon. member that there are approximately 300 works committees for non-Whites at stations, depots and workshops. At the larger workshops there are co-ordinating committees that hold three-monthly meetings with the head of the workshop. There are also regional committees in the nine systems of the S.A. Railways, and from time to time discussions take place with the System Manager concerned, as well as with the Management. I should like to compliment the hon. member for Stilfontein on his probably being the man in this House who travels most by train. Last year he told us very strikingly of how he had travelled on the Blue Train, of how pleasant it had been. Today he again told us of another train journey which he recently undertook, and which he also found pleasant. At the same time the hon. member broke a lance for the conductors. I should like to inform the hon. member that the chief conductor, with rationalization, was also placed on a high notch. Previously he was on the R4 800 notch, but has now been placed on the R5 400 to R5 760 notch. As a result he had to sacrifice certain benefits in respect of overtime, i.e. the benefits to which the hon. member referred and for which he was in fact pleading. With the change in the salary scale of the conductor it is not possible for us to pay him overtime as well. The hon. member also asked whether such a person as the conductor cannot be given his meals free of charge on the train. I am afraid, however, that if we accepted that principle, we would not be able to limit it to the conductor only. We would then have to apply to everyone for whom it would be convenient. In any case, they do not pay the same price as the public. From the nature of the case it is a lower price.

The hon. member for East London North objected to the fact that a new station is being built at Alice, and that East London is being neglected. He said that he would like to have a new station there. The existing station at Alice is an old wooden, corrugated iron and steel building which was constructed as long ago as 1903. As the hon. member said, Alice is not as old as East London, but the station at Alice is no longer in a suitable condition. Therefore it is necessary for it to be replaced. For the sake of interest I looked up in the Brown Book the number of items budgeted for East London. The hon. member may go to bed with an easy mind for I counted no fewer than 24 items for East London.

The hon. member for Omaruru discussed livestock and asked us not to do away with the road transportation service. I want to concede that point to the hon. member. When we find that a road transportation service is no longer justified, it is, nevertheless, not terminated without consultations and talks with the local community. This does not mean to say that we are going to perpetuate all road transportation services. Where they are not justified, we have to curtail them or terminate them completely. However, the necessary talks will first be held. The hon. member also asked us to see whether there are no alternatives. We are quite willing to investigate the matter. The hon. member mentioned the possibility of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, but he knows that there are complications. That railway line is not ours. The fact of the matter is, however, that negotiations may take place in an attempt to solve the problem.

The hon. member for Prieska also referred to the livestock problem and suggested that we consider the possibility of loading the sheep on two decks in the wagons. I have already had such representations in the past. Not long ago, only last year to be precise, I wrote to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet in regard to a similar request. It goes without saying that a detached deck will not work, for to place a detached deck, which may be removed, in a wagon, will most certainly not be a practical proposition. The wagons will have to be completely altered to be able to carry two decks, and the loading pens will also have to be changed. Under the circumstances it is doubtful whether this will in any way be justified.

The hon. member for Newton Park also discussed the matter of livestock. A great deal has been said about this problem. I do not think there is anything else which the hon. member said to which I need reply.

The hon. member for De Aar said that the eventual solution to the problem would be to establish abattoirs at various places. I am in full agreement with the hon. member. That is what we are endeavouring to achieve. In fact, I wrote to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture some time ago, requesting that we work towards this end. I mentioned that he should notify us in good time when an abattoir is established in a specific place, so that we can purchase the necessary refrigerator wagons. These are rather expensive and it takes time to build them. Therefore, we want considerable advance notice of whether or not we should build the wagons.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the third-class coaches which are in a deplorable state. They are not in any worse condition than any other coaches. What the probable reason is, is that the littering on those coaches, also because of the fact that they have to bear a heavier load, may perhaps be greater than in other cases. The hon. member also referred to the resettlement services. It seems to me as though the hon. member is under the impression that the subsidy is being withdrawn, but this is not the case. The fact that there is an increase in the rates will not even mean that the subsidy will in reality become less. If the costs do not increase, the subsidy will in fact be less. According to the revised estimates for 1975-’76, the subsidy which the Government would have had to pay for resettlement services amount to R26,3 million. However, the fares are now being increased by 10%. The increase of 10% applies only in cases where journeys of 18 km and more are made. Consequently it is not applicable to everyone. However, it can be said that there is an average increase of 10%. In spite of the 10% increase, however, we expect that the subsidy in the coming financial year will in all likelihood remain more or less the same because of the increase in costs and the increased expenditure in respect of the services, and as a result of all the other circumstances, of which the hon. member is aware.

Therefore, although there has been an alleviation as far as the subsidy is concerned, it is not in reality a reduction on what it was the previous year. Anyway, that is what we expect. With regard to the third-class carriages to which the hon. member referred, I just want to say that no fewer than 900 carriages for non-Whites were put into operation during the 1975 calendar year. On 31 December 1975 more than 1 100 carriages for non-Whites were on order. The hon. member may there-fore rest assured that we do not merely purchase carriages as the need arises, but that we are also experimenting with larger and longer carriages, as well as with carriages that have larger doors and a larger number of doors to facilitate access to the carriages. The hon. member also referred to the incident which occurred in the Peninsula. It was not as a result of the fact that trains are overcrowded. This incident, which caused such a stir, occurred on a Sunday evening. After all, trains are not full on Sunday evenings. It was therefore not the fact that the train was overcrowded which caused the incident to take place. Other factors played a part in this case.

I appreciate the way in which the hon. member for Langlaagte dealt with the Opposition. The hon. member for Bellville raised two matters. The first was in regard to certain land in Bellville. The second was in regard to a railway line to the quarry. This railway line is used primarily by the Railways, but it was decided some time ago to acquire a more suitably situated quarry, fn respect of the expropriation of the land, there are still problems at this stage. The railway line to which the hon. member referred, crosses the main line and causes problems, just as do other private railway lines in the Bellville area. It is foreseen that when the construction of the Bellville/ Kensington line has been completed, the use of these lines will be terminated. The parties concerned have already been notified of this. As far as the question of the land is concerned, I should like to have a little more time. If I do not reply to the hon. member on this matter tomorrow, I shall inform him subsequently of what we could possibly do in this regard.

The hon. member for Albany also discussed livestock and meat. He also discussed other goods for the conveyance of which we do not want to grant exemptions, and in regard to which we object if exemptions are requested. Surely it is self-evident that we cannot allow the Railways to be deprived of the best part of the traffic and then have to be satisfied with what remains. Where the Railways is able to render the services economically, it is our duty to object.

Does the Railways take into consideration the fact that in certain cases, if they handle the goods, the costs of the consumer increase, or do they not take that into consideration when they make objections.

This could be taken into consideration. All the circumstances must be weighed up against one another. The final result must be decisive. Last year the hon. member made representations to me in regard to the conveyance of milk, and I gave close attention to the matter. We came to the conclusion that, with the necessary packaging, the Railways would be able to convey that milk just as effectively to the places where the hon. member wanted it to go. I wrote him a very considerate letter, and explained to him that we were unable to do so. The hon. member for Somerset West also discussed livestock. I appreciated his observations in regard to Railway employees. I have taken very thorough cognizance of the problems of the farmers in regard to livestock and the rising prices. I furnished a comprehensive reply in that regard yesterday, and stated my standpoint on this matter. It still remains my standpoint. Where the Railways is able to help solve the problems, we shall do so. As far as I am concerned, I have a clear conscience on this matter, but hon. members must realize what my duties to the Railways Administration are, i.e. to approach as closely as possible to a cost-orientated service. For this reason I feel compelled to introduce the increased rates and on my part I shall give whatever support I am able to give to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, or whoever else it may be, so that we can solve the problems. With this I conclude and I shall deal with what remains tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, we have now been listening to the hon. the Minister for 55 minutes and 70 minutes during the Second Reading. I want to say it was very interesting listening to him, particularly after the minor détente he had with the hon. member for Houghton. However, the hon. the Minister did not come to the crux of the matter, i.e. the enormous increase of R200 million in Railway tariffs. Once its effect has reached the consumer and after the wholesaler has made a profit of 50% and the retailer a profit of 50%, I do not know what the extent of the ultimate increase is going to be. The real question remains whether there was any alternative or not. Was it necessary? It was suggested by this side of the House that this was unnecessary in these times of an economic slump. And the hon. the Minister told us about it, he told us that the price of steel had increased, and he told us of the recession in which we were finding ourselves …

What is a slump?

An economic slump caused by that side of the House. It has been suggested that in times of an economic slump additional people should not be appointed on the Railways, but in his White Paper the hon. the Minister estimated that the staff be increased from 244 373 to 266 672. This is an increase of 22 000 people … [Interjections.] I shall deal with all the minor arguments advanced by hon. members; they need not be concerned. This happens against the background of a wage bill which increases from R777 million to R931 million—an increase of not less than R153 million or 19,7%. It is so simple that one can say that if the Railway tariffs increase by R200 million, wages increase by R153 million. Therefore, this would not have happened if the additional staff had not been appointed. After the hon. the Minister was cornered by the hon. member for Maitland, he told us—

It is not because these people are physically employed, but only for the information of the House. He went further—

If the figure is 14 000, I accept it, but for what reason did the hon. the Minister issue the White Paper? Why did he make that estimate? Surely, the hon. the Minister cannot furnish us with different figures in this House when he is cornered about his own estimated figures. Where did the hon. the Minister get the first figure from? Let us presume the hon. the Minister is correct and did not issue the White Paper merely for the fun of it. On 30 November 1974 the hon. the Minister had 235 000 people in his employ, and 252 000 on 30 November 1975. This is an increase of 17 000 people. These are again the hon. the Minister’s own figures. Is he going to tell me now that what he has published here is so much nonsense? Let us consider the latest figures furnished by the hon. the Minister …

Whom are you annoyed with?

I am annoyed with all the members of the National Party who are doing South Africa harm. Let us take the latest figure furnished by the hon. the Minister. He said the first figure is so much nonsense. When we take the figure of 17 000 people and the figure of 14 000, the hon. the Minister mentions now, we get 31 000. In times of an economic slump … [Interjections.] When the taxpayer of South Africa finds it difficult to pay tax, hon. members behave the way they are behaving themselves here tonight. In times of an economic slump, the hon. the Minister appointed 17 000 workers during the previous year and 14 000 workers this year, i.e. 31 000—within a matter of two years. I just want to repeat this, and I do not want to be dramatic, that there were 12 000 Cubans in Angola, and some people trembled with fear at the thought of it. Here the Minister of Transport comes along and appoints virtually three times as many people on the Railways within a matter of two years. We could have fought three wars with the additional number of people he appointed on the Railways. Now the hon. the Minister wonders why the Railways are operating at a loss. Let us say that the hon. the Minister was right hand that the figure he furnished was so much nonsense, that he did so merely for the fun of it. You must bear in mind, Sir, that he based his budget on this, and according to this budget he requires an additional R153 million, an increase of 19,76% in respect of total wages. If these figures are wrong, if it is true that he merely did so for the fun of it, he did not need the R153 million and then there was no reason for Railway tariffs to be increased by R200 million, but only R50 million. Expenditure in respect of wages increased by R153 million from R777 million to R931 million. That was his estimate. However, he said there was no need for him to appoint these people. For that reason his estimate was incorrect. This means that if the wage bill has increased by 19,6%, as has been said by the hon. the Minister, he granted the Railway workers a wage increase—and this is important—under the counter, by means of rationalization—the word used by the hon. member for Maitland. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister quite frankly whether he granted the Railway workers a wage increase under the counter, or did he not?

Under or above the counter?

Under the counter, so that people should not know about it. The hon. the Minister says he is going to grant another increase later this year and then tariffs are going to increase again. I want to tell the hon. the Minister: If the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications were to do this, and the Public Servants come to hear about it and also demand a salary increase, would there be rationalization and would they also be granted a salary increase under the counter? What is going to become of the economy of the country?

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could not have a ruling from the Chair that members should pay entertainment tax when the hon. member for King William’s Town is speaking. The hon. member for King William’s Town juggled with the figure of the number of people employed by the Railways. There is a certain amount of work that has to be done, and this work has to be done no matter how much one has to pay the workers. [Interjections.]

The hon. members should please maintain silence.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May we not interject like hon. members opposite interjected when the hon. member for King William’s Town was speaking?

That is not a point of order. I appeal to hon. members to maintain silence.

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to start on a serious note. One has to work and one works for various reasons. Some people work to make a profit while others work to render a service. All of us work to make a living, but the person who wants to render a service, works so that other people can live. In section 103 of our Constitution it is laid down that the Railways has to be administered on business principles, but in the same section it is also laid down that the Railways should develop the country. The Railways have to try and maintain low tariffs for primary products, i.e. ore and agricultural products. This provision contained in the Constitution provides the Railways with the service motive, and I should like to come back to this matter later. It was laid down by the Schumann Commission that the gap between tariffs should be reduced. I think it would be in order if I were to appeal tonight to the hon. the Minister and the Government to keep in mind what is laid down in the Constitution and not to reduce the gap between tariffs to its logical conclusion. It will always have to be necessary to render a service to various sectors, and this will probably have to take place at a loss sometimes.

I want to deal with the major service rendered by our harbours in connection with the export effort, the export of ore, agricultural produce, coal and the various products which earn foreign exchange for us abroad. This service has always been administered at a loss by the Railways. The harbours very often had to work under great pressure. They had to work day and night, they had to work ordinary time and overtime, and now the Minister comes along and asks for small increases on those services because they have been administered at a loss. The hon. member for Maitland is of the opinion that overtime work is a bad thing.

No, I did not say that. Please quote me correctly.

Well, then the hon. member said that we should not have so much overtime. In any case, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he has ever spoken to the workers and asked them whether they do not sometimes welcome the additional income they derive from overtime work. In spite of the services rendered at a loss by the harbours, the harbours nevertheless showed a handsome profit of R60 million on current account during the past year, as against a profit of R41 million during the previous year. Therefore, a major contribution was made to rendering a service to our country. Large capital amounts are being spent on our harbours. I regard this as the best investment in the future of our country. However, when analysing the various services rendered by the harbours, we find that the majority of these services are being rendered at a loss. The only service which really shows a profit, is the lighthouses. For that reason it is not necessary for lighthouse dues to be increased. Wharfage, harbour dues and all other tariffs of this nature will have to be increased. Harbour tug tariffs will also have to be increased. In this case the increase will be of such a nature that the same tariffs will apply both during the day and the night. This will mean that tariffs for ordinary time and extra time will be the same. This is being done in order to be able to maintain a 24 hour tug service every day.

The increase in question amounts to approximately 43%, but even with this increase only some 75% of the operation costs of tugs will be recovered. Crane tariffs are also going to be increased by between 25 and 50%, which means that it will be possible to recover 77% of the working cost of cranes. Furthermore, harbour dues are also going to be increased. Increases of between 11 and 43% are being envisaged. The last-mentioned increases were caused mainly as the result of substantial capital expenditure which had to be incurred in connection with the new harbour at Richards Bay. Dry-dock tariffs are also increased by 15%.

Mr. Chairman, to my mind these small increases are quite justified and we cannot deny the fact that these increases will improve the revenue/expenditure ratio. The hon. member for Durban Point referred most sneeringly to the containerization programme which is being undertaken by the Railways at present—

This was said by the hon. member for Durban Point. I think the opposite is true. South Africa is at present the focus of interest as far as the development of containerization is concerned. Nowhere in the world has such a large project been carried out in such a short time.

The planning of the Railways in connection with the provision of facilities is able to keep pace with the development plan of containerization. In July 1977 the first containerization plants will be put into service. Another plant is being envisaged in Durban. This is expected to be completed in February 1979. In Cape Town the first containerization plant will be ready for service in July 1977 and the second in February 1978. An agreement has already been signed for the widening of the Chari Malan quay in the Port Elizabeth harbour. This is being done with a view to the construction of two containerization quays which ought to be ready for service in July 1977 and in February 1978, respectively. Furthermore, it is being envisaged to purchase seven container cranes for the various harbours. These container cranes cost R1,65 million each. Three of these cranes are earmarked for the Durban harbour, while two will go to Port Elizabeth and the remaining two to Table Bay. Container stacking cranes, each costing R1,2 million, are going to be purchased for the Table Bay harbour. There will be three of these cranes. In addition, 50 straddle carriers are going to be acquired for the three harbours.

Mr. Chairman, a coastal containerization service, to which the harbours of East London and Walvis Bay will be linked, is also being envisaged. As I have already said, the Railways will be prepared to render a service in this way to our country and its exporters. The hon. member for Durban Point alleged that this was going to result in enormous expenditure. I do not know whether he realizes it, but the shipping companies had no alternative other than to switch over to containerization. If they did not switch over to containerization they would have been compelled to have other ships built, in which case the costs would have been just as high. In addition, they would have had to cope with extremely high labour costs, which would have had to be paid in any case. As we know, labour is becoming increasingly scarce, and for that reason it was quite rightly decided to switch over to containerization. I am convinced that the planning of the Railways is quite correct and that we shall also be able to contribute our share in this major, new direction.

Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the hon. member for Humansdorp and other hon. members on the Government side would in the Committee Stage come forth with some constructive suggestions for the hon. the Minister, because he is in need of constructive suggestions. Yet, they all waxed lyrical, and all they did was to congratulate the hon. the Minister. Now, to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the Government making such a mess and displaying such a lack of insight in the planning of this particular budget is, I think, the financial kiss of death to this particular Government. This budget is going to send costs soaring and spells disaster for the anti-inflationary campaign. I believe that the hon. the Minister must agree with that. This budget is in fact a written confession of the mess into which the Government has landed itself and of the manner in which they are spending the money of the taxpayers of South Africa. The Government had to meet serious Opposition charges, and one expected the hon. the Minister to deal in depth with these charges. Yet we found that the hon. the Minister never dealt with these charges in depth, but only skirted round the fringes of the charges. He never got down to the meat of the matter.

The Government members laughed while the hon. member for King William’s Town was dealing with very serious matters. He dealt, among others, with the fleecing of the taxpayers of South Africa. This is sad, because the Government is totally responsible for dissipating the trust funds that have been placed at its disposal by the taxpayers of South Africa, and the taxpayers of South Africa are soon going to pass judgment on this Government. My prediction is that they are going to have to go to the electorate of South Africa long before their term of office expires, and the taxpayers of South Africa will then have an opportunity of passing judgment, and they will pass judgment on the mess that has been made in this particular budget.

I see from the estimates that there is one item where there is a reduction, and that is in respect of the hire of aircraft. To assist the hon. the Minister, it is on page 31 of the expenditure out of revenue. The reduction there is approximately R1,9 million. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what basis do we hire these aircraft, on what cost basis is it calculated? I would also like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether it would not be cheaper and more convenient for us to buy our own aircraft instead of hiring aircraft as we do at the moment. A further question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is this: In reply to a question on the Order Paper—and here I am dealing with the services that the Airways render to passengers—the hon. the Minister told me that 2 982 flights had been delayed during 1975, slightly more than eight flights a day.

Is that all?

One understands that the safety of the crew and the safety of the passengers must be of paramount importance and must have first priority. One can therefore understand that there will be delays on certain occasions. The matter, however, that concerns me is that the Government is appealing to everybody in the private and in the public sectors to combat inflation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that these delays in flights are counter-productive to the fight against inflation. The inflation aspect does not only affect the passengers who are on the flight, but also those who are to meet the passengers at the other end. These people are kept at the various airports twiddling their thumbs and kicking their heels waiting for the aircraft to touch down.

Mr. Chairman, if one takes the 2 982 flights that were delayed during 1975, and if one looks at the productive passengers that were on these flights, also adding to that total the productive people that were waiting for those passengers at the other end, and if one multiplies that by the number of hours by which flights have been delayed, the wastage of manpower is absolutely staggering. Would the answer not be to rearrange some of the schedules and delay the departure times of some of the flights? I would like to give the hon. the Minister a concrete example of what happened to me personally. Last Friday I was booked on a flight to Johannesburg, a flight that was due to leave at 11h 15. That flight arrived in Johannesburg approximately 40 minutes late. The person who had to meet me at the other end could have spent his time far more profitably than kicking his heels at the airport. That person had to wait for me for the full 40 minutes.

But you are unproductive.

That may very well be, but then I am in very good company because the whole of the NP is unproductive. That same evening I had to fly from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth on the 18h 15 flight. At approximately 18h10 we were advised that the flight would be late. At 18h30 we were asked to board the flight. We then remained seated on the aircraft until 19h15, a delay of 45 minutes. While we were seated in the aircraft it was obviously not possible for us to phone the people who were waiting for us at the other end to tell them that the plane had been delayed. Consequently they also sat waiting unproductively at the airport. The point is that on one day I personally was delayed for one hour and 40 minutes. In all fairness I must add, however, that on the flight from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth the pilot did make up 40 minutes. However, the fact is that our departure time was delayed one hour.

I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not feasible to rearrange some of the schedules and departure times. Perhaps they could be delayed for half an hour to an hour to cope with this sort of situation. If the hon. the Minister tells me that it is not possible to rearrange these schedules, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to ask the passenger for one contact phone number. Then, when a flight is unduly delayed, the passenger can be phoned at that contact phone number and told to report to the airport at a revised time. This would make a great deal of difference. I can understand that in the case of short delays it is not a practical proposition to phone people, but where there is a delay of an hour or more, surely a telephone call can be made to one contact number and a message left to inform the prospective passenger to report to the airport at a revised time. There is another matter I want to deal with in this connection. Instead of having passengers wait on the aircraft, as we had to do for 45 minutes, could the passengers not be allowed to remain in the airport building before boarding the aircraft? They may be in the process of discussing matters with those who have come to see them off and they can spend their time far more productively than just sitting on the aircraft for 45 minutes.

Since we had so many delays in 1975, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this matter could not be very carefully investigated. Could we then have a public report after the investigation has been done? I would like to see the Airways come out with recommendations to try to obviate some of the problems.

Another matter I would like to raise is the hooter noise along the narrow-gauge line in Walmer. The people of Port Elizabeth have been very patient with the hon. the Minister, and I think he would be the first to admit it. However, the people of Port Elizabeth are fast losing patience. In fact, they have already lost all patience in regard to this matter. When is the Government going to furnish a solution to this particular problem? The hon. the Minister will know that I have entered into voluminous correspondence with him. He has always replied very courteously. The last time I heard from him he told me they were investigating the matter with American authorities. We would like to know from him whether there is a solution to this particular problem or not.

What do you see as a solution?

I am not the expert. I have not consulted the American authorities. However, if the hon. the Minister would give me his position, I would find a solution to the problem.

I also want to know whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to allow hon. members in this House to debate the capital budget intelligently, because as it is drawn up at present, we cannot debate it intelligently. I believe we are entitled to certain basic information, information which up to now has been denied to us. I have previously raised this matter with the hon. the Minister, but whenever the matter is raised the hon. the Minister sees fit not to reply. I now ask him pertinently whether he is going to furnish us with this basic information. The reason why we require this information is to illustrate the enormous backlog in the Railways and Airways capital budget, and the lack of proper preplanning, and it could be demonstrated that the Government is responsible for this. I refer the hon. the Minister to page 3 of the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works. Item 1 refers to a purchase from Escom. After the “1” one could insert the last two digits of the year in which the capital item was approved. In other words, if the capital item was approved in 1975, all one would have to insert after the “1” would be “(75)”. Those two digits would then indicate the year in which the capital project was approved. If the hon. the Minister could do that, we would then be able to discuss the capital budget intelligently with him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to react to what the hon. member for Walmer said, because he spent the whole night waiting at the airport. I would like to refer, during the few minutes at my disposal, to item No. 8, item No. 24 and item No. 87 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works. Item 8 refers to the new station at Belle Ombre, item 24 to the double line from Winternest to Mabopane and item 87 to the quadrupling of the railway line from Hercules to Winternest. The amount which has been appropriated for this phase of the project is R50,8 million, of which R0,5 million was appropriated for this year and R7 million for the financial year 1976-’77. If one looks at this project, for which the R50 million is being voted, as well as the other projects which are necessary for providing the country’s priority transport requirements, many questions arise involuntarily. Is it not the task of the Railways to provide transport facilities for goods, industries, agriculture, mining, imports and exports, passengers, etc., to practically every point that can be reached in the Republic of South Africa? Are the Railways not the primary method of transportation for the realistic distribution of consumer goods throughout the RSA? Are the Railways not the pulse of the RSA’s national economy? We know about the small stations in the middle of nowhere where the Railways may have to pick up or put down empty or full milk cans once a day or once a week. On the other hand we also know that within a particularly short time certain needs can arise, as in the case of Mabopane, where the need arose for the daily transportation to and fro of approximately 50 000 Bantu labourers. If the Railways are not immediately able to do something like this, we immediately get sharp, unfair criticism from the Opposition. The Railways are accused of bad management and planning, as the hon. member for Jeppe said here last year in a remark which was quite uncalled for. The hon. member for Durban Point also took up that attitude this year when he said: “There is a need for modern management techniques in the Railways.” Are those hon. members truly so naïve as to believe that the Railways are guilty of this shortcoming? After all, the Railways come up with new management and industrial techniques practically every year, and then publish them in the annual reports. However, we understand very well why the Opposition does this type of thing. They do it because of their inability to make a positive contribution to this debate and the only way in which they can catch a little political shine during these debates is to be able to say: “We on this side of the House have been agitating for this for a long time.” Sir, we have heard this several times during this debate.

If we now take this Mabopane project as an example, we notice that these millions of rands of investment in a railway project plus the millions of rands invested in rolling stock, will only be used productively for approximately two hours in the mornings and three hours in the evenings. The Railways must, however, pick up the isolated milk cans and transport the mass of passengers during peak hours and maintain sound business principles, but it cannot adapt and adjust its tariffs accordingly, because then there is an outcry from the Opposition. Taking the Mabopane transport problem as a premise, and as the Government’s policy of separate development Government gains stature, I would like to make two statements. The first statement is that the effective mobility of labour from the homelands to the various labour centres is of cardinal importance. The second statement which I want to make is that the methods of transportation must be available for conveying labour over increasing distances in the shortest possible time. These two factors are basic to the problem which we are at present experiencing at the Mabopane set-up.

This brings me to the original idea of this project of having thousands of Bantu changeover to bus transport at Wolmerton. With due respect, it seems to me that this plan is not going to work. It will lengthen the already very long times of transport by adding an extra change point. The off-loading of thousands of Bantu in the middle of a completely built-up White residential area is definitely not desirable. There is no suitable and effective road network for handling these buses in Pretoria North or Onderstepoort. Even if this existed, an analysis of this problem shows that the peak hour traffic from Wolmerton could not be handled and that the traffic through the poort could not deal with the estimated number of plus minus 28 buses every 5 to 7½ minutes. For the record I want to make a request to the Minister that this phase be eliminated and I want to ask him please to give serious consideration to the possibility of having the project for the transportation of Bantu from Mabopane to Pretoria planned and carried out in its entirety, without an interin stage. Nevertheless, we thank the Minister and his staff very sincerely for the great progress which has already been made in connection with this project. Sir, when we have said this and when it has been accepted by the hon. the Minister, it means that the project will be completed round about 1984, but in the meantime the Bantu workers, who will number approximately 90 000 by 1984, must still be transported. Now the PWV plan makes provision for road No. P200 from Mabopane to Pretoria, which has reached an advanced stage already. Road No. PWV9 from this road is a connecting road to the eastern through-road, No. NI22. Sir, whether this rail project has been completed or not, by 1984 plus minus 20 000 Bantu workers will have to be transported daily to the eastern and the north-eastern areas of Pretoria. The existing roads and streets through Pretoria North, Sinoville and Annlin will simply not be able to carry this burden.

My second request, which links up with the first, is that this PWV 9 east-west connecting road should enjoy the highest priority in order to divert the traffic from these residential areas. If these very essential requests can be complied with and when the Mabopane/Pretoria road and this railway line have been completed, a transport network from Mabopane will have been created which will satisfy the basic requirements of mobility and of speed, and the voters of Wonderboom will be grateful people.

Mr. Chairman, please forgive me if I react to the increase in the tariffs on the transport of livestock, as other hon. members have done.

Why are you asking for forgiveness?

I think it is a pity that I have to react to it while those who made such a fuss about it—I am referring to the hon. member for King William’s Town—are not here at the moment. However, I want to react to it for a particular reason. The hon. the Minister has reacted to this matter three times already. What is important to me is the fact that the hon. the Minister was very positive in his last answer. In the first instance it is important to note that the hon. the Minister accepted the full responsibility for the tariff increase. The hon. the Minister made no secret of it. I say that the hon. the Minister reacted positively because he pointed out that if, in remote stock-farming districts, meat or animal products were to be produced sub-economically as the result of the increase in the tariffs, he would be prepared to support the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should they need assistance from the Government.

What do the farmers of Bethal think of that?

The hon. member need not ask me what the farmers of Bethal think about it. I shall tell him what the farmers of Bethal and of South Africa think. The farmers know this Government, but perhaps the hon. member does not know much about it, because he was not here when we dealt with much greater economic problems in agriculture than these tariff increases. I am referring for instance to the low wool prices when the Government came into power. The farmers know that the doors of the Government are open to them and even for the UP supporters amongst them should problems arise.

I would like to mention another matter which I think is also important. I think the S.A. Railways has achieved an excellent increase in its carrying capacity as far as the transportation of wheat to our coasts is concerned. I notice in the report which has recently been laid on the Table that 3,5 million tons were transported in the year under review. I say that this is a great achievement because in that year we had to contend with many difficult circumstances. For most of the time Lourenço Marques was out of action, and there were great floods. In spite of that, this great tonnage could be transported to our coasts. I think that the record tonnage stands at 5,8 million, but if the circumstances are taken into consideration, I believe that it was a great achievement to transport 3,5 million tons during the year under review. We want to congratulate the Railways on this great achievement.

I would like to refer to the transportation of coal within the Devon/Witbank/Hendrina area. In this area there are 23 coal mines which provide for more than 50% of the Republic’s coal requirements. It is important to note that the mining of coal here is highly developed. There are about two or three coal mines which provide coal to the Wilge and Komati power stations while the rest of the mines chiefly provide coal to the PWV areas. In this area we have the element of concentration, because most of the mines are situated around the Bezuidenhoutsrus railway station. Most of the coal is loaded there and then transported to Saaiwater where there is a railway marshalling-yard. From Saaiwater the trains then run to the various consumer areas.

The railway stations in the coal mine area are well positioned, but our problem lies in the fact that the demand for coal transportation has increased so sharply within the area that the carrying capacity of the Railways cannot keep pace with it. The result of this is that much of the coal transportation has been diverted to road transportation and this has resulted in an immense concentration of heavy trucks in this area, moving westward in the direction of the Rand areas. The National Road Transportation Board made a survey to establish what the concentration is. It seems that there were 1 501 heavy vehicles on 2 June and 1 399 on 3 June. Counts were made for five days and within those five days 7 295 heavy vehicles moved over a particular stretch of road which runs through Ogies. The concentration of heavy vehicles on a stretch of road like this which is approximately 20 or 25 km long is abnormal. The result is naturally that the number of accidents in this area has increased tremendously. Statistics show that there were 132 accidents in 1972, of which 18 were fatal. In 1973 there were 137 accidents, of which 12 were fatal. The latest figure at my disposal shows that there were 165 accidents in 1975, of which 28 were fatal. The intensity of the accidents is such that the incidence of fatality is very high. The problem can perhaps be solved to a large extent by means of new road-building schemes. A short-term solution could perhaps be brought about by means of stricter control by the traffic police as well as the S.A. Police. For example, it has been found that the Bantu lorry drivers drive the lorries for many hours on end so the greatest possible use can be made of the lorries. Some of the drivers may then fall asleep behing the wheel. This type of thing is naturally very dangerous.

The point which I would like to make is that a permanent solution to the problem lies in the carrying capacity of the Railways being increased to such an extent that the heavy coal traffic which is at present being concentrated on the roads may be diverted to rail traffic. I notice in the Brown Book that under the heading “Relaying and Strengthening”, provision is made for the Ogies-Bezuidenhoutsrus-Broodsnyersplaas railway line, but whether the appropriation will be large enough to increase the carrying capacity sufficiently, I do not know. I would be pleased if the hon. Minister could indicate whether any provision has been made in the planning for an increase in the carrying capacity in the near, as well as the more distant future.

According to the planning, it seems as if coal which is mined in the mines from Leslie to Bethal will be used chiefly for local utilization by power stations and Sasol 2, while the coal which is mined in the Devon/Witbank/Hendrina area will be transported chiefly to the PWV area. I think it is very necessary that the carrying capacity of the Railways be increased so that the dangerous situation which has arisen in the area of road transportation may be eliminated.

Mr. Chairman, we know the hon. member for Bethal as a farmer and as someone who feels strongly about these matters, and one could hear, from his introductory remarks, that he is concerned about the effect of the rate increases. It seemed to me as though he would have liked to pour oil on troubled waters. I do not blame him, because, after all, he is a member of the governing party, but what I find interesting is that a clear change of emphasis has taken place from the beginning of the debate up to now, with the speech of the hon. member for Bethal. He emphasized the support and help the Minister is able to give to farmers. However, when we on this side of the House suggested at the beginning of the debate that the State should do something about it, our suggestions were practically shouted down. However, I leave the matter there.

†Mr. Chairman, with a few exceptions, very few hon. members opposite seem to realize the dangers of self-deception. In the two and a half days during which Railway matters have been debated, we have witnessed a common form of self-deception, and that is to cultivate a belief that neither the hon. the Minister nor the Railways Administration can ever make a mistake. We have also witnessed another form of self-deception. Even when hon. members concede that certain tariff increases could be detrimental to the country’s economy, their sense of realism all of a sudden stops at that point. Immediately they follow that up by saying that whatever the consequences may be, they will be minimal. I would like to say that it would be advantageous for the Railways to accept that the hon. the Minister, with this budget, took a gamble. His budget to a certain extent is a gamble, a gamble which can easily back-fire. Instead of increasing the profitability of certain of the Railways’ services, this budget could easily lead to further losses. I do not have the time to deal with all the tariff increases. I just want to deal with one as an example. I refer to the abolition of reduced return fares on main line journeys. A return ticket will now cost the same as a double single ticket. Obviously the hon. the Minister hopes that by this means he will increase his revenue. We must realize that the Railways should at all times be run on business lines according to business principles.

The public of today has become accustomed to receiving a discount whenever they purchase something substantial, especially in the case of a cash transaction. Make no mistake, Sir; the purchase of a return ticket from Durban to Cape Town is a substantial purchase. Not only has the hon. the Minister totally disregarded this standard practice, but he has also totally ignored the powers which activate people to purchase what they believe to be a bargain. It only requires a very small percentage of prospective buyers or, in this case, users of the Railways, to reconsider their decision to travel by rail and to stay at home for the Railways, instead of showing a larger income, to show a greater loss. I could perhaps understand it if the hon. the Minister wanted to drive away prospective users in such large numbers as to enable him to cancel some of his main line journeys, but of course this will not materialize. What will happen is that expenses will remain the same while trains, as a result of this measure, will be far emptier. There will be prospective train travellers who will, as a result of this measure, reconsider their decision. They will decide either to stay at home or to travel by car. It may well be cheaper for such a person to travel by car. Let me say here that I listened to the hon. the Minister ascribing delays on the Airways to a shortage of fuel. If a person decides to travel by car it may therefore be cheaper as far as that specific person is concerned, but will it be cheaper and in the best interests of the country? Travel by car naturally means the use of petrol, and so we find the situation arising where the Minister is contributing directly to the shortage of fuel and indirectly to the balance of payments problem. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is not the type of business he should try to do. What is really required is to gear the Railways to accept more customers, to reduce travelling time, and to maintain capacity loads. We must not look for artificial reasons to chase people away. That to me sounds more like sound business practice.

Another problem we have here is the unwillingness on the part of hon. members opposite to accept that inefficient practices do occur on the Railways, as they do in any other organization, whether large or small. Hon. members should stop denying this and trying to intimidate people who dare mention this. They should stop trying to minimize the effects of this by viewing the problem too much in isolation. It will be in the interests of the Railways if they accept that, on account of the vastness of this organization, inefficient or time-wasting practices do occur and have a compounding effect. What appears at first to be an insignificant example of unnecessary work as a result, for instance, of poor office planning or lack of automation, must be multiplied a hundred or a thousand times because the chances are that in such a large organization the same mistake will be found in many other offices. I know that there have been commendable efforts to computerize and to introduce automation, but one still today finds procedures in the Railways which materially affect the productivity of workers. People work hard all day, but many man-hours are being wasted as a result of unnecessary activities.

*Sir, one has only to visit a booking office of the Railways to realize that a clerk has to do quite a number of physical exercises in the performance of his duties to complete only one inquiry. Two days ago I walked to the station and went to have a look at what happens there. The clerk at the booking office has hardly come to a standstill when he has to turn left or right and run ten yards to find a file. He must either stand on his toes or hunt around on his knees to get hold of the file. If he is fortunate and finds the file because one of the other clerks does not have it, he brings it back and then pages through it page by page to see whether there is a seat for one on the train to Weltevrede. In between he might even have to answer the telephone. It sometimes happens that he has to run behind a partition to obtain information. Sir, I am not criticizing that clerk. The man is energetic and agile and works as fast as he possible can within the framework of the procedure and the system established for him by the Railways. Seen against the background of one office, something like this probably does not matter much when it comes to efficiency, but when one considers that at any given moment the hon. the Minister may have a hundred efficient clerks on their knees looking for missing files, one realizes the extent of the problem. If the Airways is able to use a better system as a result of computers, etc., why does it not yet exist in the Railways?

Sir, what I have said does not apply to the clerical section only. When one talks to workers in the workshops, one learns that as a result of a chronic shortage of parts, have to keep taking those parts from one broken locomotive to use it on another locomotive or coach. If one hears of this happening only sometimes, it does not matter all that much, but when one is assured that it is regular practice, one begins to wonder about efficiency, especially when one also realizes that parts are manufactured departmentally by the Railways.

Therefore, there is plenty of room for improvement with regard to efficiency. It will get us nowhere to say in this House that everything is fine and that it cannot be improved on. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in as far as the hon. member for Durban Central expressed positive criticism, it is to be welcomed. Positive criticism is never condemned by us on this side of the House. However, I shall not react any further to the speech of the hon. member.

I want to refer in particular to a certain event that will take place on 1 April this year, i.e. the official opening of Richards Bay harbour. This will be performed by the hon. the Prime Minister. I believe it is fitting for us in this debate and in this committee of the House to give special consideration to this event. This is a unique event since it is the only one of its kind this century in South Africa. I also believe that it is fitting to reflect on the purposeful guidance given by ex-Minister Ben Schoeman in this whole project.

Just tell us how much the opening is going to cost.

We are also grateful to the hon. the Minister of Railways for having followed him so effectively in this regard. I believe it is fitting for us to pause here and to recall the achievements of the Administration of the South African Railways in respect of the development of this major enterprise. I do not believe there is any criticism from any side in this House in this respect.

In order to gain a proper understanding of the scope of the instruction given to the Administration, one should start by looking at the area situated in the part of the world of the hon. member for Middelburg, and particularly at Broodsnyersplaas which was mentioned here tonight by the hon. member for Bethal too. This is the starting point of a very interesting railway line. Without that railway line the harbour would have been useless. It is a remarkable railway line indeed. Construction of the section running from Broodsnyersplaas via Ermelo to Vryheid was commenced towards the end of 1972. The work was done under great pressure. The Administration commenced working on the whole railway line virtually at the same time. Many problems were experienced, problems such as occasional heavy rains which left unstable ground conditions. The efficiency and ingenuity of our engineers were severly tested there. There were cases when care had to be taken in the digging of tunnels because of gases escaping from adjacent coal deposits. In this way there were numerous problems which the Administration together with the people who worked with it, solved in a particularly ingenious manner. The Vryheid/Richards Bay section of the railway line was tackled towards the middle of 1968, and this across terrain known for its impossibility.

The outstanding feature of that particular section of the railway line is its tunnels and bridges. One thinks of the massive bridge across the White Umfolozi river for instance. This bridge is 60 metres high with ten spans, each 43 metres in length. On that section there are five stations which have been provided with trading facilities. One of these stations is Ulundi station which built at the new capital of KwaZulu. A better realization of the magnitude of the railway line and the work it involved, may be gained by referring to a few statistics. The estimated capital investment amounts to R384 million. Two hundred and thirty-four bridges and 24 tunnels were built; 2 735 million tons of concrete were cast and 62 million cubic metres of ground were moved.

Are you referring to the railway line only?

Yes, I am referring to the railway line only.

What about the harbour?

I am coming to the harbour. The construction work at the harbour is in fact an undertaking which grips one’s imagination. As the hon. member for Simonstown said yesterday, the existing harbours were all built in the days of colonial government. This is the first harbour in South Africa built by the Railways Administration. I want to state unambiguously that the methods employed by the Administration were indeed excellent. Some of the most modern scientific research techniques were employed. However, there is no time to refer to all of them.

At the harbour readings 6 were taken of for instance, the force and direction of winds, the frequency, eight and direction of waves, ocean currents and silt and sand movements. The entrance to the harbour was designed for one-way traffic, initially for ships of 150 000 tons. The design is of such a nature that access should be available 99% of the time. This means that unfavourable weather conditions will hamper access to the harbour only four days per year.

Another interesting feature is that the breakwater system was selected in such a way that waves inside the harbour will not be higher than 0,9 metre more than once in a period of ten years. The breakwater is so high that the sea will wash over it only 5% of the time.

In the development phase the Administration had due regard to the possibility of subsequent extensions. For that reason separate areas were set aside for handling different types of cargo. Wharves were developed in three separate areas for dirty bulk cargo, clean cargo and for the Administration’s vessels. As hon. members know two coal berths have already been completed. It is interesting to see how efficiently coal is already being handled and transported. At the mines in the coal fields, the trains, each consisting of 26 wagons, are moved separately under the loading-bins, and within approximately three hours each one is fully loaded. Such a train is approximately 1 050 metres in length. It does not stop anywhere to effect crossings with other trains. The average travelling time from the coal fields to Richards Bay is 17 hours. When the trains arrive at the harbour, wagons are toppled over the two by two for approximately 90 seconds without being uncoupled from the rest of the train. This means that the 76 wagons can be off-loaded within an hour.

The new harbour will not only serve as an incentive for economic growth for the surrounding areas, but also for South Africa as a whole. The harbour can also be used to the advantage of our neighbouring states. A challenge was put to the Administration of the South African Railways and Harbours, and I am convinced they deserve all our praise because they have completed the task successfully.

Mr. Chairman, as a dyed-in-the-wool Zululander I am much obliged to the hon. member for Eshowe for the complete picture he gave us of what is going to happen at Richards Bay. In his day already my grandfather asked the old Natal Government for a railway line to be constructed from Richards Bay to Vryheid. My grandfather died in the twenties, approximately 12 to 15 years after Union, and even now, after twenty years of National Party Government, we are still waiting for this railway line.

†Anyway, Mr. Chairman, members on that side of the House have asked us to make some constructive suggestions. On the other hand, all they could do, in very soft terms, was to thank the hon. the Minister. They ought to have mentioned how poor and inflationary the budget was.

Carry on, Sergeant!

I would like to tell hon. members something. I would like to make one or two suggestions. Firstly, the time has now come when we in this House should seriously consider doing away with the three Railway Commissioners. I would like to know what work they are doing. I have gone through this mass of books, but I did not see anything they have done. All I have seen them doing is sitting on the public galleries enjoying the hospitality of the House. They put out a report which they signed, but which had been drawn up by the efficient administrators of the Railways, the permanent servants of the Administration. They are nothing else but party hacks. The time has come that we should get rid of them. I should like the hon. Minister to explain to us precisely what they do. A former member of Parliament, Mr. Douglas Mitchell, used to say: “Do not talk, do!”

I would also like to speak about passenger traffic. It was “toevallig” that I happened to go along on the inaugural trip of the Drakensberg from Durban to Cape Town last year. The service was 100%. We again had the gracious old standards, where one was served in cups and EPNS service. The men were on the job and they knew what they were doing. This year I came back on the Drakensberg with my car loaded in the back, and I am glad to report that the service had not diminished by one iota. I thank the Administration for that. This is a one-class train and I would like to suggest that if we had more one-class trains, the Minister would find it easier to balance his budget—especially if he had more one-class trains on routes on which long journeys are undertaken. Hon. members must know that people are happy to truck their cars at the back, to travel in luxury and, when they reach the other end, to find their cars being off-loaded without a scratch or any damage done to them. And what is more, people are prepared to pay for this service. I make an honest and urgent plea to the Government to get another train of this class. I have been on the Orange Express, where there is a mixture. One cannot go into the lounge, because it is taken up by youngsters, reading comics and drinking Pepsi Cola. One cannot get a seat. Therefore I plead for more one-class trains. [Interjections.] Yes, you agreed. The hon. member does not travel by train; he is too wealthy.

We read in the annual report of the General Manager that a corps of specially trained policement cum commissionaires help non-White passengers, guard and protect them from exploitation and assault by undesirable elements. Of course they are exploited, not by the Railways, but by their own people. This is where the Progrefs must take a lesson. It is no good their talking about the service between here and Langa. They must get on the trains between here and Soweto and on the trains between Durban and Kwa Mashu. Then they will know how the people are being exploited by their own people. Bring more people in; give the policemen more power and do not let it end where the Railway premises end, as it is today. The Railway police have their circumscribed duties, but I think the time has come for the Railway Administration to get hold of the local authorities by the scruff of their neck, get hold of the police who are failing to do peak-hour duty and say: “Right, from now onwards you go and protect these people so that they can get to their homes safely. ’ ’ The hon. the Minister, who once was a Minister of Police, knows it and he must not tell me “Daar is geen manne nie; ons is kort, want hulle is almal in Rhodesië.” They are all back and they should now do some work. I recommend a closer and more active—and I put the emphasis on “active”—and sustained—also underlined—co-operation by all. Do not listen to the Progs who tell you: “Forget this and do that.” We know what goes on. I have been in it. Crime prevention is important and we have to do it.

In the annual report pride is expressed at the fact that of all the passenger trains 91,9% were on time. It is a wonderful performance when one considers the conditions, the distances, the stops, etc. I congratulate the Administration, the men who are sitting in the bay over there. Let us compare this with the South African Airways. I am a very proud South African and I must confess here and now that I have never met with rudeness, discourtesy or anything like that on the part of any official. Perhaps I have a simple Zululand face and they … [Interjections.] I give them full marks for their courtesy, but I cannot understand why I have to wait at the airport, with the plane on the apron, for 30 to 40 minutes, without any explanation as to why I have to wait. When one gets into the plane one still has to wait there and the humidity of Durban being what it is, sitting in a plane is by no means pleasant, particularly when the plane is full.

You have one of the old type pilots, the sort with the moustache, and when you get into the air he says: “This is the captain speaking” and tells you why there was such a delay. But the younger fellows, who are earnest and waiting for promotion to get on to the Boeings—you know, the bigger ones—they are silent as the tomb of death; they do not tell you why you have to wait The previous speaker has spoken about these delays and I believe that it is only a question of public relations to enable one to sort this out. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi got so carried away by his speech that he used a minute of my time in delivering his speech. He asked at the outset why Railway Commissioners were in fact necessary. I want to ask the hon. member to take a look at the budget on his table. When he comes to realize what the scope of the Railways, the Airways, the Harbours and the pipelines is and everything which they involve, he will understand that it is necessary to give thorough consideration to matters and to the running of these undertakings, and that is one reason among others why we have Railway Commissioners. They have to assist in formulating policy, they have to serve as a board of review, they have to carry out inspections and they have to assist the hon. the Minister as well as the General Manager and his staff in the successful administration of this tremendous organization in South Africa. The hon. member was full of praise and lauded the Railways, the Minister and everything that has to do with the organization. The reasons for his being able to pay these tributes this evening, is partly due to the Railway Commissioners and their contribution to the organization.

When we look at the world situation, we realize that we are living in very difficult times, difficult times as far as our economy, finance, politics, social standards, culture, etc., are concerned. When we look at South Africa—and I am referring specifically to the service being rendered by the Railways—we may be rightfully proud of the place we are taking in the world and of the place the South African Railways is taking in the world. I have looked at the reports which were placed before us and I have noticed that, in the region I come from, the far Northern Transvaal, electrification of the railway line from Stofberg to Roos Senekal has already been done. I have read that a railway line is being constructed from Thabazimbi to Ellisras, and that this line, too, will be electrified. These things make me feel really proud of the achievements of the Railways in these times.

While I am speaking about the far Northern Transvaal, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us a look into the future as regards the development of the Northern Transvaal. The Bushveld is one part of our country which is still lying fallow and which is still seeking development We are pleased that the railway line is being extended to Ellisras, where the enormous coal deposits are, but what we should like to know, as far as the whole of the Northern Transvaal is concerned, is whether a further extension of the railway line from Ellisras to Waterpoort to link up at Messina, cannot take place in the future. But more particularly, I should like to ask the Minister whether he can inform us of what planning is being envisaged with regard to the doubling of the existing railway line from Pienaars River to the north. At present a double railway line runs to Pienaars River and a single railway line from there to Messina. You will realize, Sir, that strategically this part of South Africa is of enormous importance to the whole of the Republic. At the moment large-scale development is taking place in that part of the country. There are four large homelands to the north of Pretoria. There is Bophuthatswana, where Bantu towns are being developed at the moment.

In addition to Babalegi and Tembadorp, the development of a Bantu township near Warmbad is envisaged. Further north we have the Lebowa homeland, Gazankulu and the Venda homeland. All these homelands are on the threshold of enormous developments. Lebowa is getting a large capital, i.e. Lebowa-ghano, near Zebediela. The people who will live there will mostly work on the East Rand. However, I have not yet heard of any fast transport system being visualized for these people between their capital and the Witwatersrand. I should therefore like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about the planning visualized for that part of the country, especially with regard to the doubling as well as the eventual electrification of the railway line.

If I may speak about my home town, I should like to say that one of the largest recreational centres in the Southern Hemisphere is envisaged for Warmbaths. It is a project which will cost approximately R4 million. A start has already been made with the building of the centre and the foundations have been dug. It is a unique project, and it is expected that Warmbaths will attract many tourists and holiday-makers in future. People will also go there for health reasons. As far as sports facilities are concerned, major developments in that part of the country are also envisaged. For these reasons we feel that special attention may now be given to facilitating the future development of that part of the country.

My time has nearly expired, but there is still one matter which I should like to touch upon. Apart from the tremendous service the Railways is rendering to the country’s economy, the Railways, to my mind, also renders an important service in another field. It is a field, however, about which little is ever said. I believe we may call the particular service a cultural activity. It belongs with other facilities and services which are provided by the Railways, such as the fine catering service. The Railways insists on keeping its organization neat and streamlined. On Friday the Lady Duncan trophy for the most beautiful station area in the Republic will be awarded once again. The trophy is awarded for the station area with the most beautiful garden in the Republic. I should like to emphasize that the activities of the Railways in fields such as these, and the example set by its activities, is really laudable. It can only serve as inspiration to the staff of the Railways, as well as to everybody else who may come into contact with it.

I sincerely thank the hon. the Minister for once again having named the station of Roedtan as the winner of the trophy this year. Roedtan is situated in my constituency and was privileged to receive the same trophy four years ago. I should like the hon. member for Umlazi in particular to listen to this. It will enable him to give praise in this field, too, when he participates in this debate next year.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.