Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Part Appropriation Bill before this House today, provides for an amount of R4 300 million, which is estimated to be sufficient to defray expenditure for the first seven months of the 1981-’82 financial year. Of this amount R3 300 million is in respect of the working estimates and R1 000 million for the Capital Budget.

The following is a brief review of the activities of 1980-’81.

When the original working estimates for this year were being compiled, the revival in the South African economy was gaining momentum, and an economic growth rate of 5% was anticipated for the 1980-’81 financial year. However, the upswing in the business cycle occurred much earlier and was much stronger than anticipated, mainly as a result of the rise in the average price of gold and an increase in consumption expenditure. The economy has now reached a stage where production capacity has to a large extent been taken up while bottlenecks are being experienced owing to restrictive factors such as the dearth of skilled labour. Although a levelling-off in the growth rate is expected, it should remain decidedly positive.

The increase in the domestic demand for goods and services boosted imports. This has had a favourable effect on the Administration’s earnings at harbours and in respect of high-rated traffic. The tonnage of cargo landed at the harbours during the period April to December 1980 exceeded the estimate by 21%. High-rated traffic increased by 4% above the estimate. Rail passenger traffic likewise increased substantially. For the period April to December 1980 main line journeys increased by 10,5% and suburban journeys by 5,3%. Road transport and pipeline traffic also performed better than anticipated.

On the other hand the weak international economic position had a damping effect on the export of raw materials and, therefore, on the low-rated traffic of the Railways. Export traffic declined by 4,2% compared with the previous year. The total volume of low-rated traffic for April to December 1980 was barely 2 million tons, or 1,5%, more than the previous year, while the estimate provided for an increase of approximately 6,5 million tons, or 5,7%.

During the first nine months of the current financial year revenue exceeded that budgeted for by R67 million. Expenditure, on the other hand, reflects an excess of R14 million. The working result, therefore, reflects an improvement of R53 million on the estimate. In view of the expected levelling-off in the growth rate and the increasing cost pressure, revenue for the remainder of the financial year will move closer to the estimated level and is expected to exceed the budget by approximately R94 million. Thanks to positive action it is anticipated that the increase in expenditure will be restricted to approximately R75 million, or 1,7%. Consequently, the financial year will close with an estimated surplus of R23 million, an improvement of some R19 million on the budget.

Hon. members may ask whether major projects such as the Richards Bay coal export scheme, the export of iron ore through Saldanha and the introduction of containerization, as well as the modernization of existing facilities and the implementation of new refined working methods, have in fact contributed towards the overall productivity of the national transport service. I wish to reassure them.

The two export schemes have between them handled a total of 133,5 million tons up to the present and earned foreign exchange amounting to more than R2 700 million. The growth in containerization has now accelerated to approximately 12% after a tardy beginning. This mode of transport was recently introduced on the route to Australia and is also being extended to the Far East service.

The Railways’ index of productivity, which takes into account all production factors, reflects an average annual increase of 3,2% since 1971-’72. For the financial year 1979-’80 the index increased by 11,2%. This increase in productivity was attained because existing labour and capital resources could be utilized more intensively during the present economic upswing. Real labour decreased by 1,8%, while real capital increased by 4,5%. Transportation activities increased by 13,7%.

An example: Over the past 10 years rail passenger journeys increased from 522 million to 691 million per annum, the tonnage of revenue traffic from 108 million to 175 million per annum and the cargo handled in the harbours from 42 million to 77 million tons per annum. This represents increases of 32%, 62% and 83%, respectively. Notwithstanding this considerable growth, the staff increased by only 19,4%. That, Mr. Speaker, I feel is an achievement to be justly proud of.

What has been achieved would certainly not have been possible without the devoted efforts of the staff generally, and I wish to thank all the members of the staff for their daily contribution towards this fine achievement.

Salary Adjustment

In view of the rise in the cost of living during the past year, I have decided to adjust the salaries of railway employees with effect from the April 1981 paymonth. The salaries of Whites are to be increased on average by 12,5%. In the case of non-White employees an adjustment will be made to narrow the salary gap in accordance with Government policy. The total cost amounts to approximately R225 million. At the same time all non-White employees are to be accorded salaried status.

I have also approved of the pension benefits of members of the New Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund being calculated with effect from 1 April 1981 on the terminal pensionable emoluments of beneficiaries.

Financial relief is also being granted to railway pensioners. The pensions of White railway pensioners are being increased by 10% with effect from 1 April 1981 which, together with the statutory annual enhancement, will provide them with an effective increase of 12,2%. The pensions of non-Whites are being increased by 12% from the aforementioned date.

Hon. members will be interested to know that railway pensions have generally increased by 122% during the period April 1970 to April 1980. Against this, the salaries of employees increased on average by 119%. The formula whereby pensions are calculated was considerably improved in December 1973 and again in December 1977. The improvements in 1973 were approximately 33 1/3% for ordinary pensioners and 25% for widow pensioners. Widow pensions were again increased in 1977 by approximately 10%. To ensure a higher income for annuitants who had retired from the Service prior to December 1973 and December 1977, their annuities, apart from the general adjustments in pensions, were increased on two further occasions, i.e. in October 1976 and July 1979. These additional increases amounted to 21% and 32% in respect of ordinary and widow pensioners, respectively, who had qualified for an annuity prior to December 1973 and 10% in the case of widow pensioners who became annuitants between December 1973 and December 1977.

Pensioners who retired prior to December 1973 will naturally also benefit from the proposed increase in April this year.

Expected Trends for 1981-’82

In so far as the prospects for 1981-’82 are concerned, there are now certain factors which are causing the economic growth rate to level off. After consultation with all organized agricultural, commercial and industrial bodies as well as other organizations which play a leading role in the field of economics, it has been decided to accept a growth rate of 4,5% for the coming financial year for railway purposes.

The Administration’s revenue will, therefore, not increase to the same extent in the coming financial year as in the current financial year. It is anticipated, moreover, that inflation will not be lower than at present, and together with the salary adjustment in April 1981, the Administration’s expenditure will increase considerably more than revenue.

It is, therefore, obvious that I shall have no alternative but to increase tariffs from 1 April 1981. With a determined effort to increase productivity and to curb expenditure, it would seem possible to restrict the average tariff increase to 12,8%, an increase which is considerably lower than the expected rate of inflation.

I shall now give a brief review of the more important proposed tariff increases.

†Tariff Adjustment

Passenger Services

The proposed increase in fares is aimed primarily at improving the financial position of the passenger services. The cost coverage from fares on these services, excluding the increase, is estimated to average only 28,8% for 1981-’82.

I shall quote a few examples of proposed increases.

To begin with the Blue Train: At the present tariffs this service is being operated at a loss. The Blue Train is internationally recognized as the world’s most luxurious train and is patronized mainly by visitors from abroad. I have, therefore, decided to increase the tariffs for journeys on this train by between 30% and 50%. [Interjections.] Even at these new rates revenue will not cover the total cost. The Blue Train is for rich people; not for ordinary people in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

The increase in respect of ordinary main line tickets is 15% throughout. With a view to better utilization of spare capacity during off-peak periods, an incentive fare is being introduced for all persons over the age of 60. Such persons will be able to purchase a card for R10 per annum which will enable them to secure a 40% discount on all out of season first-and second-class journeys. This card will be known as the “forty-off card”. I am convinced that this concession will meet with general approval.

To meet workers, suburban fares for weekly and monthly tickets are to be increased throughout by less than the average of 15%. Hon. members will no doubt be more interested in what the increases amount to in hard cash. The following are examples of the cost of weekly tickets which allow seven return trips—

Between Johannesburg and Dube in the Soweto complex, a distance of 18 km, the third-class fare is to be increased from R1,07 to R1,20, i.e. by 13 cents—a mere 0,05 cent per kilometre. The first-class fare over the same route is increased by 40 cents, i.e. by 0,16 cent per kilometre.

The weekly third-class fare between Durban and kwaMashu, a distance of 21 km, is increased from R1,16 to R1,30, i.e. an increase of 14 cents, or about 0,05 cent per kilometre.

Between Cape Town and Mitchell’s Plain, a distance of 32 km, the weekly third-class fare is increased from R1,43 to R1,55, i.e. by 12 cents, or some 0,03 cent per kilometre.

In all three instances the increase in third-class fares amounts to 12% and the fare is less than half a cent per kilometre.

The Railways will employ all the available means of communication to acquaint the travelling public with the revised fares.

Goods Services

Hon. members are aware that low-rated traffic generally is uneconomic. As it is the aim to make uneconomic traffic more economic, a differentiated tariff increase will be applied whereby low-rated traffic will be increased on average by 16% and high-rated traffic on average by 13,3%. The gap between the highest and lowest tariff classes is thus being narrowed by 3,6%. This means that tariff class 15 becomes more economic in relation to tariff class 1.

Since container rates are considerably lower than the railage at conventional tariffs on this traffic, unit container rates are being increased by 15% against the average increase of 13,3% for high-rated traffic. The tariff for empty containers on unit trains are to be increased by 20%.

As a whole, coal is still being conveyed at a loss and this will continue to be the case after the rate is increased on average by 16,6%. To convey one ton of coal over a distance of 100 km previously cost R3,20, but will now cost R3,70. The tariff per ton-kilometre is appreciably lower over longer distances.

The rates for worked iron and steel products in truck-load quantities are being adjusted downwards by 34%. This will be to the benefit of almost all sectors of the economy. The tariff for the conveyance of unworked steel in less than truck-load quantities is being increased by approximately 11% above the normal for its class.

Agricultural products are conveyed mainly at the lower tariff classes and the present cost coverage of 87,3% will reflect only a slight improvement after the tariff increase which will on average be 15,8%.

The cost coverage on the conveyance of livestock is presently only 66,8%. The rates on this traffic are being increased by only 15% and if the expected increase in costs is taken into account, the cost coverage will remain at approximately the same level.

I shall quote an example or two. The railage of a sheep in an ordinary cattle wagon over the 722 kilometres between De Aar and Johannesburg will cost an additional 42 cents—an increase of about 1,4 cents per kilogram. Over the same route, but with a three-deck wagon, the increase is 22 cents per animal, or about 0,73 cent per kilogram.

The increase in the railage of cattle over the 472 kilometres from Vryburg to Johannesburg amounts to R1,70 per large animal, or about 0,47 cent per kilogram, i.e. approximately 15%. This increase is reasonable if one considers that the auction price of grade 1AX beef increased by some 70% at City Deep during the 12 months ending 30 January 1981.

The conveyance of petrol between Durban and the Rand is to be increased by 0,45 cent per litre and that of diesel by 0,34 cent per litre.

Passenger air fares and cargo rates on the domestic services will be increased by 15%. Charges for services rendered at the harbours will be increased by varying percentages, depending on present cost coverage. The ad valorem wharfage tariff will remain at the same level.

All the tariff increases I have quoted are, unfortunately, unavoidable but the revenue to be derived from the tariff increase amounts to only 0,9% of the gross domestic product.

Appreciation

Mr. Speaker, when Laingsburg and the surrounding areas were struck by the disastrous flood on Sunday, 25 January, the Railways once again had to contend with an emergency situation. I personally visited the scene, and the manner in which the staff set about the problem was a great source of encouragement to me. The task was approached systematically and efficiently and everything possible was done to assist. The target which was set to reopen the railway line to traffic within a week and the task of aiding our own staff who were involved, as well as the flood victims, were tackled with commendable and spirited determination. More than a thousand workmen toiled for long hours to repair the damage, and the line was in fact repaired within a week. In the process 56 000 cubic metres of filling material was used. I wish to record my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the staff concerned for their courage and devotion. I also want to thank the private civil engineering concerns and their staff who rendered assistance.

I wish to avail myself of the opportunity to convey my heart-felt sympathy to the next of kin of the disaster victims and to those who suffered losses.

In conclusion I can say that it was with mixed feelings that I took leave of the Agriculture portfolio where for many years I received such pleasant co-operation. Naturally, I have had to adapt to the working of this vast transport organization. I have, however, been cordially received, and in the months that I have been entrusted with the Transport Affairs portfolio I have been most impressed by the efficient manner in which this enormous organization functions and the high level of productivity which has been attained. I have already visited many of the installations and activities of the Railways, Harbours and Airways and have met many of the workers and their staff associations.

I wish to record my sincere appreciation, firstly to my predecessor, Mr. Chris Heunis, for the proficient manner in which he conducted affairs during his term of office and for his contribution towards the success of the organization.

I must also convey my appreciation to the General Manager, Dr. Kobus Loubser, and other members of the Management and to each member of the staff for the sustained efforts and loyalty they have displayed in the performance of their allotted task.

I am also greatly indebted to the Railway Commissioners, Messrs. Coenie de Villiers, Dupel Erasmus and Piet Aucamp, for their loyal support, advice and assistance.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has just said that it was with somewhat mixed feelings that he relinquished the agricultural portfolio which he had held for a long time. I would say that it was also with mixed feelings that we listened to his presentation of the Railway budget today. We listened with horror as he announced increase after increase. With scarcely a tremor in his voice he announced that agricultural goods, for example, would cost 15,8% more. After all his years in agriculture, he should know what that means to the farmer, and yet when he made the announcement there was not a tremor in his voice. I think we could describe this budget as a spendthrift budget, and in presenting this spendthrift budget today I believe he has done South Africa a disservice. I find it very difficult to understand how, through that hon. Minister, a Government which has supposedly committed itself to fighting inflation could even consider presenting an inflationary budget of this nature, and there is no doubt at all that the budget is, in fact, highly inflationary. I say this because the hon. the Minister has seen fit to raise tariffs right across the board, apart from those for unworked steel, and then only because, somehow or other, that traffic has to be kept going. Largely the increases have been applicable right across the board. This is, of course, inevitably going to have tremendous repercussions right throughout the economy.

We all know that rail tariff increases have inflationary consequences, because transport is part of the cost structure of every single commodity produced or marketed in South Africa. Now South Africans can expect to pay more for everything they buy, everything they find in the shops. This spendthrift budget—and I call it that again—gives an excuse for another round of price increases on virtually everything, and a substantial jump in the cost of living is now inevitable. The hon. the Minister says that by his calculations the gross domestic product would only be affected by 0,9%. I regret to have to tell him, however, that from bitter experience we know that it is going to be much more than that. Manufacturers and producers use this as an excuse to put up their prices far more than the amount of the tariff increase. That is something the hon. the Minister should know and understand too. My question to the hon. the Minister is: When is all this going to stop? I have said, over a period, that inflation actually begins with transport costs. So when is all this going to stop? How much longer is the South African public going to be asked to put up with the sort of over-extravagant inflationary overspending, because it is overspending that has been reflected in today’s budget. Probably the worst aspect of the budget is that it indicates that in spite of an inflationary situation, a desperate situation in some ways, there is to be no restraint on capital expenditure by the Railways Administration, at least from what we can see, and we have had very little to see. We had the Brown Book for the additional appropriation last week, but nothing more to tell us exactly where the Railways is going. I do not blame the Railways Administration, because inevitably the Railways Administration asks the hon. the Minister for its ultimate requirements. I blame this hon. Minister, I regret to say, and the Government, for failing to exercise any sort of financial discipline. As I say, it is difficult to tell, but capital expenditure is likely to increase at a higher level. It is this hon. Minister’s job, as Minister of Transport Affairs, to exercise the restraint and discipline one expects from any hon. Minister when the country is facing double-figure inflation. Last year we had an inflation rate of just over 15%. I would like to forecast that partly as the result of this budget, South Africa can expect an inflation rate of somewhere in the region of 20% this year.

Have you become a prophet?

This sort of inflation figure is threatening the security and safety of South Africa. We know of other threats to South Africa, but I would venture to suggest that there is no greater threat than the threat of inflation when it comes to our safety and our security. I would say that inflation is South Africa’s biggest enemy right now, but from what we saw in the Brown Book, the hon. the Minister is to allow a capital spending programme by the Railways Administration that will make the situation far worse. Any economist could have told that hon. Minister that Government overspending is one of the prime causes of inflation, and that to fight inflation, spending of that sort has to be cut to the very basics. An example of the capital expenditure programme reflected in last week’s additional Railway appropriation showed that not only was there no attempt being made to cut back spending, but also that the hon. the Minister was unaware of the justification for spending money on much of this programme. The hon. the Minister read out extracts from a book which explained why capital projects were being put into operation, but he did not appear to be completely au fait with the justification for that spending.

I want to leave capital spending at this stage to draw attention to another unfortunate aspect of this budget. Just as the hon. the Minister of Finance failed to make adequate provision for pay increases for the rest of the Public Service, particularly for the teachers, the nurses and the policemen, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has failed to make adequate provision for Railway employees. He has granted them an increase of 12½%, while everybody knows that the inflation rate was 15,8% last year. Therefore the Railways employees start off with more than 3% down the drain, and in the year ahead they can look forward to an inflation rate of approximately 20%. Where will that leave them? There is no way in which Railway employees can possibly keep up with the rise in the cost of living, and the inevitable result is that the standard of living for most of the people working on the Railways, in the harbours, for the Airways and on the pipelines, will go down. They will find that they are starting this next year far worse off than they were a year ago, and it is going to get worse. What a reward for a year of loyal service to the Administration! The hon. the Minister was very nice about the Railways personnel. He said they were doing a terrific job, and he congratulated them. But what did he do? He gave them an increase that is less than the inflation rate. Is this a reward for loyal service?

What would you have given them?

Sir, they are the innocent victims of a spendthrift and lavish capital expenditure programme. Let us take an example of this. In the additional appropriation which the hon. the Minister introduced last week, one of the items was the new computer centre for which the estimated final cost, together with computer equipment, was R57 million—R57 million and yet the hon. the Minister smiles. I believe that last week the hon. the Minister’s explanation for this was inadequate when he said, possibly with a certain amount of justification, that difficulties were being experienced because administrative operations were spread over many buildings in Johannesburg which were being rented by the Administration at considerable cost. He also said that the area set aside for computer operations was inadequate. We all know that the ideal situation does not exist. The hon. the Minister now says that they have decided to move everything under one roof at a cost of R57 million. I think all hon. members would agree that it would be very much better for the Administration if everything was under one roof. It would be very convenient, but my next question to the hon. the Minister, a question which I think he should ask himself, is: Can we now, at this stage, when inflation is running rampant, afford the R57 million for that ideal development? Has the hon. the Minister taken an in-depth look at the urgency of this project?

It costs more than an opera house!

It will cost more than an opera house, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti says. Has the hon. the Minister taken a real in-depth look at this project? He obviously had not taken an in-depth look when he presented his additional appropriation last week. I hope he has had occasion to do so since. I really think he should consider whether it is absolutely essential at this stage. A capital investment of R57 million is an enormous investment. Can we perhaps get by without it? Of course it will be very nice to have the new Cobus Loubser Building, or whatever it will be called, but are we not perhaps just indulging in a little empire-building?

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. the Minister not think, if he looks at that project, that we are perhaps really indulging in empire building? Bricks and mortar, beautiful buildings—we know what the Government does in this connection. We can look at bodies like control boards with their luxurious buildings and offices. [Interjections.] We are paying for that. Is it so vital to the smooth running of the Railways that we have to go ahead with this in the middle of a major battle against public enemy number one, inflation? I believe the hon. the Minister must admit that it smacks of empire building.

Incidentally, on the subject of accommodation in Johannesburg, I am told that three to four years ago the Railways Administration could have bought the old Escom building in Braamfontein for between R3,5 million and R4 million. If that was the case—and I am not sure that my information is reliable, but I think it is pretty reliable— the Administration must be very, very sorry that it did not take advantage of that opportunity. If it could have bought that building for R4 million, or even R5 million, what sort of building is it going to get for R57 million? A palace?

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has consulted with the Administration about this and every other major item of capital expenditure. I think it is quite logical that the Railway authorities, the Administration itself, should ask for the best. They are Railwaymen and they want the best for the Railways. However, it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister to go through a major scheme of this nature, and every other major scheme, with a fine tooth-comb to make certain in his own mind that this building is absolutely essential. When I questioned him on the matter last week, he certainly gave the impression that he did not have the answers in regard to it at his finger-tips. It is my contention that he must have the answers on all matters of capital expenditure at his finger-tips. He is the man who must have the answers. He should have weighed this matter up in his own mind. As a member of the Cabinet he has an overall view of all activities and everything the country needs, of where capital expenditure can be best employed, of where we should be directing our resources. He has held other important portfolios.

It does not mean a thing. They know nothing.

He should be able to decide whether the Railways should be given everything that it asks for. I know he is new in this portfolio, but he must remember that his first task is to exercise restraint and to enforce financial discipline—and that he has not done.

It is interesting to look at some of the statistics reflected in the General Manager’s report ending March 1980. The total expenditure against the Capital Account for all services as at 31 March 1980 was R9,345 billion, or R9 345 million, whereas a decade ago, in March 1970, it was R2,634 billion, or 28% of the current figure. Revenue has had to increase to cope with this tremendous burden of investment, investment which has increased by 355% in 10 years. We are all aware of the major capital programmes which have been undertaken, some of them with tremendous success, such as the Richards Bay project and the Sishen-Saldanha project, but tariffs, keeping pace with this and more, have increased regularly by a figure somewhat higher than the inflation rate to finance this capital expansion.

In addition, since 1970 more capital expenditure is being financed from revenue. We have got to the stage where it is costing so much to transport goods in South Africa that transport costs are becoming a threat and a danger to the whole economy. Now the hon. the Minister raises tariffs even further. Now, Sir, we all know that there has been a measure of cost-push inflation which the Railways has had to bear. We are well aware of that. Nobody in South Africa today cannot be aware of the fact that everything is going up in price all the time.

Under this Government!

Yes, under this Government, as the hon. member says. Every time this hon. Minister’s predecessors have raised tariffs, they have stood here and wrung their hands and said: “What can we do? Input costs have increased and we have to raise tariffs. We have no other alternative but to raise tariffs.” Sir, they have cried on the shoulders of members of this House. I am sure that with this Minister we are going to get the same story. The answer, of course, is that this excuse is only partly true. We know about cost-push inflation, but there are other ways to alleviate the effect of input costs. Firstly, there is increased efficiency. We heard quite a lot from the hon. the Minister on the whole question of productivity in his Second Reading speech, and I shall be the first to admit that a lot has been done by the Administration along this road . . .

Not enough.

. . . but there is a lot still to do. I have had to draw the attention of the House on previous occasions to the fact that the Administration has spent many millions of rand on sophisticated equipment such as computers to ensure efficiency of running, and presumably to cut down on running expenses. We have spent millions of rand on this, Sir, and intend to spend many millions more. Many millions of rand have been spent on improving tracks, to improve efficiency. I think it was some years ago that I drew the attention of the House to the fact that, in spite of all this increased efficiency, a Railway time-table for 1936 showed that a train running from Cape Town station to False Bay station, stopping at the same number of stations, was running faster in 1936 than it was at that stage, which was about 1977.

We know that much has been done, but I think that hon. Minister must realize the tremendous task in front of him. A lot more has to be done. One could have hoped that we would have begun to reap some of the fruits of this increased productivity. We have a new management operation in the Railways, which we hope will increase efficiency too. But, Sir, if we are increasing efficiency and productivity, as the hon. the Minister says we are all the time, why is it necessary for tariff increases to go ahead of the normal inflation rate? I am afraid to say that one cannot help but wonder whether or not the money spent on increasing efficiency has been well spent. It is just not good enough to go on putting up tariffs to the Same level as the inflation rate. Increasing efficiency should make it possible for the hon. the Minister to restrict the necessity for increasing tariffs. At the same time this will also ensure that the Railway personnel, whose efforts are part and parcel of the drive to increase efficiency, are reasonably paid for their efforts. I think that the hon. the Minister has failed in this respect. The fact that after this budget they will be worse off at a time when South Africa is supposed to be on a wave of prosperity seems to indicate that increased efficiency is not having the effect it should have on costs. It seems to indicate that the hon. the Minister is not carrying out his responsibilities in scrutinizing capital spending, and millions of rand somehow are draining away on grandiose projects. These are very nice to have, but are they really necessary for efficiency?

Such as?

Air-conditioning!

Air-conditioning might well be used for the computer, and I do believe that Railway personnel should work in reasonable surroundings, but somehow or other the figures just do not add up. When you add all the productivity increases together, and equate that to the tariff increases, you find that we are in fact worse off. When asked to sanction any item of capital spending, the Minister must ask himself over and over again: “Is that perhaps something that the Railways Administration can do without at this stage?” In private enterprise organizations, if you cannot afford something and capital is not available, you have to do without. Not so this organization. They have the cornucopia of the public who have to use the Railways. They have no alternative, in most cases, and they are always good to take a few more rands from in order to finance this capital spending. In private enterprise, when you do not have capital, that is the time when human ingenuity is put to the test, the time when perhaps less costly alternatives are considered and other answers and solutions to problems are found. It appears to us that the easy way out is the path that is almost invariably followed by successive Ministers of Transport on that side of the House. That easy way out is just to raise tariffs. The public will just have to pay more. Well, I can tell this hon. Minister that the public are sick and tired of paying more and more. They are reaching the end of their tether. They are being burdened beyond their capacity to pay. The hon. the Minister said, with a certain measure of pride in his voice, that the increases were marginal on lines such as the Mitchell’s Plain line or some of the Black commuter lines, but to people who are living on the breadline, that is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member to mention one country in the world which will be prepared to transport people at the cost at which we transport people in this country.

Firstly, the hon. the Minister must look at the position of most of these commuters. They have been pushed way out of town from the original places where they used to live for ideological reasons. That is now costing them money and not the hon. the Minister.

They are paying for your policy.

Yes, they are paying for his policy. He says that they are paying 28%, but they have no alternative, because the disastrous effect of Government policies has been that people are now living far from their place of work and they have to be transported over tremendous distances. I go further by saying that the hon. the Minister when he was Minister of Agriculture always used to talk about what was happening in other countries. But we live in South Africa and we are interested in what happens in South Africa.

First he puts the price of food up and now he puts the tariffs up.

That is right. At every opportunity the hon. the Minister gets he does exactly that. The people of South Africa are being burdened beyond their capacity, the whole economy of South Africa is being burdened beyond its capacity. If South African industry, for instance, is to remain competitive and inflation is to be brought under control, something will have to be done immediately. It appears to me that the Government are incapable of bringing inflation under control. They always complain that inflation is imported, that the whole world is suffering from inflation, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that our inflation rate, as far as Western countries are concerned, is now very, very high indeed and is likely to go higher.

There are many reasons why I believe it is unnecessary to put up tariffs as the hon. the Minister has. The capital spending programme is one of them. Over a period of time, during previous debates, I have made my opinion known on the subject of depreciation charges based on replacement costs, a form of inflation accounting which I do not believe is justified. At a guess—I do not have the figures before me because they are not available for this year—the Administration will have to find in the region of R300 million in this financial year to pursue a policy which makes the South Africa of today bear the burden, in terms of cost, of what is only going to be bought in the future. That is putting it fairly simplistically, but that is in effect what we are doing. We are making provision for purchase at the inflated cost in years to come. I believe that at this stage in the battle against inflation it is quite ridiculous to pursue a policy that is in itself inflationary. I think one of the hon. the Minister’s predecessors admitted, although he said it was very marginal, that this policy was in itself inflationary. It is interesting to me that many private enterprise organizations have rejected this form of inflation accounting and also that the hon. the Minister of Finance, through the Department of Inland Revenue, refuses to allow private enterprise to charge this sort of depreciation as a legitimate cost and they will not allow it for taxation purposes. But what private enterprise is not allowed the Railways Administration does with impunity.

Another matter I should like to deal with is that of financing capital expenditure from revenue. This is also very inflationary. Until very recently the situation with regard to loan capital was very favourable, and it would not have been impossible to finance a greater percentage of necessary capital expenditure from loans rather than raising tariffs. At one stage, fairly recently, we had too much money. Surely, it would be more sensible in a situation such as that to finance capital expenditure from loan capital rather than from revenue. I know of the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee some years ago, but one must realize that the situation has changed since they made their report.

[Inaudible.]

An inflationary policy was followed with regard to loan capital. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance is it seems disagreeing with me, because he is shaking his head.

That is where that rattling noise is coming from.

I can tell that hon. Deputy Minister that the one thing he should learn is that borrowing money in an inflationary situation is sometimes better than raising tariffs, the reason being that with the depreciation of money one generally has to pay back money which is worth less than it was worth at the time of borrowing. Therefore the Railways Administration could gain advantage from that situation too.

I am afraid we cannot support this Part Appropriation Bill because of the inflationary effect it is going to have on the economy. The hon. the Minister seems to have meekly accepted that he is not competent to do anything about inflation and he has taken an easy way out. Perhaps he has fanned further inflation, and this has very serious implications for South Africa. We cannot support this approach, and accordingly I move as an amendment—

1. (1) attention is not given to the desperate need to fight inflation and to control the rapid increase in the cost of living;
2. (2) tariff increases will inhibit economic growth; and
3. (3) salary and wage increases for employees are inadequate, making a drop in their living standards inevitable.”.

By the Government’s own statistics this is true. [Interjections.]

Having given my opinion of the general budget, I now want to proceed to some matters of detail with regard to operations. The hon. the Minister referred to the Laingsburg disaster and paid tribute to the splendid work done on that occasion by Railway personnel. I should like to associate myself with his remarks. I think they did tremendously. They literally moved mountains to bring relief and open the railway line again. I think, however, all of us will admit that the one thing the Laingsburg disaster has taught us is how very vulnerable the main railway line from Cape Town to the north is. It is very vulnerable indeed. The line was closed for a week.

We have heard so much about total strategy. I would have thought by now we would have had an alternative route available to us. It surprises me that the link-up between Kraaifontein and Saldanha Bay, which I do not believe is yet able to take mainline standard traffic, has not been improved so that in a situation like that one could use the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. The Sishen-Saldanha railway line is at the moment a railway line with two stations many hundreds of kilometres apart. Surely, when faced with the vulnerability of the main railway line from Cape Town to the north, the alternative should be explored. I think we should have a look at it.

It will cost capital.

Well, if the hon. the Minister will stop wasting capital on restaurants, for example, and large buildings for R57 million, he might perhaps find the capital to go forward with more worthwhile projects. [Interjections.]

I should like to proceed from that matter —it is an idea I put forward to the hon. the Minister—to the S.A. Airways. I think we are all aware that South African Airways has been under considerable pressure of late. One of my colleagues will be discussing this question of the pressure on South African Airways. However, there are a few suggestions that I should like to make to the hon. the Minister. These are minor suggestions but they are all an indication of the fact that the pressure on S.A. Airways’ personnel is beginning to tell. I think the hon. the Minister is probably well aware of the dissatisfaction among many staff members, particularly cabin staff, in the employ of S.A. Airways.

I should like to deal with the subject of Airways catering. I understand, for example, that the meals to be provided on the direct flights from Cape Town to London and Frankfurt have to be prepared in the private diningroom in the restaurant at Cape Town station. I am told that these meals have to be rushed to D. F. Malan Airport early in the morning and sometimes by taxi. While these meals are being prepared, that diningroom is closed to the public. Surely there could be a better arrangement than this. I must admit, Sir, that I am one of those people who regret the fact that we no longer have the facilities at the airports, and specifically at D. F. Malan Airport, to have a cooked meal. In view of the whole situation at Cape Town station, I am not surprised that the hon. the Minister says that we are losing a fortune on catering services. We do not take advantage of opportunities to make profits. I am not talking about enormous profits. I am one of those who believe in the dictum that if one looks after the cents, the rands will look after themselves. The trouble with that hon. Minister is perhaps that he has no cents! [Interjections.]

In answer to a question by the then hon. member for Parktown, Dr. Zac de Beer, at the beginning of 1979 in regard to whether there was any intention on the part of the Railway Administration to open a bar on Cape Town station, the then hon. Minister of Transport replied that it was anticipated that such a bar would be opened in or around May of 1979. The people of Cape Town are still waiting for that bar. This is the sort of opportunity to make a profit that I would have thought could well have been utilized.

Is there no bar on Cape Town station at the moment?

There is a milk bar. Perhaps now that the hon. the Minister is no longer in the dairy business he may be prepared to forgo that milk bar so that the poor commuters who are faced with increased train fares and with the daily hassle of combatting inflation will be able to revive their spirits with something a little stronger.

They can buy a cheap champagne.

I want now to discuss a matter of considerable importance, and that is the question of facilities for Black people at Johannesburg station. I am not referring here specifically to Black train commuters but to the Black people who make use of road transport services. The hon. the Minister has probably been to Johannesburg station. I hope that he has and has seen that eyesore of a scaffolding shed covered with tarpaulins that leak very badly in the wet weather and that are designed to protect the thousands of road transport service passengers who have to wait there specifically over Christmas. It is a dreadful thing that people should have to endure such conditions while that huge morgue of the White concourse with very few people has far fewer leaks. I believe that the general facilities for Black passengers on Johannesburg station and on other stations are inadequate. This is the position in many centres and not only at stations. I am also referring to the amount and type of rolling stock made available for these people. We have had terrible situations on many lines where first-class coaches made available for Blacks during the morning rush were totally inadequate.

We have had occasions when these people spilled over into half or three-quarter empty White carriages, and there were nasty racial incidents, horrible incidents. There was the very unpleasant incident of one David Mka-tele who worked in Krugersdorp and presumably was pushed out of a train. He subsequently died, a victim of a sort of petty apartheid. This is inexcusable.

I said last week when we discussed the additional appropriation of the Railways that I hoped that we would start moving away from separation on transport services, that we were going to do away with apartheid on the Railways. I believe that we now have to start moving in that direction. No longer should we have separate entrances. I know the attitudes of that side of the House. I know that hon. members on that side feel that we are creating flash-points, points where there will be racial friction, but look at Cape Town’s buses and buses in many other parts of South Africa where there has not been friction.

I travel on the train many mornings to work here and I should be quite happy to have Black people in the same coach. I wonder when the hon. the Minister last commuted by train. Wherever he goes, he is surrounded by a bevy of officials who are seeing that everything runs smoothly. I do it as a normal commuter . . .

He probably comes in on his motor-bike.

Yes, he probably rides his motor-bike.

I do believe it is time that the Railways pay more attention to the provision of facilities for Black people. Another complaint which comes to me from time to time is that on the train which leaves Johannesburg, goes off to Nelspruit, Hoedspruit, Tzaneen, Pietersburg and back to Johannesburg there are no catering facilities for Black people. Surely it would be possible to look at the provision of some sort of catering facility, even trollies that can patrol up and down the corridors of those trains so that those people can have the opportunity of having something to eat and something to drink.

I am a little horrified at a rumour which came to me about an idea—I do not know whether there is any substance in it—that in regard to Black commuters into the city of Johannesburg thought were being given to the provision of a major station at Booysens, which, as the hon. the Minister knows, is a long way from the centre of town. I would have thought that this was not a very good idea indeed. There are possibilities which may be slightly more expensive, but there is not a bit of good in providing a station which is going to take a vast number of commuters to an area from where they will then have to either walk enormous distances or travel by bus or some other form of transport to their place of work. I should like to say that, like the Durban situation where that already exists in that they have to walk miles and miles before they get to their place of work, some further thought should be given to this matter. I must say that I have only heard about this Booysens idea on the grape-vine. Something that can be taken into consideration is the possible provision of a station, for example opposite Labour House in Bree Street. There is a large area of Railway property there that could perhaps well be the answer to the problem.

Proceeding from the situation of Black passengers, perhaps I may just ask the hon. the Minister a couple of questions on the subject of Bapsfontein. In the additional appropriation we discussed the other day a large sum of money for electrification at Bapsfontein. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister just how that Bapsfontein project is proceeding; how soon it is hope to have it operating, and whether costs envisaged in the final instance are likely to be as estimated at the start of the project or by how much it has escalated.

A further matter concerns freight operations by the S.A. Airways. I do not think anybody in his right mind can possibly suggest that things have gone well, specifically with regard to the transportation of perishables. I heard a horrifying story that in December 600 tons of export grapes went rotten at D.F. Malan Airport because S.A. Airways was not able to carry the consignment. I am well aware of the fact that December is a very crucial month, because the Christmas trade involves the shipment by air of a considerable number of perishable items. I am told that on this occasion the pool partners of S.A. Airways were available to transport that 600 tons. Yet the S.A. Airways, in a dog-in-the-manger manner, refused to allow them to do this. I have this from one of the pool partners who was infuriated by this, and if this is the way they are building up good relationships, with our pool partners in the first instance, I think that we should think again.

I think I am right in saying that our 707s have largely been sold off except the one that is used on the East London to Europe route for the transportation of pineapples, but the whole question of the transportation of perishable and other freight needs looking into, because I believe that the S.A. Airways need a bit of competition.

From the lips of the hon. the Prime Minister himself we have heard over a period how that side of the House is wedded to the principle of private enterprise; yet they run one of the closest close-shop operations that one would find in a socialist State. Why can we not start allowing a little competition for the S.A. Airways as far as freight is concerned? I know that there are difficulties about the north-south leg as opposed to the south-north leg, but private operators to whom I have spoken are all convinced that they will have no problem with covering the costs from Europe to Central or Southern Africa, if only they could be given the opportunity to tender for business leaving South Africa and going northwards. I believe that there is room for free competition in other Airways operations.

I note with some horror the increase in airfares to follow upon this budget. What interested me when I was in Britain was the cost of international airfares from Britain to countries other than South Africa and Australia. When I was there it was possible to fly to New York for £80. It was possible to fly to Los Angeles, possibly not in the same sort of comfort that one gets on S.A. Airways—I must admit that the comfort one enjoys in the first class on S.A. Airways must be among the best in the world . . .

What about a Government subsidy?

Does Sir Freddy Laker get a subsidy? He gets no subsidy and yet he can compete and offer fares at that level. Perhaps the hon. the Minister himself or one of his minions should go over and look at the operations of Freddy Laker and perhaps then we might get international airfares down to a more reasonable price, because I can tell the hon. the Minister that he is in fact doing tremendous damage to the tourist industry of South Africa at the present time. If people could come to South Africa at a reasonable cost we would have many more tourists that we have at the present time. Somebody in Britain who at the moment wants to go on a holiday is not going to come to South Africa, unless he has more money than is good for him. He is going to go to Hong Kong, because when I was in Britain the airfare to Hong Kong was only £120.

British Airways can bring people here . . .

British Airways are restricted by Iata when they come to South Africa. Does the hon. the Minister believe that we should continue our association with Iata? Does he not feel that perhaps we should allow a little competition and see whether somebody else could do it as well or better or cheaper than the S.A. Airways? Or are we going to cling to this socialistic attitude which is the very antithesis of free enterprise, and say: “No, we in the State-controlled airlines are always right and everybody else is always wrong”? I would therefore again suggest to the hon. the Minister to have a chat to the hon. the Minister of Tourism, who, I believe, would support our viewpoint. One of the things that this hon. Minister has to realize is that as Minister of Transport Affairs he has to look after all of the transport requirements of South Africa, and as such also transport for the tourist trade. He must not restrict himself to ensuring that the S.A. Railways makes a profit, because that is not the be-all and the end-all. South African Ministers of Transport are inclined to get a lot of kudos if they can make the Railways run at a profit, but that is not the total story. The interests of South Africa should be paramount, and the hon. the Minister must apply his mind, not only to the profitability of the Railways Administration or Airways, but also to the needs of the country, i.e. the needs of the tourist industry, the needs of the agricultural industry, etc.

I believe that there is also a good deal of room for competition in road transport. When it comes to permanent way routes I can understand that competition could, in fact, turn profitable routes into unprofitable routes and that if the Government is expected to provide the sort of infrastructure that is necessary to open up the country, there might be justification for certain protective tariffs for the permanent way routes. What, however, about the routes that are not permanent way routes? I see that we are again extending our road transportation operations, and I would say that this is something that could well be handled by private enterprise. Why not? Whenever private enterprise operators make applications for routes, they are opposed by the S.A. Railways which continues to have this dog-in-the-manger attitude.

This brings me to the final point I want to make. It has to do with a question I asked in this House a few days ago about the breakwater hostel for dock labourers in Cape Town. This hostel was originally a prison. I would very much like to have a look at that hostel myself, but I am told that conditions there are disgraceful. I am told that they are very unpleasant indeed. The prison was built more than a 100 years ago—or at any rate a very long time ago indeed—and I believe that the circumstances in which those labourers live are disgraceful. I believe that some consideration must be given to improving the facilities at that breakwater hostel.

On the whole question of single staff accommodation, of course, we are in a difficult position in Cape Town, since it is a Coloured preference area and Black people are discouraged from coming here. This means that no family accommodation is provided, but in other parts of the country, what about the house-ownership scheme for Blacks? At the time of the General Manager’s report, which was the end of March 1980, the house-ownership scheme only applied in the case of four Black people. I should like to hear how the hon. the Minister envisages this scheme being made available to many more Blacks. As we know from the additional appropriation, a considerable amount of money is going to be spent in the near future on the house-ownership scheme. I believe that this scheme should be considered on a non-racial basis, that all employees should be under consideration and that no preference should be given to any race group. So I should certainly like an answer from the hon. the Minister on that.

I was disappointed to hear, in his budget speech, his comments on Black pensioners. Firstly, the 10% plus the normal 2% given to the pensioners was, I think, mean. I feel that in this terrible inflationary situation, when pensioners have to pay so much more for food, which is the basic commodity they have to spend their money on, it is pretty awful to give pensioners only 12%. I want to ask the hon. the Minister—perhaps he is unaware of it—to please look into the plight of the pre-1973 pensioners. Their plight is a terrible one. I really believe that if we had saved on a bit of capital expenditure and given more attention to looking after personnel who have spent a lifetime in the Railway’s service, we would have encouraged present staff to be that much more productive. In the case of Black pensioners the 12% is also inadequate—I think it was 12,2% for the Whites—because it does not close the wage gap, either percentage-wise or in real terms. We keep on hearing—we heard it again in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech today—that the wage gap is narrowing, whereas in real terms it is actually getting bigger and bigger every time there is a wage increase. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, therefore, please to look into those matters. Even though he might not agree with our disapproval of the budget in general terms, there are many Railways personnel and ex-Railways personnel who deserve looking after.

I regret to have to tell the hon. the Minister that we do not like his spendthrift budget. We are disappointed in the first budget he has submitted. We believe that this budget is going to have disastrous effects on the South African economy and that it is going to start the inflationary spiral all over again. I therefore request that the hon. the Minister goes back to the drawing-board and really gets down to examining the situation to see how he can make cuts, because unless he is going to use the blue pencil, South Africa is in for a very torrid time indeed.

Mr. Speaker, every year when the affairs of the Railways are discussed here in the House, one cannot but be impressed yet again by the magnitude of this organization and the influence that it exerts upon the lives of individuals and upon all sectors of the community, as well as the skill, the insight, the scientific spirit and the responsibility with which the Management approaches problems in their organization. During the course of my speech I shall have more to say about this.

Before I come to that, I must say that I find it a pity that we were faced today with the fact that in the hypothetical statements that he made, the chief spokesman of the Opposition was very shortsighted, that his arguments were very illogical and that the comparison that he drew, was very unfair.

The first example of this is that the hon. member made a great deal of fuss about the fact that it is sound policy in a private company when one does not have capital for expansion, to manage without it. I concede this, but the hon. member drew an unfair comparison between a private company and a semi-Government enterprise whose terms of reference are contained in the constitution of South Africa, viz. to deal with transport in this country as economically as possible and in the best interests of the country. Sir, the owner of a fish and chips shop thinks only of himself and of his balance at the end of the year, and it is unfair to compare an enterprise of this kind to a national enterprise such as the Railways, which has to carry out its work in the national interest and is often forced to choose between evils for which it is not responsible itself. I should like to give an example. Reference was made here to the South African Airways in a flippant, superficial fashion. Sir, the problem with which the S.A. Airways is faced is that whilst fairly recently fuel amounted to 12½% as a cost item on its cost statement, today it already amounts to 33 1/3%. Is this due to poor management, poor planning and inefficiency? No. It is due to factors completely beyond the control of the Airways. Ten years ago the price of a Boeing 747 was one-third of the current price. Does this have anything to do with insight or planning on the part of the management? Not at all. As far as costs are concerned, the S.A. Airways is forced to spend more than 40% abroad, where a two-figure inflation rate has already been prevailing for many years. After all, the Airways itself cannot do anything about this. It flies around the bulge of Africa and therefore has to cover a greater distance, whilst at the same time it has to compete with other airlines. At the same time, fuel in its fatherland is the most expensive in the world. Then the hon. the Minister is asked in a sanctimonious way to make a plan to decrease the rates so that we can attract more tourists. I consider this unfair and unjustified. Since the premise, the hypothesis is false, the conclusion is absurd and incorrect.

That is correct.

There was talk of “tremors” but the only tremors that I am aware of, are the outcome of the coming election.

There is also the illogical aspect that, whilst salary increases are being requested for the officials in a sanctimonious way, those officials are the very people who allegedly cannot take the disciplinary financial measures and who are too incompetent, too stupid or too dumb to do so. On the one hand they are being accused of not doing their duty with regard to policy, and on the other hand it is being requested that their salaries and pensions should be increased. No matter how good the argument may be and how much we sympathize with it—we know that our people are struggling and we should like to help them—we cannot do so according to the moral standards that the party opposite held up as an example to the House.

It was said that we should not put profits first and at the same time that we should not increase rates. What happens then to the Rates Equalization Fund and the accepted, well-known policy of the House and the department in this regard? The Railways must feed the Rates Equalization Fund with the profits that it makes in order to compensate for the lean years. We must not be geared to profits alone, but we may not increase rates either. Surely it is illogical, stupid and short-sighted to use this with a view to the election campaign.

It has been said that the businessman in our country has reached breaking point today and can no longer make a living as a result of the high rail costs. If one looks at the latest figures with regard to working results on the basis of the transport services of the Railways, one sees a completely different picture. The businessmen have made excellent use of the efficient service of the Railways and they have not been deterred. Their turnover and profits prove this. Once again, the hon. member for Orange Grove adopted a far-fetched, illogical standpoint in this regard. Sir, I hear tremors too, but they are not going to affect the Minister or the Railway staff, but only a small Opposition party in the House.

Mention was also made of the R57 million that is going to be spent on a computer building near the Paul Kruger Building in Johannesburg. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he considers this undisciplined capital expenditure against the background of the saving of manpower that it brings about and against the background of safety. R57 million is being invested in the interest of the safety of a few thousand million passengers who travel in our country on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. When we take that into consideration, the hon. member’s argument is reduced to a nonsensical one. He had not yet finished thinking when he made that statement.

He cannot think, after all.

I think so too. It seems as if he has been having problems recently. I do not know him like this. After all, he cannot make such a statement against that background, or does he not know what it is all about? During a recent visit to the computer installation, I took the trouble to ask the General Manager about this matter and he assured me that he has gone into the cost structure of the entire venture and that against the background of safety, control, etc., he has discovered that it is more than justified. What then was the hon. member talking about?

In the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation that was before the House last week, hon. members were given an impression of the phenomenal capital expenditure of the Railways. No matter how one looks at this figure, one thing is as plain as a pikestaff: This type of capital expenditure definitely exerts the greatest influence out of all factors upon our national economy, except the national appropriation itself. Sir, more discipline with regard to capital expenditure was mentioned here, particularly in inflationary times like the present. Last year mention was also made in this House by the hon. member for Orange Grove and others of the capital requested for Richard’s Bay. Explanations were requested regarding the extent to which this project had already been put into operation and it was said that it appeared to be a luxurious, unnecessary, undisciplined utilization of capital. Sir, here we once again have the example of where the S.A. Railways, if they had had a choice and if it had been their own business enterprise, may have been able to afford to say: “No, not now: Perhaps a little later.” But, Sir, it is a national task that they were carrying out in the national interest and which was commenced in a period of economic recession. They were prepared to take the risk, to have the faith and to act in the national interest. What is the net result of this? I am simply taking Richard’s Bay as an example.

†The total foreign exchange earned during the period amounted to more than R2 000 million, of which coal alone earned R1 000 million.

*In this case the earnings in foreign exchange were not in the interest of the Railways, but they were in the interest of our fatherland, and this is where the difference lies between this enterprise and a private enterprise. Their charter is enshrined in the constitution of South Africa. The same also applies to the Saldanha Bay-Sishen project where the earnings in foreign exchange are R680 million, a long term enterprise that was also begun in a period of economic recession. After all, we cannot bind them to a fortnightly framing of policy, change of management and seasonal advertisements for marketing, since we are dealing here with a national institution. This institution has to serve its country and must take precautionary measures in its lean years to carry it through until the years of prosperity. This is what I find admirable in this organization, viz. the neatness and, in human terms, the accuracy with which they solve situations like this one and the way that they approach them on the long term. They do so consistently, every day of their existence, and not only when they are in a fix and experience problems, but for ten, twelve and fifteen years. Increased production, savings in labour, greater efficiency and servicability linked to the trends of national growth and national development. This requires men who know what they are doing, who make a study of their subject and on the basis of their faith, have enough perseverance to serve this country to the best of their abilities at all times. Some of them have erected monuments along the way, and I want to refer to a few monuments. Speaking of increased production: The question was asked why greater efficiency cannot replace rate increases. I have already pointed out that domestic efficiency is not an adequate compensation for inflation, costs and unfair competition abroad. As far as this is concerned, I take my hat off to what they are doing within the bounds of their ability, room for manoeuvre and sphere of influence. Ten years ago the biggest train that was run by the S.A. Railways, consisted of 39 trucks, one guard’s van and one steam engine, and it was a mere 600 metres in length. This was just the other day, ten years ago. That train carried a gross weight of 2 300 tons and a pay-load of 1 500 tons. Today a Sishen-Saldanha train carries a pay-load of 18 800 tons—18 800 tons in comparison with 1 500 tons ten years ago! And the hon. member for Orange Grove wants to talk about inefficiency, incompetent control and incompetent management! Tell that to people who do not know anything, but do not say it here.

Even more progress has been made with the braking systems of our heavy trains. Since trains were limited to 40 trucks with the traditional vacuum brake system, a selective study was made of the braking system and today, with the air brake system, we have trains of between 50 and 230 trucks in length, 2,5 km long and carrying the loads to which I referred. This is efficiency; this is a scientific approach and it is long-term insight and complying with an obligation in terms of a national directive. Whereas this train is run by one group of Railways staff, approximately eight separate trains would have been running, each one with a group of Railways staff, with the vacuum brake system. This means a saving of staff, increased load, increased production and a greater degree of safety.

Speaking of sheep wagons, these are not imported; they were developed here: A three deck wagon that can carry 360 sheep today in comparison with 120 sheep in the past. Then there is also the BAD type wagons that can carry a heavier load. All these things point to continuous, dedicated attempts towards increasing production, efficiency and stimulating the growth of this country, and the promotion of existing infrastructures by nourishing them, not undermining them, causing them to decline or to come to an end, but strengthening them. This is what the S.A. Railways is doing. They have been given this vocation by the constitution and they are obliged to show an interest in these things.

For its electrification programme, the Railways is dependent upon the use of its own energy instead of imported, expensive energy. At the moment, they are following a policy of using indigenous energy resources by means of an accelerated electrification programme according to which approximately 80% of the total gross tons per kilometre that will have to be transported by the middle of the ’eighties will be a fait accompli in South Africa. The hon. member talks about saving. Here are examples, without announcing them specifically, of men who took the lead in their own sphere in the required direction—Monuments! Not one of the hon. members in the benches opposite and very few of us in these benches could furnish guidance in this regard. This is initiative that must be taken by experts and was in fact taken. That is why I am the first one to raise my hat and say “Bravo. Honour is your due, thank you very much for it and keep up the good work.”

That controlling arm to which the hon. member for Orange Grove objected so much, is the computer system. Information on more than 3 000 individual train movements, 5 500 locomotive movements and 100 000 wagon movements are fed into the railway computer every day. Today the businessman can ascertain telephonically how far a wagon is from its destination, whether it has departed and when it is expected at its destination. Therefore, he can work out his own programme accordingly. This is the quality, the activity and the momentum of this institution that we want to dismiss here as inefficient in such a superficial, casual way, that we want to brand as an organization of people who do not know when to do what. Similarly, the management is put in a position to exercise efficient control over an organization of the vastness of the S.A. Railways Administration, so that with a minimum of capital investment, a maximum, positive and productive utilization can be ensured. We could continue in this way.

With regard to the S.A. Airways, I have already given some information with regard to the problems there. However, it is also necessary to quote a few other examples of cases in which these people display original initiative in order to improve costs, fuel consumption, safety, etc., in the S.A. Airways. I have already pointed out that the price of fuel amounted to a mere 12% of the expenditure of the S.A. Airways in the years 1972 and 1973—that is to say before the oil crisis. Today that expenditure amounts to much more than 33%. I also pointed out the problems with regard to inflation abroad and the expenditure on work and capital costs that take place chiefly in countries abroad. In an attempt to combat these costs, one of the most efficient weapons at our disposal is the increased productivity of the labour force, particularly in the sphere of aircraft equipment. In this regard a great deal has already been done in the past, and in our planning for the future it remains one of our highest priorities too.

I should like to bring the following aspects to the attention of the House. At the moment the possibility of equipping the B747 Boeings in the S.A. Airways with 10 seats adjacent to one another, instead of the present nine seats, is being investigated. The decrease in unit costs—this is what the hon. member for Orange Grove is asking for— which will be brought about in this way, is considerable. Two new Boeing 747 Combi aircraft which were put into operation in December 1980, enable the S.A. Airways to undertake all its international flights with wide-bodied aircraft, which means that the uneconomical Boeing 707 services could be replaced. The new Boeing 747 Combi aircraft offers greater flexibility and is ideal in situations in which neither the freight nor the passengers justify a separate service. The new aircraft are also equipped with improved JT9D7Q engines. Apart from the advantage of higher pay-loads across greater distances, these engines also provide a saving in fuel in comparison with the present ordinary engines. The existing fleet of Boeing 747 aircraft will also be equipped with these improved engines in due course.

It is interesting to note that, as far as fuel alone is concerned, the new Boeing 737 aircraft saves approximately R12,5 million during its first full year of use. Initiative, no directive, continual interest in the problematics of their job and in the national problems, compels these officials and their hon. Minister to do things like these, things that we cannot allow to pass without remark, and for which we must thank them. During the past decade the passenger transport services of the S.A. Airways has increased from 1,3 million to 3,8 million with regard to the number of passengers that were transported. This is an increase of 192,3%. It is a problem in itself to make the necessary modifications with such an amount of growth without over-expenditure of capital and without a consequential drop in efficiency.

Why then the increase in tariffs?

Mr. Speaker, must I give the hon. member for Amanzimtoti kindergarten lessons? I have already told him which problems the S.A. Airways has. For instance, a Boeing 747 aircraft costs three times as much as it did before. The S.A. Airways must spend 40% of the costs of international flights to countries with two-figure rates of inflation abroad. Does the hon. member understand it now? [Interjections.] I want to conclude by telling the Minister concerned and this House that we on this side of the House and the people outside take note year after year with a great deal of pride and enthusiasm of the achievements of this tremendous enterprise in the service of our fatherland. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are proud of him and the department and we want to hope and trust that as far as the future is concerned, it will be as memorable to experience and discuss these achievements as it has been my privilege to do over the past 10 years in this House. Oh goodness, Sir! I am looking forward to the years ahead. There always used to be one Schoeman only and now there are two. We will keep these wheels rolling and by the following election we will have hon. members opposite on the run! Very few of them will remain. I extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. the Minister on his appointment and we extend a very hearty welcome to him. We say again: “Thank you very much for your contribution and that of your staff in making this interesting debate possible for us.”

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the hon. member for Witwatersberg appears to have missed the whole point of this debate here today.

That is not unusual.

All he did was to tell us about technological developments in the Railways, Harbours and Airways. He avoided debating whether or not this budget is in the best interests of South Africa.

The hon. member did say that an objective of the Railway Administration is to provide the most economic transport in the best interests of the country. This is the question I believe we must exercise our minds on; does this budget provide the most economic transport in the best interests of the country? [Interjections.] I am prepared to say, Sir, that this budget clearly indicates that this Government is in serious trouble with the economy. I repeat that this budget clearly indicates that this Government is in trouble with the economy. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: Just wait until this time next year and see what happens. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his plan to reduce capital expenditure on the Railways. Does he plan to do this throughout the whole of the transport organization in South Africa? Is the Government afraid that too much money is floating around and that too much money is being spent today and that it is overheating the economy? Do they realize that we are heading for an inflation rate of between 20% and 22% next year? I ask these questions because I have just received a telex message from Natal and I understand from this that this hon. Minister has cancelled a number of road building projects in Natal. One of these is a major project of which this hon. the Minister is aware. I refer to the building of a bridge across the Umkomaas River. This project has now been delayed by at least one year and the question that I believe we have all to ask ourselves, including the hon. member for Witwatersberg, is why the hon. the Minister has done this?

What road is the hon. member referring to?

The N2, the national road. Why has there suddenly been a slowing down of road building activity on instructions from this Government?

Because it is in Natal.

This is despite the fact that there is an election just around the corner. This merely serves to indicate to me how serious the position is at the present moment in regard to the economy.

I want to put this question to the hon. member for Witwatersberg: Does he honestly believe that this budget is a success?

Of course!

Surely, Sir, if one manages a business, one of the first priorities in order to make a success of that business is to so create a situation which so motivates one’s employees that they begin to identify their future and their objectives in life with those of the company or business they work for. That is the first principle I ever learned in regard to business management. The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister is: Does this budget motivate the employees of the Railway Administration to see their future with the Railways?

Definitely!

The hon. the Minister says “definitely”. Yet, we know, Sir, what has happened in the Public Service and of the number of teachers, policemen, nurses etc. who have left the service. We know that that has also happened in the Railways because in the General Manager’s report mention is made of a shortage of staff. It is also stated that the Railways cannot find staff to enable it to operate as effectively as it would like to, and now we hear from the Minister of salary increases of about 12% . . .

12,5%.

Right, 12,5%, but inflation last year ran at 15,8%.

But there is also job evaluation.

Sir, the hon. the Minister talks about job evaluation and all that kind of thing . . .

But it puts money into the pocket of the Railway worker.

Let us take job evaluation . . .

Job evaluation will put more than R100 million extra into the pockets of the Railway workers.

The fact is that while the average increase in salaries is 12,5%, the average amount of money which the Railway employees have to pay for their food and other goods has increased by 15,8%. To me that is an indication of the Government’s approach. I have here information concerning a Railway employee in Durban, a greaser on a harbour tug, who last year was led to believe that he was going to get a substantial increase. If the hon. the Minister promises that he will go into the matter, I shall let him have the information. In any case, this employee was promised last year that he was to get a substantial increase, but his net increase in salary turned out to be only R1,25 per month. How can any worker relate his future with that of the Administration under these circumstances? So, Mr. Speaker, I believe this budget is a failure, a total, utter failure.

The hon. the Minister is now in a new portfolio, having been Minister of Agriculture for many years and he is known to be a successful farmer. I hope the hon. the Minister will not mind my saying this but I was very interested to see the hon. the Minister on television a few months ago telling the whole of South Africa that he was getting out of dairy farming and into beef farming because money could not be made in the dairy industry.

Not as much as with beef.

Oh, not as much as with beef? [Interjections.] That is interesting. The point I want to make, however, is that the hon. the Minister decided to get out of something that was not giving him a decent return and get into something that would give him a decent return in these times of high inflation.

The hon. the Minister is now managing South Africa’s largest single enterprise with a staff of 266 703 men and women and a budgeted—I now have to quote from the annual report for the 1979-’80 financial year which is the only information other than the hon. the Minister’s speech that I have had to enable me to prepare myself for this debate —revenue of R3,696 billion and expenditure of R3,6 billion. I hope that the hon. the Minister realizes the magnitude of the weapon which he now possesses, a weapon which he can use either to fight inflation in South Africa or to propagate inflation.

Tariff increases affect the entire economy. The hon. the Minister is a practical man of the soil and this makes him a realistic man, so I should like to put this question to him: Does he think that our society or our economy can sustain an inflation rate of 10% per annum? Can it sustain an inflation rate of 20% which I say is going to occur this year? I put these questions to the hon. the Minister, because I sincerely hope that as a result of this debate he is going to exercise his mind on some of the fundamental principles involved in rates of growth. I have a nice little story which, being a farmer, I know he will find interesting. I do not know whether he plays chess but the story is about the man who invented chess who was a mathematician who supposedly worked for a king. The king was so pleased about this game of chess that he said he wanted to reward the mathematician, whereupon the mathematician said: “You can pay me in wheat and what I want from you is one grain on the first square of a chess board, two grains on the second, four on the third, and doubling up in this manner until it reaches the 64th square.” Now I put it to the hon. the Minister: How many tons of wheat does he think would result with that progression of exponential growth? I am sure the hon. the Minister would like to know. It is five hundred times the world’s annual harvest! It gives one food for thought, so I repeat my question to the hon. the Minister.

Then you should farm on a chess board.

Can South Africa sustain an inflation rate of 10% per annum? If the answer is yes, when I ask, what will a rand be worth in three years’ time? Does the hon. the Minister know? My little pocket calculator says it will be worth 61,4 cents. In five years’ time it will be worth 44,4 cents. In 10 years’ our present rand will be worth 19,7 cents. As the hon. the Minister has gone over to beef production, I ask him what does he think the R5 steak that one gets at the local steakhouse today will cost in three years’ time at this rate of inflation? The figure is R7,60; in five years’ time it will cost R10,06 and in 10 years’ time R20,23. Perhaps that is the reason why the hon. the Minister has gone over to beef production.

The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister is, how much longer can we sustain the present inflation rate? On Friday I had to catch a bus from the city terminal in Cape Town to the airport. The driver was very upset that he had to take R3 from me because the fare had just been increased by R1. I asked him why the increase and his reply was: “Everything goes up.” I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware that the busfare to the airport has gone up by 50% and I would like to ask him whether this increase is justified? I would also like to know who approved it, and whether this contract went out to tender? Or is it a nice little monopoly that someone has through the courtesy of the Administration? Is there any competition when it comes to transporting passengers from the terminal to the airport? I believe this is an interesting question. But when it comes to rising tariffs, we get the same reply from the hon. the Minister as we do from the busdriver. He says: “The price of fuel has gone up,” just as the hon. member for Witwatersberg said, the price of electricity has gone up.

Does the hon. member know that private enterprise is now responsible for transport to the airport?

I know that, but I asked the hon. the Minister whether that contract went out to tender when the fare was under review. That is the question and that is the hon. the Minister’s responsibility. The reality of the present inflationary situation is serious, and I am trying to indicate to the hon. the Minister that it cannot go on forever. People say everything is going up but according to the old saying, what goes up must come down.

Except Sputnik.

Except Sputnik.

What I am saying to the hon. the Minister is that if this inflation continues, a crash has to come sooner or later. Is this perhaps the reason why the Government is calling the election at the present time, because it is worried about the economy? I do not have to go into great detail to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what is happening in Britain today. This is a country where everything the government wanted, the government had, and everything that the people wanted, the government gave them. But what is happening today? The greatest number of bankruptcies in virtually the industrial history of Britain are occurring right now and 2,4 million people are unemployed. There are people walking the streets in Scotland in protest and it is predicted that the unemployment figure will reach three million by the end of this year. And what about the USA today, a country that has been wheeling and dealing with expansion and big projects since the 1960s? Twenty years’ ago, in 1960, the Federal Government’s payroll was $13 billion. Today it is $75 billion. The population increase has been 23,3%, but the federal budget has gone up 528%. Prior to World War II Federal, State and local taxes were paid in just over one month’s pay for the average worker. Today that worker has to work for five months to pay those taxes. The national debt in 1960 was $284 billion. In 1980 it was $934 billion and it is predicted that this year it will exceed the $1 trillion mark. In other words, the United States is going bankrupt. That is more or less what President Reagan said on TV when he appeared before the nation just the other day. I want therefore to ask this hon. Minister what he is doing in his budget, here in South Africa, to fight inflation, an operating budget close to R4 billion, and a capital budget of R1,5 billion per year? I have been taking part in these debates now for seven years and all I can say is that the graphs in this report are beginning to look like the graphs the National Growth Fund used to use in its advertising campaigns in 1969-’70 showing exponential growth. We all know of the consequent collapse and I therefore warn the hon. the Minister to take heed of what I am saying.

The annual report is a well produced report. There is a great deal of very interesting information, statistics and photographs. There are, however, also some very worrying aspects in the report. On page 25, for example, there is a graph—I shall hold it up for the hon. the Minister to see—that illustrates expenditure and revenue growth in the Railways. The hon. the Minister has the report and will be able to read it. It shows that during the year covered by the report revenue went up 16,2%, whilst expenditure went up 19,7%. That is nearly 20% per annum. What, however, about productivity? In the same report, on page 7, there is a graph projecting productivity improvement—the average over the past nine years, being 3,2% per annum. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that this productivity rate increase is good enough to match the figures in the other graphs, e.g. those of expenditure and revenue? The Railways, we must realize, is not like the hon. the Minister’s farm. If he is not making enough profit he cannot simply sell it or get out of transport and go into fishing. He cannot do that. He has to keep the concern going. So, what happens in practice is that Parliament merely approves tariff increases. This is what happens in the case of governments and government institutions. When they cannot pay their way, the people have to pay, either through increased taxes or tariffs or inflation. So just how effective has the productivity campaign in the Railways been? How does it compare with the cost of expensive capital projects over the past seven years. There is, for example, containerization which costs hundreds of millions of rand and which, it was said, would result in great improvements in efficiency. There was also computerization which today is going to cost a further R55 million for an air-conditioned building to house one of the computers in Johannesburg. There is also the mechanization projects, and the training and education programmes that we hear about in every report. We also hear so much about management reorganization in the interest of more efficiency. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister that billions of rands have been spent since I came to Parliament seven years ago. Last week we had yet another request from the hon. the Minister in the Additional Estimates Browne Book for a further R2 billion odd for future capital expenditure. So I ask the Minister whether this can go on indefinitely? The hon. member for Witwatersberg waxed eloquent about the growth of the Railways and the great technical improvements that have been brought about.

Of course!

I do not deny that there has been some wonderful projects, but I want to put a request to the hon. the Minister namely, that the theme of next year’s annual report be changed to that of, “the inflation fighters report”. Let us see graphs showing a breakdown of the various cost centres of all the operations, breaking them down into fixed costs i.e. overhead costs, such as capital and administrative costs, and operating costs, such as labour, materials, supplies, fuel, etc., so that all these costs are shown per unit of production, or per unit of effort, such as cost per ton-km or per passenger-km. Let us see, superimposed on this, graphs showing the growth in the consumer price index and the wholesale price index over, let us say, the past five or ten years. Then I believe we will see just how well the Railways is fighting, or aiding inflation. Capital costs should be broken down into depreciation, interest, etc. It will be interesting to see how much real progress has been made. I know the Railways Administration has some very talented economists, industrial engineers and cost accountants on its staff and I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister: Let us, in these times of high inflation, turn our minds away from the idea of expanding the Railways into the greatest railway system in the world and rather let us talk more about profitability and the provision of economic transport. Let us see whether the Railways can make a profit in a boom period such as we are presently experiencing, a profit that is comparable to what people are achieving in the private sector. The objective that I am asking the hon. the Minister to strive after is that he should manage and plan the S.A. Railways in such a way that in a few years’ time it will be possible to absorb rising costs so that there will not be a need for such high tariff increases. This should be the objective of the hon. the Minister and of the Administration. I sincerely hope that we will see a future annual report showing just how efficient and economical the Administration’s operations have been, comparable to some company reports we see from time to time. Only then will I be satisfied that the Railways Administration is really trying to beat inflation.

Sir, as members of the Opposition, we have only limited information; we have only the Annual Reports and, of course, statements such as that of a bus-driver that it is costing 50% more to travel to the airport. However, I am concerned about some of the hidden stories that I find in this limited report, for instance, on page 27, Chapter 4 under “Operating”, the heading “Passenger Traffic”. Sir, the information under this heading refers to the previous year, not the current year, and from what we have heard from the hon. the Minister, passenger traffic has improved even more, which I believe, adds to the validity of the argument I am now going to put to the Minister. Passenger traffic increased by only 11,17% while revenue increased by 15,85%. To my mind that indicates inflation because the tariffs have had to be increased. On page 30 one finds that the total quantity of goods transported increased by 12,47%. The quantity of revenue-earning goods transported increased by 15% while the quantity of non revenue-earning goods transported declined by 7,4%. This is good. Further on in the report we see that the average length of haul increased by 1,7%, wagon-loadings increased by 4,21% and the turn-around time of wagons improved by 4,2%. Being an engineer, these things mean something to me; they mean more work, more production, greater through-put. The report shows that ton-km. increased, passenger traffic increased, and turn-around time improved. Therefore, to my mind these things should indicate more efficient utilization of plant and greater profitability. Further, on page 33 of the report it is stated that the usage of tarpaulins decreased and to my mind this means that more containers are being used.

These are all indication of increases in through-put and productivity. Yet the Railways had a deficit of R28 million. The previous year there was a surplus of R45 million. The question is: Why the dramatic change in profitability for the worse? That is the question I want to put to the hon. the Minister and to hon. members on the other side of the House. This past year the Railways has experienced the benefit of a boom. Traffic is up; productivity is up. In the private sector we see, as a result of the boom, companies making bumper profits, profits up by 100% to 150%, but the Railways is running at an increasing loss. The hon. the Minister, as an efficient farmer who is prepared to move out of dairy farming into beef farming because it pays more, must I believe, put these questions to the Railways Administration.

I should like now to turn to page 36 of the report where it deals with Road Transport Services. Here I think we have a very good indication of exactly what I am talking about. We find that revenue was up by 6,6%. The operating results nevertheless reflected a deficit of something like R10 million, as against R4 million surplus for the previous year. Further down the page one reads that the number of passengers transported went up by 23,78%. In the case of third class passengers there was an increase of 32,23%. Goods and parcels were up by 1,11% and livestock by 43%, while in the case of milk and cream there was a decrease of 2,42%, perhaps Mr. Speaker, because dairy farmers were getting out of the game. The Railways show a deficit here of R10 million while there was a considerable surplus of R4 million in the previous year. This, Sir, at a time when the Railways has never before worked so hard. The question again is: Why?

I am quite sure that if the hon. the Minister studies the report he will see why. Capital costs went up. Maybe the fleet is too big. Maybe Road Transport Services are over-capitalized. This is, I believe, shown on the next page under Cartage Services. Here again we see that, while production was up, the deficit increased from R85 000 in the previous year to R4,97 million in the year reviewed in the report. What happened? The answer one does find in the report is that there is more cartage plant on order. Let me quote from page 38 of the report—

The next heading deals with capital investment in cartage plant. The total capital investment was up 16,5%. Mr. Speaker, hon. members on that side of the House may go to City Deep and swell with pride as they look at that most magnificant containerization depot. But it is all costing money, and from the report it is not making any profit and that is why the tariffs have to go up. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, who is a practising farmer, whether he would run his farm this way. If he did, he would go bankrupt, or maybe he would go to a agricultural marketing board to have them try to bail him out. These, I believe, are the facts of the situation.

I could go on but I do not have the time. As my leader said during, I think, the budget debate with regard to the election: “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.” I want the hon. the Minister to look into the position.

At least you are making a very good contribution.

I thank the hon. the Minister. He has the power to find out the answers, power I do not have.

I want to refer to another small item. This concerns air hostesses. I have in my possession a letter which was sent to the Chief Executive of the S.A. Airways. It is dated 1980-2-11. Let me quote from it—

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is possible that these casual staff members are having nice holidays all around South Africa and all over the world at the expense of S.A. Airways? I notice from the report that the cost of accommodating air crews has gone up. Perhaps, the letter I have here indicates that something is wrong. I would like to tell the Minister that I am proud of the South African Airways. However, I was in both the New York and London offices of the S.A. Airways last year in the presence of an hon. member from that side who is no longer with us because he has retired and I am sorry to say that I was ashamed of the way the public were treated in those two offices.

By our people?

They were American and British citizens working for SAA and this happened in the S.A. Airways head office on Fifth Avenue in New York and in the office in Oxford Street in London. I believe we have to look to our laurels because we are not as good as we used to be and my colleague will speak on that a little later.

Why were you ashamed?

Because of the poor and indifferent service they were giving the public. They did not know at the time that I was a member of Parliament but I watched the proceedings. I would suggest that officials of the S.A. Airways go into the offices of American Airlines in the Rockefeller Centre in New York if they want to see how a customer is treated by a really efficient private airline. I agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove that it is about time that we had a little competition as far as airlines are concerned.

In conclusion, I believe that the S.A. Railways is a national institution. It serves South Africa well and its people are loyal. However, I do not believe that this Government is using it to the best advantage of South Africa. It has become a cause of inflation in South Africa. I do not believe that the S.A. Railways can be allowed to go bankrupt, so the people pay through the medium of inflation. Therefore, I feel that we need a new approach to this problem and that is the approach of my party. I believe that we have to become competitive in order to survive. My party stands for a transport industry which serves the wealth-producing sectors of the South African economy and it is therefore committed to keeping both passenger and goods transportation costs as low as possible. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to the speech of the previous hon. member I just want to tell the hon. the Minister and his department that the people of South Africa, and especially the Railway workers, have great appreciation for the manner in which the department and the hon. the Minister have attended to their problems. However, there is something I wish to ask the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House: It has come to my notice that a certain lady or ladies believe that if they are employed by the Railways as breadwinners, they are not entitled to a housing loan. I should like to have the reply of the hon. the Minister to that. Another question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is whether a female is entitled to the free pass facilities which an ordinary male worker would have, if she were divorced and had dependants in her care.

When we look at this budget and what has been done for the Railway worker, no one in this House will heed the pleas made for certain things by the Opposition, concerning which they do not have honest intentions, because they cannot indicate where the necessary money is to come from. Their story is just as futile as the story about the tramp who was taken by the scruff of his neck, put down in front of Barclays Bank, and told: “You ought to own this bank behind you.” These hon. members’ story is just as futile because they do not have any answers as to how one can get into the bank and what one must do to get the capital. An Opposition that acts so outrageously does not belong in this House, nor ought it to be part of the legislative process in this country. [Interjections.]

I should like to start with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He is a person who, with entire sincerity, tries to put things in a favourable light. However, he is capable of a sort of slashing viciousness, a sort of blanket pulling. I want the hon. member to listen and to show that respect. I say that because I notice that the hon. the Minister only has to turn round for it to be said that he should listen to the hon. member. However, when somebody else speaks, there is constant bickering and fidgeting. [Interjections.] I therefore expect the hon. member to listen to me. This hon. member is one who really tries to put matters into perspective. I put it to him that he really tries. I also believe that he has good points. He often raises good points, but his negative politics pulls his arguments out from under him. The greatest mischief, the greatest mistake these people make with regard to the public of South Africa, is to propagate this philosophy among the aged and other people that money is daily depreciating in value. Money is more expensive now than it was in 1937. People are at present paying 14% and 15% to borrow money. Is that cheap money? I predict that the S.A. Railways will still have to borrow money at 13%. Hon. members might think that I know nothing about money, but they can look up my record as regards what I said about gold, when everybody in the House laughed at me. Look at my philosophy about the history of money and then we can talk again. Money is going to get more expensive in view of these so-called inflation factors and it is going to mean more to the aged and others than hon. members think. We should not mislead people. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is a conservative sort of person who says things in a way which influences people because they believe him. They believe him, but I do not think he means it. He knows much more about America and Great Britain than he knows about the S.A. Railways. When we have to talk about inflationary factors, for example accountancy and costing, there is simply not enough time to say enough about it in 20 minutes. One first has to show up a few of the political statements made by hon. Opposition members.

You can have some of my time. Speak for longer.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti says that tariffs must not be increased, but where is the money to balance the Railway budget to come from if tariffs are not increased? How is a country to grow and how is a growth rate of 8% to be maintained with a deteriorating Railways infrastructure?

Bigger turnover.

The hon. member says “Bigger turnover”. But how do you create the bigger turnover if you do not have the transport?

By increasing productivity.

By increasing productivity! The hon. member merely wants to waste my time. I just want to say one thing to that hon. member.

You are very productive this afternoon.

I agree with the hon. member; I am very productive.

Lots of words.

Hon. members, including the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, have now on several occasions made personal attacks and asked: “Is the Minister going to go farming now?” or “Is meat going to . . .?” and I am now getting tired of it. I think there are a number of hon. members to whom I can put a few questions. However, I have the decency not to make this sort of personal attack. I could ask some hon. members: “Why have you quit the concrete business? Do you no longer believe in concrete mixers?” I do not think it is fitting for an hon. member of this House to make this kind of snide remark.

†There is something wrong in Belgium. I can tell you there is a helluva lot more wrong in Hong Kong.

Not Belgium, Denmark.

You cannot even get the country right. [Interjections.] It is the first right in Corlett Drive.

I want to ask this young man . . .

Not young man. “Honourable” young man.

Well, I shall call him “honourable” young man. I have to according to the rules. I want to ask the hon. member for Berea if he remembers the case of the pills.

The what?

The pills you sold.

I thought you said the till that you had your finger in.

Wait a minute. I want the hon. member to tell the House about that. Let us now come back to the budget.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order . . .

Order! The hon. member for Umhlanga must withdraw the words “the till you had your finger in”.

I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

Every Opposition party . . .

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Langlaagte made an allegation. Whether it was an inference or an allegation I should like to ask whether he is entitled to make it that in this House in respect of another hon. member. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, . . .

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on the point of order? The hon. member implied that there was some case concerning some pills. [Interjections.] I am just asking whether he is entitled to make an allegation of that nature. [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Langlaagte mean?

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member for Berea whether he remembered about the pills he sold. What is he complaining about now? [Interjections.]

What kind of pills were they?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is well known that I was a retail pharmacist. An unchallenged allegation or imputation like that recorded in Hansard is a very serious reflection on my professional duties while I was a retail pharmacist. I am asking you Sir, for a ruling on whether it is parliamentary for the hon. member for Langlaagte to make that imputation or reference. [Interjections.]

Order! As I understand it, part of the hon. member for Berea’s duties was to dispense pills. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte made a specific reference. It was my business—it is no longer—to dispense pills. Such a remark has serious imputations. It reflects seriously on my profession. I am asking you for your serious ruling, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member referred to a specific case. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Langlaagte imply that the hon. member for Berea had committed any impropriety in the process of dispensing pills?

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member whether he remembered the case when he sold pills. Now he is in a flutter about it. [Interjections.]

To which case are you referring?

Listen man . . . [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, they are just wasting my time. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member for Langlaagte implying that the hon. member for Berea committed any impropriety?

I did not say that the hon. member had committed an impropriety.

Is the hon. member for Langlaagte implying that the hon. member for Berea committed any impropriety?

Mr. Speaker, I am implying nothing. It is just that the hon. member for Berea is sensitive about it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

†The hon. member for Langlaagte has given the Chair the assurance that he does not imply that the hon. member for Berea did anything irregular or unbecoming.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have not heard the hon. member for Langlaagte give that assurance, with respect. The hon. member for Langlaagte has stated that the hon. member for Berea is making the implication himself. The hon. member for Langlaagte specifically referred to a case. All we are trying to ascertain is what case he is referring to.

A “saak” is a business, man. You do not understand English. [Interjections.]

No, you are not going to get away with it so easily. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for me to leave the NRP alone. [Interjections.]

Yes, you are going to get hurt. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Berea referred to some business of mine. However, he is so sensitive that he is on his feet like a shot when I refer to him. However, when he referred to me, I had done nothing. He originated the story about a business of mine. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that I am still making money. I do not concern myself over pills or anything else. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member for Langlaagte is acting in contravention of the spirit of your ruling. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member for Langlaagte must now leave the pills and come back to the railway line. At the moment he is right off the track.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to address myself to the hon. member for Orange Grove. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Orange Grove has requested on two or three occasions already that this House should express an opinion on the use of mixed buses. The hon. member might have something there. He says it will be more profitable. However, now I want to ask him something. He and the hon. member for Houghton reside in areas through which a bus route runs from the Johannesburg city centre to Alexandra. Are they prepared to have their voters use that bus service?

I referred to Cape Town.

No, wait a minute. I am not talking about Cape Town. The hon. member should not refer to Cape Town now.

The reply is definitely yes.

What does the hon. member for Houghton say? Is she prepared to travel on that bus, and are her voters prepared to travel on that bus?

I maintain that if we had integrated bus services it would be much cheaper for everybody.

But will you travel on that bus?

What do you mean “Will you be prepared to travel on that bus”?

All right, she will be prepared to do it; and the hon. member for Orange Grove as well. I have just arranged with the City Council of Johannesburg to allow these people to travel on Putco buses from now on from Johannesburg to Alexandra township. We shall then be able to see whether this will make Putco pay.

You are such a stupid man!

What is stupid about it? Is it stupid to travel with Blacks?

No, it is not.

It is stupid to travel with Blacks! [Interjections.] I have never seen such a lot of hypocrites in this House before in my life.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “hypocrites”. Mr. Speaker, I must say that when people are continually stating that they want a mixed service and I want to give it to them on a route from the city of Johannesburg to Alexandra and back, a bus service with buses running every ten minutes, and those people do not want to make use of that service, then they are not practising what they are preaching.

Who does not want to make use of that service?

The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for . . . [Interjections.] Very well. Is the hon. member for Houghton prepared to make use of the Putco buses?

I don’t want to talk to you at all.

I just want to know.

I don’t want to talk to you at all.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove walks barefoot across the Drakensberg mountains to get away from Harry! He is quite satisfied. He is absolutely happy to leave the Transvaal and let those people travel on Putco buses because he is going to Durban.

*Now he is going to Durban. I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton another question. I do not want her to misunderstand me. I do not want to get involved in the palaver of the “boys”. I do not want to get involved in that palaver. I just want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that after all the years she has been in this country and with great love for Afrikaans and with great love . . .

I have no love for you!

No, I know that the hon. member has no love for the Afrikaner. She is quite right.

No, for you.

I have never worried about it.

You are not a typical Afrikaner, fortunately.

Let me tell the hon. member that when one lives in a country for 50 or more years and one is too ashamed to speak the Afrikaans language and to associate with the Afrikaner people . . .

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Have these remarks of the hon. member for Langlaagte any relevance at all as far as this Railways and Harbours Part Appropriation Bill is concerned?

Order! The hon. member can leave that matter to me. I shall attend to it shortly.

May I have your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker?

This is a Second Reading debate, a budget debate, and it covers a very wide variety of subjects. The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr. Speaker . . .

Sit down, Digger Barnes!

Order! The hon. member may proceed, but I want to advise him not to go off the rails.

Mr. Speaker, the point that I want to make is that when it comes to the railway worker, everybody wants to point a finger. They go to New York and they talk about our airways people who are in control in New York. I have been to that terminal on many occasions and I have never heard or seen anybody there complaining about it. However, there have been a number of complaints in regard to New York. In fact, some people have even made statements in New York after having been given the freedom of that city. There are a lot of people like that making statements, and then they are not ashamed. Then that shame no longer exists.

I should like to come back now to another matter. You see, Sir, the problem is that none of these members here has wanted to discuss the true economic situation of the Railways.

You have done very well!

I must admit that that hon. member is at times correct! Mr. Speaker, the problem is this: There is an election in the offing and these hon. members in the Opposition are trying to dabble in politics. [Interjections.] All of a sudden, Sir, they are objecting to having an election. They have the chance of a lifetime to get rid of us but they are crying about it. They do not want to do it. They say that we are granting Railway workers increases because there is an election in the offing. The Opposition should be happy to have the opportunity to fight an election.

We are delighted.

The hon. member for Durban North says he is delighted. I can assure him, however, that he will not be after the election because the hon. member for Orange Grove is a difficult little man. [Interjections.] The NRP is going to be sorry that the hon. member for Orange Grove intends moving to Durban.

*The hon. member for Orange Grove has the ability to make even the NRP look like children when it comes to red herrings— what is the Afrikaans for that? Oh, yes, “rooi harings”. [Interjections.]

We must look at the facts, and it is true that the economic growth of a country is as good as its transport. We have a country in which the economic growth rate is 8%. It is expected that we may have a growth rate of 5% or 6% in the future, but now hon. members talk about an inflation factor of 20%. These are predictions ventured with a view to the future. Do hon. members know that there are countries where the inflation rate is 120%?

Is ours not going that way too?

I want to know whether the hon. members know that.

Yes, we know that.

Does the hon. member also know that our country’s economy is expanding every day? What is inflation? How many people are there who make a fuss about inflation, whereas many of them do not even know that inflation is the match with which the deadwood in the economy can be burned out? If there had not been such a thing as an inflation factor in the world, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti would by now have been crying crocodile tears over the price of sugar. Can he deny it? I think not. Does he know what would have happened in certain sections of our country’s economy if there had not been inflation? Look, I am not trying to defend inflation, because there are certain fields in which inflation should not occur.

Does the hon. member know where the greatest problem lies? The greatest problem does not fie in our transport affairs, because the revenue of the Railways has tended to decline since we terminated the importation of certain goods notwithstanding the fact that a high tariff is paid for the transportation of imported goods by rail. We exported and earned money for the country, but our export goods are transported to the export harbours at low tariffs. Millions and millions of tons of export goods were transported to the harbours for export at low tariffs so that South Africa could earn Foreign exchange. I think hon. members of the Opposition should share our gratification at having had that opportunity.

In addition they must also be glad that in the field of railway traffic we have the best officials in the world. The same applies as regards our air traffic. Hon. members can try to show us better examples elsewhere in the world if they want to. They will definitely not find such examples, because there simply are none.

Mention was made of the R55 million which will be spent on a certain hostel. It would be interesting to calculate what that hostel will cost per resident. Over a period of five years it works out at less than R8 000 per resident, and that is for accommodation, furniture, grounds etc. and taking inflation into account. I think it is a shame that there are complaints about something like this which is established for the Blacks employed by the Railways. I wonder if the hon. member who talked about it realizes that he launched an attack in this regard.

Reference was also made to the airconditioning in the Paul Kruger Building. Do hon. members realize that the biggest factor with regard to computers is precisely the cooling of such computers? If a computer is not properly cooled, the whole computer can be lost. The average American cooling system uses more energy annually than the economy of the whole of China. These are the important things one has to consider before one jumps in at the deep end.

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Witwatersberg was dwelling on the excellence of the S.A. Railways, it occurred to me that the S.A. Railways is not only a national transport organization, but that it is indeed a national monument, particularly in consideration of the highlights referred to by the hon. member. I could not help recalling the depression during the thirties when the S.A. Railways carried and supported the South African economy in many respects, and also the seventies, when this organization grew and flourished step by step together with the South African economy. I think that for the sake of the record I must state that the S.A. Railways, not only as a national transport organization but also as a national monument, is a strategic industry. It is an industry which has assisted in the struggle for survival on the southern tip of Africa.

Despite this rosy picture I have drawn, the hon. member for Orange Grove, for the sake of political gain, has dragged the S.A. Railways as a national asset into the muddy politics of the petty Opposition parties. It was an amateurish effort on the part of the hon. member for Orange Grove to canvass votes with a view to 29 April, for the statements he made are not correct. His statements are devoid of all truth, for if one analyses the amendments he moved, one finds a fundamental contradiction. How, for example, does he expect salaries to be increased if there is no adjustment in rates? The hon. member for Orange Grove must tell this House here and now whether or not he would grant salary concessions to the officials of the S.A. Railways. I believe that we should go and make it clear in Durban North, too, that the hon. member for Orange Grove begrudges pensioners and officials of the S.A. Railways a concession.

I said the increases were inadequate.

The hon. member is asking for higher salary concessions, consequently he is also advocating rate increases. The hon. member cannot have his bread buttered on both sides. Does the hon. member for Orange Grove know what the annual electricity account of the S.A. Railways amounts to? It seems to me that the hon. member is not interested in this debate at all. The S.A. Railways’ electricity account amounts to R159 million per annum and an increase of 1% in the electricity tariffs means that the S.A. Railways has to pay an additional R1,2 million per annum for electricity.

Liquid fuel is another example. Does the hon. member know what the annual liquid fuel account of the S.A. Railways is?

I know it, but I gave examples where one could save money.

No, the hon. member is not going to escape from this corner. The liquid fuel account of the S.A. Railways amounts to R550 million per annum, and in 1972 it was only R32 million. This represents an increase of 1 600% and is not ascribable to maladministration on the part of the S.A. Railways. The hon. member thought up a transparent plan here in order to make political capital out of a matter out of which it is impossible to make political capital.

You are once again on the wrong track.

The South African economy is often depicted diagrammatically as a cross section, and each sector of the South African economy is presented as a certain percentage contribution to the gross domestic product. But that is not the overall picture. The overall picture will only emerge once the S.A. Railways’ contribution to the gross domestic product is included in the whole picture. If this were to be done, one would see that over the years the largest single contribution to the South African economy has consistently been made not by gold, general mining or agriculture, but by the S.A. Railways as a national transport organization. This is not simply a statement I have sucked out of my thumb. I should like to elaborate on this statement further by lifting the veil of the past a little and examining two fixed points. The first fixed point is the instruction to the S.A. Railways to establish an infrastructure and a transport network which will enable the economy to flourish. Such an infrastructure must therefore be established so that the South African economy may grow.

Let us go back to the year 1911 and take a few comparative figures. If we do so, we shall see that a total of 13 million tons of goods were transported by the S.A. Railways in 1911, as opposed to this year’s 185 million tons. In 1911 approximately 200 000 tons of mining products were transported, as opposed to today’s 23 million tons. In 1911 7,2 million tons of coal were transported, as opposed to today’s 53 million tons. Looking at these figures, one is justified in saying that the largest single contribution to the South African economy, from 1911 up to the present, has been made by the S.A. Railways as a transport organization.

Because this is the case, I should like to make two statements. Statement number one is that the profits of the private sector are, inter alia, based on the losses sustained by the S.A. Railways in providing the raw materials for these industries. The second statement is that our favourable balance of payments position is based on the fact that the exports of the South African market have been delivered at rates which are lower than direct costs. I am making these two statements to indicate that the S.A. Railways has consistently and cumulatively made the largest single contribution to the South African economy.

This success story of the S.A. Railways as a national transport organization also has a sombre undertone which is noticeable in the results of working of the S.A. Railways. Whereas the country’s economy may be seen as a partnership between the private sector, the State and the S.A. Railways, the S.A. Railways is the Cinderella of the partnership. I say this because both the private sector and the State share in the economic growth of South Africa whereas the S.A. Railways has to meet the needs of a growing South African economy without sharing in the growth of the economy. This is the fundamental problem facing the hon. the Minister and the management.

Sir, rates increases of 12,8% are now a fact. We accept this as an average, but it imposes a tremendous responsibility on the shoulders of the S.A. Railways. With an increased rates structure the S.A. Railways now has to move into a very competitive market in which it has to market its services. The improvement of the position of the S.A. Railways in relation to the transport market does not lie in further legislation, but in the marketing of its services. The central principle which must apply in marketing, as far as the railways is concerned, is that it must be concentrated on those sectors in which the losses are greatest and the capital investment to minimize the losses smallest in this regard one may call to mind passenger services. It is generally known to hon. members that passenger services are operated at 25% lower than the direct cost. Passenger services may be marketed in view of the changed attitude of the general public towards public transport due to the increase of fuel prices. It would be worthwhile for dynamic, marketing-oriented rail passenger services to minimize the losses which the S.A. Railways has to bear in this regard. There are various schemes which the hon. the Minister and the administration may consider. I have in mind, for example, aspects such as faster trains, the grading of main line train services where different tariffs apply to the same train, but different services are rendered. Here I have in mind, for example, a family tariff structure to make passenger services more acceptable to the general public. One could also call this a family concession. A first class return ticket for a family of four from Johannesburg to Cape Town costs R720 and a second class ticket, R500. The average salaried person cannot spend so much money on travelling expenses when he goes on holiday. If the train is in any event half empty, could a family concession not be considered in order to fill the empty places on the train? The overhead costs to operate the train remain the same in any event. One could also consider schemes involving negotiations with local authorities to provide more passenger facilities at suburban stations. There are other schemes which could be tackled. One could consider a motor-car holiday plan. I see no reason why all the Transvalers have to drive to Durban once a year, each with his own motor-car and caravan. Would it not be possible to consider a marketing plan such as a car and caravan holiday plan to divert this traffic from the roads and to let the passenger services provide for the transport of families and holidaymakers?

The same applies to the goods traffic. There is also room for a dynamic improvement in the marketing of the excellent services provided by the Railways in the sphere of goods transport. It is only necessary that these services be marketed in a way which will meet the needs of the client. In this way the losses sustained by the Railways on passenger and goods traffic at present will be systematically reduced.

I have dwelt a little on the historic past. We cannot only dwell on the fine history, the achievements of the past and those of the present. It will also be necessary to consider the future. As far as the S.A. Railways Administration is concerned, it will be necessary to identify clear landmarks for the future in accordance with which planning, administrative action and budgeting may be carried cut. I want to identify three precepts in accordance with which it must be possible for this planning, marketing and budgeting to take place. The first is the fact to which I have already referred, viz. that the S.A. Railways cannot allow the private sector and the Exchequer to share the economic growth of this country, whereas the S.A. Railways is confined to meeting the requirements of a growing economy. The Railways is the Cinderella in this partnership. In the second place, there will have to be planning in respect of the socio-economic services. The clear standpoint will have to be adopted that socio-economic services are not the exclusive responsibility of the travelling public, but that those services which have to be rendered by the Railways are a national responsibility and that the Exchequer must be approached in this regard to take it over those services in the national interest. In the third place, plans will have to be drawn up to make it more cost-oriented, particularly as far as goods traffic is concerned. If these precepts are borne in mind, there will have to be freer market competition in the transport market for the sake of South Africa, and also the Railways itself, so that the Railways need not be bound to being protected statutorily. Once these burdens have been shrugged off, these shackles removed and a freer market mechanism envisaged in the transport market, we come back once again to the triad of marketing, planning and thrift which—I am convinced—are inherent in the Railways Administration, in order to ensure that it will remain the dynamic and excellent transport organization it is today.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear that the hon. member for Bellville resents things which the hon. member for Orange Grove said here, whilst during the course of his own speech he mentioned a number of points that correspond amazingly with things said here by the hon. member for Orange Grove, not only regarding his contribution to this debate, but also with regard to debates on Railway budgets in the past. Nevertheless, it was pleasant to listen to the hon. member. He did much better later on in his speech than at the beginning.

†Mr. Speaker, it is good to note that there has been an increase, over the figures of previous years, in the number of passengers that have been using train transport. It is particularly gratifying to see that this increase applied across the board, in respect of all classes, namely first, second and third class and not only in one or the other class which would obviously only have reflected a particular condition affecting people who travel in that class. I believe that one can say, considering the fact that this increase was across the board, that this reflects a greater awareness and therefore a greater demand for rail travel. One can only hope that this trend will continue, because I believe that train travel has got many advantages, not only for the passenger, but also for the economy as such. It is an inexpensive form of travel from the passengers point of view, and any increase in the rail travel will obviously bring about a decrease in road traffic. This can in turn ease the tremendous strain and demand for road construction in particular in the urban areas in South Africa. That may bring about tremendous savings all over South Africa in this particularly important field. I believe that this can save the country a lot of money, and in addition I believe it can reduce our general economic vulnerability, not only in respect of purely monetary terms, but particularly in respect of the supply of fuel.

*I should like to give attention to a few factors which, in my opinion, can exert an influence on the use of passenger services and to which the Administration should give attention over the next few months and years. One of these aspects, which I feel deserves the attention of the Minister himself, is the question of the safety of passengers who travel on our trains and who often have to wait for trains for long periods of time at our stations. I feel that a passenger is entitled to expect that his safety will be taken care of, not only whilst he is making use of the service, but also when he is waiting at a station and when he boards and alights from a train. People who travel by train, very often travel alone, for instance many young people, old people, men and women. These are people who sometimes have to travel early in the morning and sometimes late at night and stand around on stations whilst waiting for a train. Often these people are also exposed to inclement weather. We know that generally there are shelters for them, but nevertheless they are exposed to such conditions to a certain extent. The whole picture that one conjures up before one’s minds eye, for instance of a woman waiting alone for a train at a station somewhere, is not a very pleasant one. If the Railways Administration wants to retain the support of the travelling public and in fact wants to increase it, which I believe is necessary, those people must be looked after.

A few weeks ago I addressed a question to the hon. the Minister on the Order Paper concerning the statistics with regard to crimes reported to the three Railway Police posts within my constituency and which crimes were committed on Railway premises, stations and on trains. The reply to that question actually indicates a disturbing state of affairs. To take a few figures from the hon. the Minister’s reply: 700 thefts were reported to the Railway Police at Cape Town station; there were 129 ordinary assaults.

Per year?

In one year. Furthermore there were 120 serious assaults, 229 cases of robbery, five rapes and six cases of murder. If one examines these figures, it cannot be said that passengers who make use of our train services can consider themselves to be safe. The figures that the hon. the Minister provided, also indicate that most of these offences are committed on stations, of course on other railway property as well, but specifically on stations. This is something about which I feel railway passengers are entitled to feel dissatisfied, even more so because an alarming number of these offences are committed on the trains themselves. For instance: the figures for both Cape Town Station and Woodstock Station—Table Bay Harbour is also included here, although it is not applicable as such over there—indicate that 48 cases of robbery occurred on trains in this specific year. There was one case of murder. 50 assaults occurred, of which approximately half were serious and the other half less serious assaults.

How many passengers were transported in the same period?

Unfortunately I do not have the statistics for the same period.

You must at least put the picture in the correct perspective.

I am not trying to sketch an excessively alarming picture; I am just mentioning it. I feel that this situation deserves the serious attention of the hon. the Minister. To say the least, this is an untenable state of affairs.

According to the report of the General Manager, the passenger services of the Railways have a fairly impressive record with regard to avoiding train accidents. In other words, when it comes to train accidents the people who use our train services, may feel safe. They may feel secure in the knowledge that their chances of having a safe journey are statistically very high. During the entire year under review covered by the latest report, there were for instance only four people killed and 21 injured in train accidents throughout the country. It is precisely because of the background to this that the occurrence of crimes and violence on our trains and stations are all the more alarming. I feel that our train services can be run with an equally good safety record and as far as accidents are concerned, we should really give urgent attention to the incidence of crime because I feel it is definitely an unnecessarily alarming aspect of our passenger services. I also believe that this situation must have a very definite negative effect upon the use of trains. A few years ago—I do not know to what extent this still applies today—I was told by ticket inspectors here in Cape Town that some of them were even afraid to carry out their duties on trains on the Cape Flats during peak hours. In some coaches in particular, according to them, passengers were packed in so tightly and some travellers adopted such a threatening attitude that it caused the staff of the train to feel afraid. The people involved were apparently members of gangs or other criminals. The attitude of some passengers were so threatening that it actually terrified the ticket inspectors. Some of them preferred rather not to enter some of those passenger coaches, for fear of possibly endangering their lives. Therefore, if this is the case with regard to ticket inspectors, one can just imagine how a woman passenger who travels alone must feel in a situation like this. Nor must we forget that some of these women may be returning home on a Friday afternoon with their weekly wages. We simply have to think of what they are exposed to under the circumstances.

Now I note that mention is made in the report of the General Manager that experiments are going to be carried out with automatic systems for collecting fares, apparently due to economic considerations and in order to avoid situations where it is not possible to keep a proper check on the ticket system, which could lead to the Railways not receiving the full revenue that it is entitled to. However, I think that this aspect also has a bearing on the safety situation. If this experiment should prove to be successful, and there were a change over to a system of this kind, I feel it would mean either the total elimination of or a decrease in the number of ticket inspectors on our trains. I assume that under those circumstances a passenger who travels on a train with criminal travelling companions, will have to accept that he will be even more exposed. One can simply hope that if such a system should in fact be introduced, Railway Policemen could begin to patrol trains, particularly trains in suburban areas.

How many times in your life have you travelled by train?

I have often travelled by train. I have also travelled very long distances by train.

Where to? As far as the steps at Green Point?

Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite are wasting my time now. Apparently they do not know what I am talking about. Of course, it is not funny either. [Interjections.] I simply want to make a very serious representation to the hon. the Minister to give his urgent attention to this matter. I feel it is a matter that requires urgent attention. It is a matter that affects our rail passengers, particularly men and women who travel alone, as well as people who travel after dark. They should not be subjected to dangers of this nature whilst they are making use of our train services.

Another factor that apparently has a bearing on the extent to which people make use of train services, is the cost thereof. That is why it is a pity that fares are being increased once again in this budget. Apparently this will have the unfortunate effect of some people once again finding it difficult to balance their budgets. In addition, it is not the wealthiest people in South Africa who generally make use of the train services. In this regard the hon. member for Orange Grove has already pointed out that the Railways is being carried along, as it were, by the strong current of ideology and more specifically the entire ideology of apartheid. He also pointed out how much extra money it cost the Railways Administration. Not only is the Railways being carried along here, but it is in fact also participating in this type of practice.

To come back to the safety situation once again, I want to point out one aspect only. If one imagines the lay-out of Cape Town Railway station, one wonders how much easier it would have been for the Railway Police to exercise proper control there if the facilities at that station had not been duplicated, as they in fact have. [Interjections.] Hon. members may make a noise and mutter as much as they like, but there is no doubt that that ideology and type of behaviour has everything to do with the cost of the Railways and its efficient administration. In addition it also has a bearing upon the safety of our people who travel by train. Of course, these aspects have a considerable influence on the finances of the Railways Administration and it makes matters extremely difficult for it when it tries to balance its expenditure with its income.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask the hon. member whether he has statistics to indicate whether these crimes occurred in the White or the non-White section?

No, unfortunately I do not have such statistics at my disposal, but I can imagine what the hon. member wanted to follow that up with, because as soon as that type of apartheid is eliminated, it is always thought that the Whites would then be exposed to the criminal tendencies which are believed to be inherent in the non-Whites. It simply remains a question of whether one is a racist or not in one’s thoughts. Of course the hon. member knows what my standpoint is in this regard.

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

No, Sir, the hon. members want to waste my time. The hon. member for Brits may rather write a note to me.

In spite of all these factors, it is nevertheless extremely important for the Railways Administration to fulfil its function as a transporter of passengers in a proper manner. It is still absolutely essential, in spite of all these negative factors, to stimulate public transport in the interests of the conservation of energy and conservation in other spheres on the long term.

I want to deal briefly with a few aspects related to the Airways. Once again it is a pity that we have had an increase in air fares yet again over the past few months. Whenever we argue about this, comparisons are always drawn between air travel here and air travel over the same distance in the USA or other countries. However, we cannot argue away the fact that the people in the USA earn much larger salaries than the people in South Africa in any event. From the viewpoint of the conservation of energy, it is important for us to stimulate public transport as much as possible, not only rail transport, but air transport too. If we keep that priority in mind, it is a pity each time when a tariff increase has to be introduced, as has happened once again now.

I now come to a local aspect which has already been discussed in the House before. Nevertheless, I think something must be said about it once again. It is very difficult to put a telephone call through to the Cape Town terminal here at the station in order to make flight reservations. We sincerely hope that something drastic will be done in this regard. As far as I know, there are only two telephone numbers and one struggles to get through. These telephone numbers are always engaged.

The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs must simply ask for more telephones.

Another aspect that I have raised before on the occasion of Railway debates in the House, is the question of savings on flights. This is something that may possibly be looked at once again. There is the question of serving meals.

I think you must repeat the point concerning telephones at the terminal so that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications can hear it very clearly.

I have already said he must simply order more telephones—and pay for them too.

It seems to me the two of them can fix it up right now.

On page 42 of the report, mention is made once again of the ever-increasing cost of food and the provision of meals on aircraft. I really think that the Administration could take another look at the matter and establish to what extent it really is necessary to provide meals on all flights. I sometimes wonder whether it is necessary to provide meals on any flight at all. I really believe that if it could be cut down, there could be a similar reduction in flight staff. In that way there could be a real saving for the Airways which, if it does not give rise to a decrease in air fares, could at least ensure that there will not be a further increase. I ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this too.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point referred, inter alia, to railway rates and at a later stage in my speech I shall comment on what he had to say in this regard.

He requested that separate amenities for the various population groups at railway stations be abolished, but I want to point out to him that this is a sound arrangement in South Africa which has stood the test of time. In my opinion this arrangement has averted serious situations of friction in the past and consequently we shall not abandon it for the reasons the hon. member advanced.

The increased fares which come into operation on 1 April, as announced by the hon. the Minister, are of course something which affects all users of train services. If we take into account that approximately 60 million passenger journeys are undertaken during one month, we can form an idea of the number of people who make use of passenger services. On the surface it appears, therefore, that the increase in fares will have a tremendous impact on the Railways’ revenue and this is in all probability true, if one estimates the total revenue from passenger fares. But, what struck me in the budget speech was that without the increase, the expenses covered by fares for passenger services during 1981 and 1982 are estimated at a mere 28,8%. If the inflation rate is taken into consideration, therefore, the increase in this percentage of expenses covered will consequently bring about no change. Contributions from the State for resettlement services do, of course, improve the position to some extent, but for the purposes of my argument I shall now leave the matter at that.

This low percentage of expenses covered means that the Railways will according to estimates show a deficit of approximately R400 million this year. Deficits on this service have shown an upward tendency over the years, despite the regular increases in fares. There are, of course, obvious reasons why this situation has developed. Apart from the increasing operating costs and the constant improvement of suburban and main line services, capacity utilization is, of course, another very important factor influencing the deficits. I believe it is completely impossible, on the basis of the present utilization of services, to achieve a position where expenses are covered by means of rates. It ought to be clear to everyone that fares will have to be increased by a few hundred per cent just to make up this backlog of 72% in the defraying of expenses from fares.

Motor vehicle transportation is, of course, the most important competitor in the sphere of public transport and one must accept that train and bus transport cannot easily provide the comfort of motor vehicle transportation. Comfort is becoming increasingly important to the traveller as his standard of living rises and of course the standard of living of the South African population gets higher every year. Consequently, if it is not possible for other factors to arise in future which compel people to make use of rail transport, it is doubtful whether it will be possible to overcome the factor of the low capacity utilization. When it comes to under utilization there are people who say at once that there is, of course, over utilization as well, particularly of suburban train services. The utilization factor does, of course, apply not only to services during peak hours. It is in fact the dilemma of the Administration that trains have to run almost empty between peak hours. The same applies to mainline services outside holiday seasons. When these uneconomic services are rationalized and services are withdrawn, it is usually not in the interests of the users of such services. That is why we have the prevailing situation, which is probably one of the main reasons why smaller stations in the rural areas are being closed down. It is very clear that the financial structure of passenger services has a fundamental effect on the overall financial structure of the Railways.

Of course the losses have to be offset in one way or another. At this stage there is, of course, a partial compensation on the part of the State, but the State does not compensate for the total loss. I have pointed out that the deficit cannot be wiped out by means of the increased fares. Up to now only one alternative has remained for the Railways, i.e. to compensate for the loss by means of cross subsidization. The hon. the Minister once again indicated in his budget speech that the structure of the low rated goods was not such that no profits were made. We should also bear in mind that the conveyance of bulk goods takes place at low rates, which produce a very high percentage of the Railways’ revenue. This includes goods such as agricultural and export goods. The surplus on the conveyance of high rated goods, i.e. goods falling under tariffs 1 to 10, must consequently be used in conjunction with the profits on the pipeline in order to cover the tremendous deficit on passenger services. The most important result of cross subsidization is that it impairs the competitive position of the Railways in the goods transport market. The goods on which road transportation concentrates are the very goods which fall within the high rated structure. The higher these rates for rail traffic, the greater the percentage of goods diverted to road transportation. The Railways’ market share of the total transportation traffic is shrinking annually, and it is even possible that in five years’ time only 40% will remain. Consequently the Railways is increasingly dependent on bulk traffic. If the total investment in rail traffic is taken into account, we see that our country cannot afford anything of that nature. Our economy simply cannot sustain it. In all Western countries ample provision is made for subsidization, thus maintaining an equilibrium in the economies of those countries. Deficits on passenger services are a world-wide phenomenon and the Governments subsidize their railways. In 1976, for example, the German Government subsidized its railways by R5 717 million. In France, during the same year, the French Government subsidized the railways by R2 084 million, and Britain by R852 million. Consequently it is clear to me that the Railways will also have to adopt this course. If the Railways proceeds with the existing method of cross subsidization, a process will be perpetuated which increasingly disturbs the balance in the economy.

Last year the hon. the Minister’s predecessor mentioned the Franzsen report. If the recommendations of this report offer a solution, I want to recommend that they be implemented as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the rates. If one takes into account that this increase represents only a fraction of a cent per kilometre, there is no reason to complain. If the increases are expressed in percentages, they sound very impressive, but when they are reduced to hard cash, they are insignificant. When we note in particular the benefits gained by new developments in the Railways, for example electric and diesel power units, the comfort which it offers passengers, neatness and speed . . .

Order! Hon. members are conversing too loudly. The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, the value of these things cannot always be measured in terms of money. However, when we compare the existing fares and the proposed increases to the increase in electricity tariffs and high fuel prices, the proportion is strongly in favour of the train passenger. The fact that tariffs are being kept at the lowest possible level proves that the Government has had thorough regard to the financial resources of train passengers. That is why I believe it is essential that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs should put their heads together to find solutions which would be in the interests of the passengers as well as of South Africa.

Furthermore I think that employers who have a real interest in commuter services for the conveyance of their employees, should also be involved in a discussion of this nature. In my opinion what is at issue is not subsidies which are due to the S.A. Railways for uneconomic services, but that the Railways, which is being operated on business principles, ought to be compensated for the services it is rendering in the interests of the national economy. If the Railways were to look after its own interests only, it would be easy to withdraw all the uneconomic services. This would have been the position if it had been a private undertaking, for any private undertaking rids itself of uneconomic services. If the Railways had to look after itself only, it could do the same, but it is unthinkable that the Railways in South Africa would adopt such a course. In my opinion the primary issue is therefore the promotion of the overall national economy and the interests of those who serve the economy as citizens of this country. That is why the responsibility must not rest on the shoulders of the Railways alone.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot but say that the hon. member for De Aar made a very logical and sensible contribution to the debate.

I see the Railways as a service organization. If we examine our constitution we see that the people who drafted it provided that the Railways would always remain a service organization. When I cast my mind back to the past, to what the Railways did, for example, in providing employment for the upliftment of our poor Whites and what the Railways is still doing in that regard today, it seems to me to be quite wrong to want to reduce everything to the mere economies of the matter. As the hon. member for De Aar said, we shall in future have to examine ways and means of keeping the Railway organization, which is so important to our country, functioning. The hon. member was correct in saying that Railway organizations throughout the world sustain losses. In fact there are many Railway organizations that have already closed down, and we simply cannot allow ourselves to end up in that situation.

I am inclined to differ from the hon. member for De Aar when he said that the Franzsen Commission had the complete solution. The Franzsen Commission recommended, inter alia, that the transport costs for all products had to be covered by those products. I do not foresee us ever reaching the position of being able to do so. We shall either have to obtain a subsidy from the Government or the tariffs will have to be adjusted in such a way that the one service helps to pay for the other.

As the Department of Transport Affairs is constituted today, the Minister has the task of co-ordinating transport in this country, and in addition to that he has the far greater task of stimulating the economy of this country, not only internally, but also as far as exports are concerned. He has to give his attention to all these matters. That is why I believe that it would be a pity if we had to surrender this ideal which is stated in the Constitution and simply base everything on economies.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity of taking leave of Parliament. When I made my maiden speech here 15 years ago, I asked that the narrow-gauge railway line in the Langkloof be replaced by a wider-gauge line. The Minister of Transport at that time was also a Schoeman. Let me say that Oom Ben Schoeman knew how to say no so that one knew the answer was no. He had the talent of not beating about the bush. I hope that when the new hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has to say no he will be just a little friendlier than Oom Ben was at that time.

He should rather take a tip from me.

Oom Ben simply told me at once: “No, it will be too expensive, we cannot change it into a wider-gauge line.”

I just want to point out what that narrow-gauge line, which has over the years been operated at a loss, has meant to that region. When that line was built, the Railways decided that it had to develop the country as well. Consequently it immediately appointed officials whose duty it was, firstly, to advise the farmers as to what they had to plant and then to transport the products by rail to the market, and, secondly, to look into the marketing aspects of the products. This is the type of service I should like to see from the Railways. The Railways must tell the people what they can do to make the railways viable and ask them to tell it what it can do to develop their areas.

Over the years we in that part of the world have learnt to make do with the narrow-gauge railway line. We are proud of that little line. Perhaps my successor will talk about it again, but at this stage it is really a very good tourist attraction. That little line has even made its appearance on TV. The hon. the Minister must not even consider removing it entirely.

Despite that little line, the past 15 years have been a period of growth and prosperity for my constituency. I want to attribute this to agricultural extension as was given by the Railwaymen at that time. Over the years agricultural extension has brought prosperity to that constituency. I think of the cultivated pastures, the fertilization and management of pastures and new methods of crop spraying which are being applied there in the Gamtoos Valley. This has brought great progress to that region. In this regard one also thinks of the building of the Paul Sauer dam. I realize that this has nothing to do with this debate, but it so happens that Mr. Sauer was also Minister of Transport for a long time. On the day that he relinquished the Railways portfolio and became Minister of Water Affairs, he gave us the Paul Sauer dam. In 1971 we had a flood in the Gamtoos Valley which was almost as bad as the flood which recently devastated Laingsburg. On that occasion the State gave assistance and it was demonstrated that with correct and rapid assistance the farmers could get onto their feet again. The present Minister of Transport Affairs, then Deputy Minister of Agriculture, will recall that a meeting was held at which Mr. Uys addressed the farmers and said that the State would render assistance. I remarked at that stage that they had to come and look at the place in a year’s time, for then all the flood damage would be repaired. The farmers were angry with me at the time, but after a year it was impossible for one to see that there had been damage. This just goes to show what judicious assistance from the State can do to overcome a disaster.

The Humansdorp constituency has grown well during the past 15 years. There has also been development in the towns and coastal areas. In addition there is the national road which is at present being built and it too falls under this Minister. I think that splendid progress has been made. The last three bridges, the bridges over the Bobbejaans, the Blaauwkranz and Groot Rivers are now being built and one will shortly be able to drive from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth on a relatively straight road.

Mr. Speaker, since this is my farewell speech and you are in the Chair, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of conveying my sincere gratitude to you as well for all the kindness and co-operation in Parliament. I also wish to convey my gratitude in particular to all the parliamentary institutions. I wish to express the thought that these institutions have improved a great deal over the past 15 years. I am thinking, for example, of the catering service, the library, the telephone service, the reservations office and now even a nursing sister. I am also thinking of our medical scheme, our pension scheme, the sports facilities and our parliamentary association and the trips which that association arranges. If one thinks of Fernwood and all the other things, one cannot but say that we have made a great deal of progress as far as these things are concerned.

Only the Opposition has become weak.

Yes, they have of course dwindled greatly over the years.

We have also been given very good service from the officials of the various departments. But there is one kind of official that I want to single out and those are the private secretaries of our Ministers. If there are people who work hard, it is they.

Finally I want to say that these 15 years have been historic years for South Africa. In 1966 I sat over there, with Dr. Verwoerd there in front of me, and that is where he was stabbed to death before our eyes. That was a disaster which befell us. We also had Mr. John Vorster who was probably the most genial leader one could have. It was he who built up the NP to the strongest party we have ever had in South Africa. Now we have the strong party man, Mr. P. W. Botha. South Africa ought to be grateful that we specifically have him now to lead us under these circumstances. He is a man of change, who is not afraid to do what he believes is necessary to save our country. He creates the image of a man who knows where he wants to take South Africa. We thank him for that. I have said that these have been historic years and I want to add that I have found joy in the service I have been able to render to my voters. The 15 years have also given me confidence in the parliamentary system and the democratic way in which our country is being governed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. member for Humansdorp and to hear what he has said to us this afternoon. He has taken us back through the years. He takes leave of us. It is always sad to see a gentleman from the front benches leaving this place. Although we may be on opposite sides of the fence, politically speaking, I can say to him that all of us on this side of the fence wish him and also those who are near and dear to him God’s richest blessings. May it go well with him and may he enjoy the life that lies ahead of him.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti gave this party’s views in respect of the budget earlier this afternoon. Like a good railway man he was adhering to a timetable and he was sticking strictly to the tracks but, unfortunately, both time and the tracks ran out on him before he was able to move his amendment. He knew that this was going to happen and he forewarned me that he was liable to be caught out. He therefore asked me earlier to move the amendment if this should happen. Therefore, in order to regularize the position, I move as a further amendment—

1. (1) review the operating accounts of all services with a view to making economies and eliminating all unnecessary and wasteful expenditure, and curtailing, wherever possible, those services which might be offered more economically by the private sector;
2. (2) review all projects on the Capital Account with a view to reducing its demand for capital funds to the bare essentials; and
3. (3) make every effort to raise productivity and profitability to a level where tariff increases no longer act as a spur to the inflationary spiral.”.

I believe that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has already more than adequately motivated this amendment.

Today has not been a very happy day for South Africa. I do not believe that this budget is going to do us any good in the long run. It is going to have a ripple effect and it is going to be felt in many sectors of the economy. One is again reminded of the old saying: “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?” The hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech made reference to the fact that the auction price of grade IAX beef has increased by something like 70% at City Deep during the 12 months ending 31 January 1981. We accept that, but we submit that part of the reason for that increase is the increase in transportation costs. Now we are going to have a further increase in transportation costs. This is going to increase the price of that meat still further. An increase in rail tariffs ripples throughout the economy. This is a well-known fact. Every time there is an increase in tariffs, even a minimal increase, it has a snowball effect throughout the economy of this country, in fact of any country. This is something that one can say is almost standard practice, and this is our fear.

The price of beef is not controlled. It is a matter of supply and demand.

Yes, one can argue that all day, but I still say it is a matter of which came first: the chicken or the egg?

I now want to go on to a subject that is near and dear to my heart. I want to know, with these increases, are we getting our money’s worth? Are we getting our money’s worth particularly in respect of air fares? I believe unhappily not. I believe, and I regret having to say this, that in respect of S.A. Airways the public of South Africa is not getting the value that they deserve to get. I weigh these words carefully, because it does not come easily to me to say anything derogatory about the SAA. However, I do believe that the SAA is becoming sloppy in its attitude towards its customers. This trend is taking firmer root and is spreading. I believe that now is the time for the hon. the Minister to look at this situation very closely and carefully and to arrest the spreading of this disease here and now. He must nip it in the bud while he can. There was a time that SAA was without question the pride and joy of every South African. Unfortunately it is not so any longer. I am not, and I want the hon. the Minister to understand this, in any way criticizing our aircraft, our flight crews and the standard of safety in the air, because I believe our standards in the air are higher than probably any in the world. I think our standards in the air are quite incredible, but it is what is happening on the ground that I am criticizing, and I believe there is reason for this. I believe this is something to which we must address ourselves. We have a situation where the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, who is in charge, wears two hats that are first-cousins. The one is the hat as Minister in charge of the Department of Transport Affairs and the other is the hat he wears as Minister in charge of S.A. Railways, thus including harbours and the Airways.

The problem arises not, I believe, owing to inefficiency of staff. I believe the problem arises owing to the conditions under which staff members have to work, and the conditions are attributable to the Department of Transport. When one addresses oneself to the one, the Minister concerned says—and rightly so—it is not his department, that one has to approach the other, that the fault does not really lie with the Airways but with the Department of Transport. We have a situation here in which, because of the poor conditions that prevail as a result of the doings or non-doings of the Department of Transport, S.A. Airways is losing out. It is losing out on its efficiency. It is losing out on its image. As the premier passenger carrier of the nation it is losing out on its goodwill in South Africa.

More and more people are flying. Businessmen, private individuals, realize today that it is cheaper to fly than to travel, e.g. by motor car. More and more people are becoming air conscious, and more and more we find that when we go to our airports the S.A. Airways staff are unable to cope with the people because they do not have the facilities spacewise. The people do not have the space. That rubs off. One cannot say to the public that facilities are going to be improved, because by the time one gets around to improving those facilities the growth has been such that it has caught up with the demand. This is something we have seen in Durban, at the Louis Botha Airport.

This hon. Minister’s predecessors will know that I have discussed the new airport at La Mercy at length. I have asked questions about that in the House almost every year since coming here in 1974. Nevertheless, we are still in a situation where we do not have a new international airport in Durban. We do have extended facilities in Durban but these are already completely and hopelessly inadequate to meet the demands of the travelling public, both the business and the tourist trade that we are enjoying in that city. The Durban Chamber of Commerce is almost frantic with worry over this. Their “Information Digests” repeatedly appear with complaints in them. They have had meetings with the Department of Transport. They have made all manner of representations in this regard. The latest reply, however, that I get from the hon. the Minister is that they are once again going to embark on what can virtually be called a temporary addition to the airport in order to cater for these travellers.

Yesterday’s edition of the Sunday Tribune carried an advert in which it was said that S.A. Airways was going to operate a service out of Durban on a direct run to London. I think that is wonderful. I am all for it. However, how is the airport going to cope? It cannot cope at the moment. It just cannot cope, and here we are advertising something grand and new, something that Durban people would love to use and something people travelling back to Durban would love to use. This hon. Minister is spending hundreds, possibly thousands of rand, in advertising this, but how is he going to cope? I do not say it is his fault. It is not his fault as Minister of Airways, but it is his fault as Minister of Transport. I think it is time that we did away with this what I call “The Tale of Two Departments”. It is because of this situation that we find ourselves in this “catch 22” situation. That is where we are. We are in a “catch 22” situation. We cannot win. I believe the hon. the Minister should now get us to a point where we will know where the buck stops. I do not believe that there is any bureaucracy that has this peculiar situation in it such as the one in which we find ourselves today.

You know, Sir, a passenger sadly described the Airbus concourse—to get away from Durban—at Jan Smuts Airport in Johannesburg—I believe he did this in a letter to the Administration—as being the closest thing that he had seen to Jeddah Airport. What a terrible thing to say about our premier airport, Jan Smuts, in our premier city, Johannesburg! I can quite believe that, Sir. When one goes into the Airbus section at Jan Smuts, it is no better— and I say this in all sincerity—than being in an open cattletruck. It is a terrible place. [Interjections.] The booking-in facilities are chaotic.

Ministers don’t know that; they sit in the VIP lounge.

The restaurant facilities are indescribable. The hon. the Minister must realize what this sort of thing is doing to international tourism, to people from overseas. When they come into the Airbus section and ask for a cup of tea they have a cup of hot water put in front of them, a teabag is thrown into it, they are given a small sachet of milk and a little sugar and for that they are asked to pay 45 cents. One then has to take that cup away and drink it at a sticky table. I know, Sir, that the hon. the Minister is going to say: It is not my fault. I know that, Sir.

Private enterprise.

Yes, Sir, but the hon. the Minister still has the ability to effect change. Why must private enterprise which insults the travelling public in this way continue to be allowed to do so? Surely the officials of the department and the hon. the Minister himself must be able to put a stop to that sort of situation. Get rid of that person! The position is atrocious. How can people be treated in this way? Not only that, Sir. I venture to suggest that those people are making a fat and handsome profit out of it too. I wish that I had 45 cents for each cup of tea and that I could say to the persons in front of whom I put it: Take it or leave it. Half of it is in the saucer, in any event.

I should like in conclusion to say that another area in which a little investigation has to be done is in regard to delays at airports occasioned by mechanical faults, weather conditions or some other reason. The complaint is often raised by the travelling public that those people who are waiting at an airport to move on to wherever they are going are not informed timeously of these delays and that very often they are not given any comprehensive details as to when they can expect to arrive at their destination. People ask: Why is it that I am asked for my telephone number when I make a booking? That is a good question. Obviously it is so that the Airways can contact people to confirm that those people are in fact taking up their bookings. However, these people say: If my aircraft is to be delayed for a number of hours, cannot some effort be made to contact me at my telephone number and to advise me of that fact? Where we have the situation that our airports are congested, the position is aggravated when people who are delayed passengers have to sit and wait at those airports while other passengers are boarding other aircraft on the normal schedule. That only aggravates the situation. I do feel that this is also an area that bears investigation. Sir, I ask sincerely that these matters be investigated.

I should also like to deal briefly with overseas flights. I must agree with what a previous speaker said. I am afraid that some of our offices overseas do leave something to be desired. I understand that they obviously employ people who are nationals of that particular country, but the offices themselves are under the management of S.A. Airways. I think that, regrettably, there has generally been a fall-off. This is something that must be looked at. Let us make S.A. Airways an airline that everybody thinks of as being the best to travel on at all times. I know that I have always thought that and I want to continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to say thank you very much on behalf of this side of the House to a valued frontbencher for what he has done over the past 15 years not only for his constituency, but also for the NP and for South Africa. He took leave of the House today and I want to assure him that we will miss not only him, but his good wife, Tant Kinta, as she is generally known. I sincerely trust that they will enjoy a well-earned rest together for many years to come.

The hon. member for Umhlanga launched a fairly “sloppy” attack on the S.A. Airways, but I shall not react to that, since the hon. member for Kempton Park will do so. I can only say that in my opinion, his attack was not justified, but that it does not befit him to treat the Airways in that way.

I want to discuss something else. South Africa is in the unique position of experiencing a tremendous shortage of White skilled labour, including White technicians, professional people, and I can almost say there is an urgent shortage of Whites in practically every profession in South Africa. This is also applicable to the S.A. Railways. At the moment no less than 22 000 positions in the Railways that were previously filled by Whites, are being filled by non-Whites. And the reason for this is because there are simply not enough Whites in South Africa to fill these positions. If one looks at the rest of the world, one sees that unemployment reigns. Indeed, in some countries it has already reached the 10 000 notch and in others the 100 000 notch. In Britain the unemployment figure is still in the millions. And it is not unskilled labourers who are unemployed in these Western countries, but in most cases highly skilled technicians and professional people. Total chaos prevails in the rest of Africa. In every possible sphere there is a serious shortage of White knowledge, White technicians and White knowhow.

In every sphere the Railways is an integral part of our country’s progress and forms the basis of our growth rate; indeed, it forms the basis of our country’s survival. The foundation for economic growth is transport, chiefly transport by rail. This has already been said by various speakers here today. We simply have to look at the transport of coal to Richard’s Bay, the transport of iron ore to Saldanha Bay or the transport of the farmer’s products in order so that they reach their destination in time, or to bring the imported product to the domestic market. We must simply bear in mind that every article that is imported by South Africa is transported by the S.A. Railways and Harbours, and every article that we export, is also transported by the S.A. Railways and Harbours or by the Airways. It is only when we bear this in mind that we can speak with confidence about a sound economy. It is only then that we can sign contracts boldly throughout the world, because the world knows that South Africa honours its contracts, thanks to the S.A. Railways. However, this can only be done by means of thorough, constructive planning, not only by the upper structure of the Railways, but also in co-operation and consultation with the various Railway staff associations.

In my opinion, the people of the Railways remain the key to its success. At the moment there are 268 000 workers of all races and ranks in the employ of the Railways. 115 000 of them are White, and 153 000 are people of colour. A mere five years ago there were 116 000 people of colour as against 115 000 Whites, a figure which has clearly remained constant. The reason for the increase in people of colour is simply that the Railways simply cannot recruit enough Whites. There are simply not enough White people. We find the non-Whites chiefly in the lower ranks, but several thousand are already occupying senior positions. There are almost 600 clerical posts, chiefly amongst their own people. All the cartage service drivers in Johannesburg are non-White for instance, but more and more people of colour are becoming ticket inspectors, train compilers, technical assistants, firemen, or, as coalmen they are also called. In the homelands the Railways has a tremendous task. Black people are also being trained there as train drivers, and there are already fully qualified train drivers, firemen, drivers’ assistants and station foremen. This is possible exclusively due to the fact that the whole process took place in the closest co-operation and harmony with the various staff associations. It is definitely not an easy task to utilize such a large staff set-up efficiently and to exercise control over it, but to ensure that there is always trained staff to carry out the very necessary tasks, is probably the most important objective of the top management. In the past academic year, 1980, 122 bursaries were granted to engineers and other professional staff and five study loans were repaid. Since this scheme was introduced in 1953, 2 180 bursaries have been granted. Twenty bursaries for part-time study were also granted for the previous academic year. This brings the total number of post-graduate bursaries that have been granted since bursaries were granted for the first time, to 80. In the same academic year, three bursaries were granted to assistant engineers for full-time study for the M.Sc. (Hons.) degree in engineering. On the administrative level, 447 bursaries have already been granted since the bursary scheme was introduced—it was introduced in 1960 for administrative staff—in order to provide for the need for academically trained administrative staff. A bursary scheme was also begun for part-time study at the beginning of 1964, and since then 361 students have received bursaries. 139 obtained Baccalaureus degrees, fifteen students obtained honours degrees and 29 obtained masters degrees through part-time, post-graduate study. Six members of staff also obtained doctorates. At the moment 68 candidates are following a course for health inspectors at technikons, a course which lasts 3½ years. Apart from the bursaries that the Railways makes available, there were also 6 317 members of staff who received advanced training at the Railway College at Esselen Park and at its various branches. Subjects pertaining to the Railways are given preference here and courses cover widely divergent directions such as plate-layers’ duties, police training, advanced signal technology and health services. Courses in human relations are always high on the list. Every year the Railways employs approximately 2 000 apprentices in 38 different trades. At the moment there are 7 172 apprentices undergoing in-service training in the various branches of the Railways. There is no doubt that the Railways is the largest single body that carries out in-service training. There are of course a great deal of talents hidden in such a large group of people. In South Africa there is such a serious shortage of managerial talent that it is extremely necessary for all potential managers to be identified in good time and for them to be trained so that they can be given a placing. A few years ago management training centres were started where staff are evaluated and later trained to become good managers. The days when a man’s career began and ended in a direction of his own choice, are gone for ever. Promising young men with managerial talent hold positions in management everywhere, regardless of what their formal training and experience may have been. This approach makes the Railways a dynamic organization. The Railways is also implementing a system of objective management, which means that every manager, from a supervisor on the first level, to someone in the highest managerial position, will be responsible for setting his own objectives. A supervisor is no longer told what is expected of him, and then expected to do it. He is now allowed to set his own objectives, knowing that he will have to achieve those objectives himself. The whole matter can be summed up in the objective which the Management has set for themselves, viz. increased total production with a smaller, more effective and better paid staff. This is also the solution to inflation.

Sir, if we look at the remuneration of the staff, we see that in 1948 there were 187 700 members of staff with a total wage account of R109 million. In 1978, 30 years later, 268 000 members of staff were employed and the total wage account was R998,6 million. This year there are 266 703 members of staff with a total wage account of R1 320 million. In 1947 the average annual income per capita of the Whites was only R930. On 1 April 1981, the figure will be R4 944. This represents an increase of more than 500%.

The Opposition parties are always accusing us of not looking after our aged, our pensioners. Sir, a pensioner who retired on the last day of February 1969, with a basic pension of R100 per month, receives a pension of R253,58 after 10 years. From 1 April 1981, the pension is increased further to R312,85 and the hon. the Minister has announced a further increase of 12,5%. This gives us an amount of approximately R350 per month. If this is not a fine attempt to look after the pensioners in all respects, I do not know how one should look after pensioners.

Sir, unfortunately my time has almost expired. I could mention more figures to indicate what the Railways is doing with regard to housing for staff. I could go further and point out other benefits enjoyed by the Railway staff, but I just want to allege now that nowhere in South Africa is there an organization that does as much for its staff as the Railways Administration does, not only today, but over the years. The Opposition said that we must pay higher salaries and pensions and that we must bring inflation down. I just want to tell them that one cannot have it both ways. No party has done more for the Railwayman than the NP has.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Kimberley South because he takes an intense interest in the Railways and in Railway officials and their training. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister, who is also my neighbour, on the first budget he has introduced as Minister of Transport Affairs. This hon. Minister is like Midas: Everything he touches, turns to gold. I am sure that just as he has made a gigantic success of agriculture over the years, he will make the Railways, too, a tremendous success. I have no doubt whatsoever on that score. Knowing Mr. Schoeman as we do, we are sure of one thing, and that is that he will make the same great success of this new portfolio as he has made of agriculture over the years. To retire with so much honour after having been a Minister of Agriculture for so many years is something few could achieve. That is why the farmers are so fond of him. I am sure he will enjoy the same support from the Railway people.

We are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for the increases in the salaries of Railwaymen. We are particularly grateful for the statistics he furnished which give an indication of the progress over the past ten years with regard to railway journeys. They have increased from 522 million to 691 million per annum. There has been an increase in the tonnage of goods conveyed from 108 million to 175 million per annum. The cargo handled in the harbours has increased from 42 million tons to 77 million tons per annum. Notwithstanding these increases of 32%, 62% and 83% respectively, the number of officials has increased by a mere 19,4%. This shows that the railway officials have done their duty over the years and are at present doing an exceptional job, due to far better training. South Africa owes a profound debt of thanks to the Railway officials. Despite the fact that the turnover has increased tremendously and that there is far more work, the number of officials has not increased proportionately. This shows us that the Railway officials, from the top management right down to the most junior official, are people who do their duty for their country and their nation in every respect, and that irrespective of the colour group to which they belong they are proud to work for the S.A. Railways. The new injection of salary increases will, I believe, contribute towards still greater enthusiasm on the part of the railwaymen.

I am very grateful for the training these people undergo. My hon. colleague has also referred to this aspect. One thinks of the manpower shortage being experienced nowadays. In such circumstances training is very important. The hon. member referred to Esselen Park and to the number of instructors there and the number of people undergoing training at the various places. This is encouraging. Looking at the latest annual report one sees that it is one long success story.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned for supper, I was discussing the success story of the S.A. Railways. Paging through this annual report one finds that from beginning to end it is an S.A. Railways success story. Allow me to mention a few examples.

On page 11 of the report reference is made to high-speed trains. Great success has been achieved with these trains and during tests, speeds of up to 245 km per hour have been reached. The railway lines must of course be suitable. I can tell the hon. Minister that if he wants trains capable of reaching speeds of 250 km per hour, he can have them built at Nigel. We have the factory there. He need only see to it that there are no “speedcops” on the line and that speed restrictions are not introduced. We shall see to the rest.

In this most informative report reference is also made on page 14 to the increased wagon and locomotive axle loads, and specifically to the increase in the carrying capacity of the coal line Broodsnyersplaas—Richards Bay which was originally designed to convey 20 million tons of coal per annum. At present 24 million tons of coal per annum are already being conveyed on this line. With the greater knowledge to be gained in due course one can imagine what a tremendous success story this will be too.

Then, too, reference is made on page 16 to the conveyance of abnormal freights by rail and by road. Tremendous progress has been made in this sphere as well. This is an exceptional achievement. When we look at the Sick Fund of the S.A. Railways and Harbours, to which reference is made on page 18 of the report, we see that notable improvements have been effected. The committee appointed to investigate sickness benefits for Railway staff has made simply amazing recommendations. I should like to convey my thanks and appreciation to this committee for having investigated these matters in depth, because I am convinced that good officials deserve a good Sick Fund, and that is what they are going to get.

Passenger transport is discussed on page 27 of the report. The number of revenueearning passenger journeys totalled approximately 691 million during the year under review; an increase of 11,17% in comparison with the previous year. Surely that is a success story.

On page 28, goods and mineral traffic are discussed. The quantity of goods conveyed increased during 1979-’80 by 20 323 729 tons or 12,47% more than the equivalent figure for the previous year. That is another success story.

Accidents are discussed on page 34. The number of accidents involving trains has dropped. We are very pleased about that because human life is so precious that accidents should be restricted to the minimum.

On page 42 reference is made to the catering and bedding services. At Jan Smuts Airport alone the number of meals served over the past year has increased by 451 471. In other words, here, too, we have a success story.

On page 46 reference is made to shipping and cargo. Concerning shipping it is said that during the year under review, 11 425 vessels, of which 1 122 were coasters, 1 099 were foreign fishing vessels and 2 683 were South African trawlers, called at South African ports. This is far more than during the previous year. If we consider the cargo handled and the new works undertaken, we encounter yet another remarkable achievement. The S.A. Railways has worked faithfully and unceasingly. Every man has done his duty.

When we consider the elimination of levelcrossings, to which reference is made on page 59, we see that over the past year there has been a remarkable improvement in this connection. Plans have been drawn up for a large number of extremely dangerous crossings. During the past year, five railway crossings have been replaced by road-over-rail bridges. Moreover, many improvements to by-passers have been effected in co-operation with the Railways.

When one considers the expenditure in connection with the mechanical division, in relation to the work done, there is no comparison, because far more work is performed proportionate to the expenditure. That is remarkable.

When one comes to the Airways, it is the same story. Over the past year the S.A. Airways have expanded to such an extent that 17,7% more people were conveyed. Surely this is a success story seldom equalled in South Africa. This success story is due to the fact that there are loyal people in the service of the Railways, people who are known for their greater abilities, who have undergone better training, as the hon. member for Kimberley South formulated it at some length in his speech. As far as apprentices are concerned, it is remarkable that 2 000 apprentices are trained on the Railways every year.

I now turn to a factory, Union Carriage and Wagon Co. Ltd. which is situated in my constituency. All of us who read the Sunday newspapers saw a photograph of this remarkable factory in the Business Times of the Sunday Times, and this is one of the factories which saves the S.A. Railways millions of rands in foreign exchange every year and provides work to many people. It also provides work to many firms who do sub-contracting work for this remarkable firm in South Africa. This firm was established in 1956, and if one considers what has been achieved since then, South Africa has much to be grateful for as regards the work done by the people of that factory, for South Africa’s sake as well. Not only have they saved foreign exchange by manufacturing goods here; they have also exported to countries like Taiwan and so on. We can never, never be sufficiently grateful when a private enterprise such as this performs such notable services for our country and our people. The fact that it is there is not only to the benefit of the people of my own constituency, but also to the benefit of people throughout the entire East Rand, from places like Heidelberg, Dunottar, Springs and Brakpan. People come from all over to work at that very important firm and earn their living there.

This evening I also wish to pay tribute here to the person who was responsible for the founding of Vorsterkroon, named after my predecessor in the constituency, the hon. Adv. B. J. Vorster. It is remarkable to consider that Vorsterkroon was proclaimed over a period of three months. The town did not have industrial land, but that large firm nevertheless took an interest in the town. Within three months that place was proclaimed. That firm, which does so much for South Africa, made a start there and today it is one of the major sign of progress. The firm is going to mean a great deal for South Africa in the future too.

I should like to convey my thanks to the predecessor of the hon. the Minister, Mr. Heunis, who assisted me to such good effect that a railway line is to be built between Vorsterkroon and Dunottar. In years past, our mining industry has done a great deal for South Africa. However when we consider the station at Nigel which, due to surface undermining, has been undermined to such an extent in past years that those premises cannot be expanded and the station cannot be enlarged, and one knows that sufficient progress has been made for the surveys to have been carried out . . .

Has the line been built yet?

It has not yet been built.

I shall build it. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

The hon. the Minister says he will build the railway line. He is one of the best neighbours I have. [Interjections.] There is just one question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister. The planned new railway line is going to be built on extremely good agricultural land. If possible, and if it will not cost the Railways a great deal more money, I should like to ask the railway line to be rerouted here and there. Of course, I do not want there to be a delay in the construction work. However, I wonder whether it might not be possible, with the assistance of the owner of the land, to reroute it at certain places in order to save good agricultural land here and there? I am sure that as far as the Railways are concerned we have no problems. Approximately 33 years ago—I remember it well—the Sturrock trains were still running. At that time, when one wanted to get rid of someone, one would say: “Put the fellow on the train so that he can get lost.” Nowadays one does not hear that kind of remark any more. The Railways in South Africa are today a proud undertaking, an organization with people of whom our country is proud.

Hear, hear!

It is an undertaking which is the image of sound management, of a sound entrepreneuring spirit, and therefore I am convinced that in the years that lie ahead the hand of Midas will also be seen in the organization and achievements of the Railways Administration.

Mr. Speaker, it was a great pleasure to listen to such a positive contribution as the one we have had from the hon. member for Nigel. One can see that he is enthusiastic and is convinced of the good work being done by the Railways Administration and staff. It is a pleasure for me to continue on the same positive note and thank the Railways Administration for what they have done for South Africa. I want to thank them in particular for what they have achieved in Natal.

In recent times the S. A. Railways Administration have built a fine new station in Durban, a complex which has almost been completed. Over the past decade the Railways has also built the railway line from Broodsnyersplaas to Richards Bay and completed the Richards Bay harbour. The general manager of the S.A. Railways can be justly proud of the work he and his organization are performing and of the scientific way in which they investigate the best economic planning methods for South Africa in expanding of the services of the S.A. Railways. The hon. member for Orange Grove also accused our SAR of injudicious expenditure. However, I want to point out to him this evening how judiciously and scientifically the staff of the Railways Administration has acted, in an effort to give South Africa only the best.

To begin with, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister how he is going to accommodate the travelling public as regards the shifting of the Durban railway station. The station is being transferred from the old building in the centre city to the new building at Greyville. I should like the hon. the Minister to furnish a reply in this regard. With regard to the railway line from Broodsnyersplaas to Richards Bay, the S.A. Railways Administration had to design the most economic methods of increasing the capacity of that railway line. Within a very short period they had to increase the capacity of that railway line a number of times.

I should now like to give a historical survey of what in fact happened with regard to this railway line which was built in the interests of South Africa. As far back as 1955 the Cabinet decided that the burden of traffic on the main railway line between Durban and Johannesburg would have to be eased, and that an investigation would have to be carried out into the possibility of a different route to the Natal coast. At the time the Government set the Railways the task of exporting 1 200 million tons of coal through the harbour of Richards Bay within the short period of 30 years. As far back as 1966 it was decided that a new railway line would be built from Vryheid to Richards Bay. That was the instruction to the Railways. The Railways had then to investigate suitable harbours. They investigated Richards Bay, Kosi Bay and Saldanha Bay and eventually decided on Richards Bay. In 1970 the Government granted the Transvaal Coal Owners Association the right to convey a maximum of 9 million tons of coal per annum for export purposes on this railway line. In May 1972 instructions were issued for the building of a harbour at Richards Bay. The task entrusted to the Railways was to build a railway line of 93 km from Broodsnyersplaas to Ermelo. It was a new railway line. Another railway line of 203 km from Ermelo to Vryheid, which was an old line, had also to be rebuilt because it was unsuitable for heavy traffic. Then, too, they had to build a brand new railway line from Vryheid to Richards Bay, over a distance of 207 km. This was an enormous task, Sir, and those hon. members who know Natal will realize this, particularly in view of the mountainous terrain. This was a gigantic task that was entrusted to the engineering division of the Railways. They built the Broodsnyersplaas-Ermelo railway line on a slope of one in a hundred and the railway line from Ermelo to Richards Bay with a slope of one in 66. It was also planned that very long trains would run on this line. They envisaged trains of 76 CR wagons with a carrying capacity of 18,5 tons per axle would use this section of the line. People were amazed that the Railways were able to run trains of that length on that section of line.

In 1973 we had an energy crisis, and at the time the Government agreed to an increase in exports. In the first phase they planned to export 12 million tons per annum from 1 April 1976. In the second phase they had to export 20 million tons per annum from 1 April 1979. Before this scheme was completed, the Government agreed that 44 million tons per annum could be exported by way of this railway line and through the Richards Bay harbour. To save on capital costs, they decided at one stage that diesel traction would be used, but due to the energy crisis and the fact that they needed extra power for these long trains, they decided on an alternating current electrical system, and this was the first alternating current system to be used in South Africa. It was important to use electricity, due to the rapid increase in tonnage and also due to the increase in fuel prices. At present, 24 million tons per annum is being exported on 84 airbrake wagons with an axle load of 20 tons drawn by four class 7E alternating current electrical locomotives. It must also be borne in mind that phosphate, steel and granite, as well as general goods, are conveyed on this section of line.

A scientific investigation was launched by the Railways to increase the capacity of this section of line. The capacity is the tonnage in one direction over a period of 24 hours and the maximum number of trains per direction that can use this section of line in 24 hours. If the capacity is to be increased, the running time of the trains, the system of train control, the type of traction, the braking system, the axle load, the speed, the prevailing gradient, the wagon design, the coupler strength, the occupation time, the geographic terrain and also the train composition must all be taken into account. These are the factors that this team had to investigate in the interests of South Africa.

As I have already said, planning was aimed at increasing the capacity of this railway line to 1 200 million tons over 30 years. They had to find the most economic solution and a technically practicable project. The return date is the beginning of 1983, by which time it is envisaged that 30 million tons per annum will be transported, and then the beginning of 1986 is envisaged as the period by which 40 million tons per annum will be conveyed. This team had, inter alia, to draw up an alternative plan for the railway line between Ermelo and Richards Bay, a distance of 410 km. They had either to lengthen the train or double the railway line, or have the longest possible train travelling this distance. One of the problems they were faced with was that the gradient from Ermelo to Richards Bay was one in 66, and accordingly, to make it possible for a long train to travel on that section of line they had to try to reduce the slope. Many advantages and disadvantages had to be considered.

This team also had to determine the most economic system for South Africa. System 1 would cost R1 700 million over a period of 30 years; system 2, R1 620 million and system 3, R1 550 million. Apart from that, the team also had to attempt to increase the axle load of the wagons from 18 to 20 tons and then again to 26 tons, and they had to reduce the gradient to one in 160.

A supertrain is also being planned at the moment. It will have four class HE alternating current locomotives and 200 wagons with a total mass of 20 800 tons of coal. The success achieved within such a short period of time is something which the Railways Administration can be truly proud of. It is important that the axle load must be increased. While activities proceed, the existing rate of export must be maintained. At Vryheid, additional standover facilities must be available, coal loads from Natal must be marshalled so that 200 wagons can be fully loaded, and a bigger yard must be built at Ermelo to handle the long trains.

Coal, the black gold of South Africa, is going to play a role of growing importance in meeting the world’s energy requirements over the next decade.

Order! Hon. members must please afford the hon. member an opportunity to speak so that the Chair can hear him.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The control centre of the trains that travel these distances is in Vryheid, and I should like to know whether the hon. Minister would consider establishing a new system for this coal railway line between the Eastern Transvaal and Natal. If so, I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would consider establishing the offices of the system at Vryheid.

I now come to Richards Bay harbour. From the commissioning of the harbour on 1 April 1976 to the end of December 1980, almost 80,5 million tons of cargo has been exported through this harbour, and 75 million tons of that was coal. The earnings in foreign exchange already amount to more than R2 050 million, and coal represents R1 435 million thereof. What developments are envisaged for Richards Bay in order to export the 44 million tons of coal by 1986?

I want to assure the hon. the Minister that my Railway men and I regard him as a dynamic man. He is the kind of man they like and they will do their best for him. We wish him all of the best in this post. We are certain he will make a great success of it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend making any detailed comments on the speeches made by the last three speakers. There was, however, one common thread that ran through each of the three speeches by those Government members, and that was that in their opinion the S.A. Railways and the Airways are perfect and therefore beyond criticism. I cannot, however, subscribe to that. Indeed, it would not be my function, as a member of the Opposition, to subscribe to that. The hon. member for Nigel went even further and in quite a charming speech indulged in a eulogy of the hon. the Minister. I do happen to like the hon. the Minister very much indeed . . . [Interjections.] . . . because he has a certain charm about him, but I think it might go to his head if hon. members were to describe him too frequently in the elaborate terms used by the hon. member for Nigel. To suggest, for example, that the hon. the Minister has the Midas touch, and that everything he touches turns to gold, is to my way of thinking very questionable indeed. I do not think this was true of the hon. the Minister in the previous portfolio he administered, and I certainly do not think, from the start he has made in this portfolio, that there is any indication that everything he touches is going to turn to gold. Indeed, in this portfolio he had already inherited a surplus which he is, I believe, about to turn into a deficit. I therefore do not think this augurs very well, and certainly does not accord with what the hon. member for Nigel has said. Whatever hon. members in the Government benches may say, however, I believe that the little budget introduced by the hon. the Minister this afternoon will be a further financial blow to members of the South African public, who are already punch-drunk from repeated cost increases which are making it more and more impossible for the average person to make ends meet. There is no doubt that the Government clearly accepts that there is never any chance of reducing the cost burden on people, and the Government therefore seems to be adopting the attitude that it must proceed on the basis that it should be taken for granted that costs will never come down. I must say that the hon. the Minister’s presentation of his budget this afternoon, in his introductory speech, was clear evidence of this. We listened to a nice, bullish, optimistic beginning to the hon. the Minister’s speech when he told us proudly of the growth increase in excess of that budgeted for. He also told us of the increased revenue from goods and passenger services and of a surplus of R23 million instead of R4 million. One began to get quite enthusiastic about this, but then he proceeded to tell us that because of the smaller than anticipated growth rate in South Africa, because of inflation and because of increased salaries he was going to raise tariffs. So suddenly one’s hopes for an optimistic budget were dashed to the ground. Then he repeatedly told us, as he dealt with the increases—this is very interesting, and I think a psychologist would have found it particularly interesting—that the increases would only be this or that, a rather understandable defence mechanism used by the hon. the Minister. Never did he give any indication that there was any chance of relief for the man in the street. We have therefore now quite clearly reached the stage, with this Government, where increases are simply taken for granted and cannot be avoided. What he gives with the one hand, he takes away with the other. He gives increased salaries with the one hand, and with the other he takes this away with his contribution to escalating inflation.

Perhaps the most realistic part of his speech came with the few words conceding that our growth rate in this country is being limited because of a shortage of skilled labour in the country. There was a touch of reality. Of course he omitted to tell us why this situation had ever been allowed to occur, why on earth we should have a shortage of skilled labour in South Africa while we have all the labour available to us in this country. Over the past 30 years efforts should have been made to foresee the difficulties which have now arisen and to ensure that we would have adequate skilled labour at our disposal. But, Sir, whatever reasons are given now, the increase in tariffs announced by the hon. the Minister can only add further hardship to the lives of people across the board—to the lives of train commuters who have to use rail passenger services, to the lives of ordinary people who will pay more for almost every commodity, to the lives of farmers and of businessmen. No sector will escape the effect of these increases and the one certain result of the hon. the Minister’s budget will be that the inflation rate already threatening this country will receive a substantial boost. Having said that, one must recognize the problems which exist. As I have said, the country will not take kindly and easily to the sort of news the hon. the Minister gave us this afternoon.

I now want to deal with certain specific items relating to the administration of the department under the hon. the Minister’s control. In the first instance I want to deal with a few issues relating to the Airways service in South Africa. The first issue is the escalation in the incidence of delays of aircraft departures and the consequent disruption of time tables for flights around the country, because the delay in one flight departure often has a ripple effect on air schedules throughout our internal service. We have reached the stage where businessmen and others in South Africa are often considerably inconvenienced as a result of this and there is no longer any certainty when one travels SAA that one will be in time to meet commitments which have been made at one’s destination. This is a serious situation. Figures given by the hon. the Minister during this session illustrate the point I am making. I want the hon. the Minister to deal with this when he replies to the debate because it is a matter which certainly concerns the business sector, in particular, and I believe all passengers generally. Earlier this session the hon. the Minister was asked, inter alia, how many flights during the 12 months of 1980 had been delayed because of technical problems, and he gave figures relating to the various aircraft used by South African Airways. The figures indicated that during the year there were no less than 782 delays of departure due to technical problems. That gives us an average of more than 60 delays in flight departures per month. By whatever standards one measures this, these figures must give cause for very great concern. While on the positive side I suppose it is good to know that great caution is exercised by the flying staff in refusing to fly until they are satisfied that their aircraft are 100% functional, on the negative side such a high incidence of delays in departures for technical reasons does raise the question of the state of the aircraft and the adequacy of the maintenance. I think the hon. the Minister owes the House an assurance and an explanation on this point as to why there has been such a high incidence of delays in departures. What steps are being taken by the department to deal with this situation? Is it due to a shortage of maintenance personnel? Is it perhaps due to the over-use of aircraft and consequent lack of time to ensure adequate maintenance surveillance? What is the reason? I think we need to know the answer to that question.

The second question I wish to raise in regard to the Airways relates to the question of passenger service in the air and on the ground. Other speakers this afternoon have already referred to this. It is strange that this matter produced a very super-sensitive reaction from some Government speakers. I think we must be frank with each other across the floor of the House because we are not here as a mutual admiration society. We are all conscious of the fact that the South African Airways is an important part of our transport system in South Africa and, if there are faults, I believe we have to look at those faults, and it is in that spirit that I offer the following comments.

We have a very good record as far as our Airways service is concerned and I think all hon. members are in agreement in regard to the very high standard of our flying safety record in particular. However, we also know that the Airways is a state-owned and operated airline. It is therefore free of competition on our internal routes and although I do not want to argue the merits or demerits of that aspect at this stage it does mean that where we are free of competition, special care needs to be taken to ensure that standards do not drop in regard to the reception and handling of fare-paying passengers. In respect of international flights, however, we are in a fiercely competitive field and here it is even more important to ensure that a very high standard of service to the public is maintained at all times. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what steps, if any, his department takes to keep up to date with techniques in the handling of passengers and with standards maintained by airlines in other countries. Again, we are not living in isolation. As I have said, as far as international services are concerned, it is a highly competitive field. I think we should keep well abreast of what is taking place in other countries, particularly with regard to the handling of passengers. Certainly, the more populous countries have more experience than we do in the handling of crowds and I think we can learn from them. Incidentally, I believe that a great deal of our problems stem from the fact that our airports are obsolete. I think they were probably badly planned at the time in that those responsible did not take into account the growth in passenger traffic. However, that is not a matter I can deal with in detail, because it really falls under the Department of Transport.

That aside, I believe we could be far more efficient in our handling of passengers. I think, for example, of the system employed by airlines in America of boarding passengers by seat numbers. It is an easy system. It means that aircraft are not immediately congested, but that people board and take their seats in an orderly fashion. That is one system. There is also a system used by most American airlines whereby preference is given to elderly people, the infirm and mothers travelling with young children. Again, the object is simply to ease the situation of passengers when they are travelling. I believe this sort of system could well be applied in South Africa. The particular system of boarding by numbers is, I think, a good one. Instead of that, in this country we often have an unholy scramble at our airports to board aircraft and a muddle in the aircraft themselves while people line up in the aisles waiting to take their seats. I would think that officials of the SAA would watch the systems used by other airlines and, where they find a system that is operating well, would follow it. I should like the hon. the Minister to comment on that point. In these matters and others relating to the reception and handling of passengers I think we can learn from other countries. Because in this country the SAA has the monopoly of air services—again I want to make this point—I do not believe we should allow ourselves to become complacent and simply pat ourselves on the back and say ours is the best service in the world. I think we have a lot to learn from other examples.

I want to turn to another matter entirely, and that is the question of the operation of the Railways Sick Fund. The time has surely come for the whole operation of the Railways Sick Fund to be re-examined in the light of developments in other fields of employment. The General Manager in his report sets out the history of the Fund and tells us it operates as a benefit Fund and is the largest of its kind in the country. We are told that it provides benefits to 380 754 Whites and 150 000 non-Whites entirely at the cost of the Administration. We are also told that the actual expenditure for the financial year ended 31 March 1980 in regard to the Sick Fund was no less than R49 600 000. These are impressive figures and that expenditure obviously represents a considerable benefit for those employed by the Administration, a benefit I do not want in any way to minimize. The scheme does, however, contain two major defects—it always has—which place Railway employees at a disadvantage2 vis-à-vis employees in other fields, particularly those who belong to medical aid schemes. The first is that railwaymen do not have a free choice of medical advisers. They are obliged to consult one of those on a panel appointed by the Administration. I think that this in itself is a considerable disadvantage and is often resented by members of the Sick Fund. They cannot go to the doctor of their choice, but must go to the doctor who, in general terms, is called “the Railway doctor”. They may not like the Railway doctor. They may not think that the Railway doctor is a particularly good doctor, but they are obliged to go to him. The second disadvantage is that there is often a limitation on the medicines which may be prescribed or dispensed. This again puts Railway employees at a disadvantage. I believe that, just as the Police Force is about to be given a medical aid scheme and other branches of the Public Service have such schemes, the Railways Sick Fund should at least be re-examined as regards its operation in order to give Railway employees more freedom in these matters and better benefits from the Fund. I ask the hon. the Minister and the Administration to give that matter attention.

Then I want to deal with an issue relating to urban passenger transport. As we have a new Minister, I believe it would be useful to have his views on the part the Administration should play in the development of urban transport in South Africa in the years ahead. I know that this matter has been raised before, and that it has been considered by various commissions, but I raise it because I believe that South Africa probably has the worst public transport system in relation to any other developed country, that I know of, anyway. In fact, for many in this country public transport is just not a factor. Bus services are poor. Local authorities struggle to maintain the limited services they do operate, and normally they do so at a loss. Apart from the Black commuters who use our train service to and from the townships, most people in South Africa are compelled to rely on private transport.

In this fuel starved world, we in South Africa are a nation of car drivers. If one looks at peak hour traffic in any of our large cities, one finds that despite the fuel shortage and the high cost of fuel, we are one-person car operators very often. The reason for that is simply that there are no alternatives. If one does not go to work by car, there is very often no other way of getting there.

As I have said, Sir, I know that this matter has been considered by commissions and that it has been discussed before. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether we can simply leave the question of urban transport to the local authorities. I know that there are enormous costs involved and that much planning is needed, and I do not believe that any local authority in the country can deal with the situation on its own. I think, of course, of the possibility of underground train services, as in other countries. Large cities as well as not so large cities in other countries are going for underground train services in order to convey their passengers. Is it not time that the Railways Administration, which is a State monopoly and which is the big brother of transport in this country, gave a lead, at least, in initiating planning for this type of service in the future? These are some of the matters on which I should like the hon. the Minister to reply.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave delivered a very calm, moderate speech. He stated certain matters and whether I agree with him or not, I give him credit for this. However, why did the hon. member have to make a few irresponsible, stupid statements at the beginning of his speech? This bedevilled his entire speech, if I may put it like that.

The hon. member referred to the increases and said that although the Minister has given increases to the officials, he has not given any relief to the man in the street. Sir, surely the officials are receiving those increases, and this is over and above the annual increase that they receive. Therefore, it is an additional remuneration, as a result of inflation and certain modifications. I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave as well as the hon. member for Orange Grove that this budget affects every person and every animal in South Africa. There is not a single individual in this whole country, whether he works for the Railways or not, who will not benefit by this. [Interjections.] I referred to animals. Even the animals of the field, my cattle, benefit by this budget. As a result of the decent travelling facilities that are made available by the Railways, my cattle receive salt licks, lucerne and feed. We buy that meat at the market the following day. Therefore, every man in the street benefits by this. Then there are also the industries in South Africa. Has the hon. member spared a moment’s thought for what the Railways in South Africa is doing for the industries? On the basis of this fantastic budget I want to point out that a tremendous sum is being paid to the industries in South Africa annually. Where did the 8,5% growth in South Africa come from? Where would that growth have come from if the Railways had not contributed their share? Therefore, over the past year the dealer has also reaped benefit from the Railways, and he will continue to do so in future. In many respects the consumer also benefits by it. Then there is the investor who benefits from the Railways. The rail services that are provided, form part of our infrastructure, and if one does not have transport, everything comes to a standstill no matter what one produces. Our transport system consists of bus, truck, air, sea and rail transport, and this matter can therefore not be viewed in isolation. The country will not be able to carry on if all these things are not properly co-ordinated by a good transport system.

Now I want to come back to what the hon. member for Musgrave said when he asked why there is a shortage of skilled labour. Surely this is history. If the UP, when they were still in power, had seen to it at the time that there were more than four high schools in the whole of the Witwatersrand—this is where the backlog began—we would not have been in the position in which we are today. Where are the children of the members from the Prog seats, the English-speaking seats? Why do they not work on the Railways? Whose children work there? I want to ask the hon. members of the Opposition: “Do you encourage your sons and daughters to join the Railways?” No, Sir. Their children want to enter the professions only. They send their children to professions where they can make the most money. But here where a service is being provided for South Africa’s people, where a national service is being provided, their children shine by their absence. The hon. member must not simply look at today. Let us rather go back a little in history and go to the point which the hon. member mentioned here. I hope the hon. member is going to assist in ironing out those problems in the future. The hon. member and I are both responsible for these things, but it is not only us on this side who must do our share; the hon. member must do his share too. Then we can proceed further.

I now want to give some attention to the hon. member for Orange Grove. He had a great deal to say here this afternoon and I have obtained a copy of his Hansard because I do not want to quote him wrongly. I just want to deal with a few points to which the hon. member referred.

Let him have it!

I am going to. He said (Hansard, 23 February 1981, col. 2098)—

The hon. member also objected throughout to the capital expenditure for which provision is being made in the budget. I want to digress a little on the capital expenditure. That hon. member is opposed to any capital expenditure being incurred. He does not want any capital expenditure of any nature, good or bad, to be incurred.

I did not say that at all. I said the Minister should restrain himself.

No, the hon. member said a great deal and that is why I obtained a copy of his Hansard in order to quote him. The hon. member—and I am going to tell this to the voters—refuses to agree to any capital expenditure whatsoever for the Railways.

I did not say “any”.

I shall also tell the voters very clearly what the hon. member wants. He objects to this, in spite of the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission and in spite of the fact that those experts, not he and I, said that the financing should be 50:50 with regard to capital improvements. I do not know how much of an economist that hon. member is, but the little knowledge that I have of finances, and it is simply a drop in the ocean and not something that I boast about, is definitely enough to make me realize that the Franzsen Commission was a team of experts and that they carried out excellent work. This is true and the hon. member agrees that they said this. However, the hon. member is refusing to carry their recommendations into effect. What is the position with regard to capital expenditure for the Railways? Why are we suffering today? We have been saddled with this since the days of the old United Party when they wanted to borrow all the money to bring about capital improvements. Over the years the Railways has tried to rectify this. What was the position in 1977-78? Then we had a mere 13% of our own capital for capital improvements in comparison with 87% foreign capital. Surely this is an untenable situation. The Railways could definitely not continue in that way. However, it improved thanks to an NP Government. The following year it was 17% of our own capital in comparison with 83% foreign capital. This is how it continued. Unfortunately, I do not know what it is at the moment. However, I should like the hon. the Minister to give me this snippet of information. The hon. the Minister may do well to tell us what percentage of the revised capital budget for the 1980-’81 financial year is being financed from internal funds. I notice that there was a revision of the capital budget here. I hope the hon. the Minister will rub it in when he tells the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. the Minister should give it to him in writing so that he can inform his voters too.

It is very good that we are also aware of the fact that, due to the NP Government and due to the excellent people at the centre of things in the Railways Administration, people who are experts, these matters have all shown a drastic improvement. I should like to spend more time on this capital expenditure. The hon. member for Orange Grove adopted a very strong stand against this this afternoon. The hon. member for Orange Grove has no manners. He is unmannerly. I asked for his attention and he is simply sitting and talking.

Order! The hon. member may not say that. He must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. I asked the hon. member for his attention. However, he is not listening to me, but is talking all the time.

Order! The hon. member for Sunnyside can draw the attention of the hon. member for Orange Grove to this in a proper fashion.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove has his Brown Book. This afternoon he took a strong stand against the expenditure of R57 million on the new computer centre, computer equipment and office building in Johannesburg. Why did the hon. member not tell the House that R1 000 is all that is being requested for this purpose in this budget? In any event, this is an amount that has already been agreed to in the Additional Appropriation. That alleged R57 million is not going to be spent this year. I want the Press to rectify this matter.

That R1 000 was for last year; not for this year.

This amount was agreed to in the Additional Appropriation, and has a bearing on the planning alone.

Yes, but Lorimer is completely confused.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has the same privilege that I have. I went to the Railways Administration to establish what the cost involved would be. For the 1981-’82 financial year only approximately R1 million is going to be spent. This is all that is going to be spent.

How do you know that?

But I said . . . Mr. Speaker, this shows us how that hon. member listens. I am talking to him. I tell him that I went to ascertain it. However, his ears are tight closed. He simply does not listen. [Interjections.]

Order!

I ascertained from the Railways Administration that the amount concerned amount to approximately R1 million. The hon. member for Orange Grove can go there now and ascertain this. However, apart from the R57 million about which the hon. member spoke, I also want to refer him now to the new housing scheme for non-Whites, which is found in item No. 199 and item No. 200 in the Brown Book. The total cost estimated for the old-age home in Vryheid East amounts to R8 074 800, and the estimated total cost of the old-age home for non-Whites at New Canada is R55 million. This is a combined total cost of R63 million. Does the hon. member for Orange Grove object to this?

No.

No, he does not object to it. [Interjections.] He does not object to this. He keeps completely quiet about it. I also went to ascertain what is going to be spent in this regard during the 1981-’82 financial year. The expenditure on this housing is going to amount to R3,6 million. Now the hon. member probably wants to tell me that this is wrong too, that we may not build houses for the non-White employees of the Railways Administration? Does he object to this too?

Of course not.

The hon. member says he does not object to this. Now I want to ask him why then he is objecting to the R57 million, whilst it is being used for installing a computer system. The hon. member does not think. He cannot think. He does not want to think. That R57 million that is being spent, is not simply being spent for the sake of a small group of White people. It is being spent for the sake of the whole of South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

It is being spent for the whole of South Africa. It is for the sake of the control of all trains running in South Africa. Which people in South Africa travel by train most of all?

Not you; I do. [Interjections.]

Yes, the Blacks of South Africa and the hon. member for Orange Grove travel by train most of all. [Interjections.]

To Durban and back. [Interjections.]

We know that a tremendous number of trains run to transport the Black people from their residential areas to their places of employment. Now some people are alleging that those Black residential areas are situated thousands of miles from the Black peoples’ places of employment. However, they are merely a few minutes’ journey by train. [Interjections.] These computers are being introduced specifically with a view to seeing to the safety of these trains. It seems to me that the hon. member for Orange Grove does not want those trains to be very safe; accidents may occur, as far as he is concerned. It seems to me he wants something like this, because he is objecting to the computers and therefore to proper control and safety. He feels it is good enough when some mistake or other occurs, that it is impossible to be localized within the main building.

I want to talk to the hon. member about loans. He wants the money to be borrowed, but after all that money must eventually be repaid. He is now being terribly clever and saying that one day when the money has to be repaid, it will be repaid with money that is worth less. He has no will and no vision about how we are going to conquer inflation in the future. He sees no prospect of a rand being worth a rand once again; he feels that everything will simply become worse in future.

He must bear in mind that in addition, interest must be paid on loans. It is due to those large loans that were negotiated in the past that the Railways is struggling to raise its head above water today. The interest is much too high and the hon. member knows it. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to quote figures in this regard. If it was a question of 50:50, South Africa could have had a low rate today and the Railways would not have been struggling to find money in order to expand capital improvements.

Let us compare this with the position in the Post Office. The Post Office has reached the stage where its capital improvements can practically be financed on a 50:50 basis from its own funds. It is dealing with a low amount of interest. For several years the Post Office has not increased its tariffs. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to succeed in improving matters to such an extent that we can reach the 50:50 ratio.

Over the past few years there have been wonderful improvements. We began at a stage when we were able to finance hardly any of the capital improvements from our own funds. Where do such funds come from? At the moment—the hon. member also mentioned this—we have to make provision for increased replacement value. I am pleased that it is the policy of the department to make increasing provision for the replacement of assets every year, because as in all countries in the world, we are faced with inflation too. None of us can help this; at most we can improve the situation. It is not the Government alone that can do something about it; the whole country and nation, the private as well as the public sector, the manufacturer and the consumer, as well as the trader, the employer and the employee must work together in order to succeed.

In conclusion I must also point out to the hon. member that it is the task of the Railways to ensure that there is an extremely economic transport system in South Africa. When requests are received for the State to build or create certain railway fines or facilities, there are certain factors that must be taken into account in order to ascertain whether something of this nature will be profitable. If a railway line is built which later appears to be unprofitable and therefore not economically justifiable, the State must stand in for the cost. This happens in particular with railway lines for passengers. We know that great losses are being suffered there. However, take note of the amount by which the State is already financing the Railways in this regard. In this regard we simply have to think of the subsidies on non-White bus transport services.

When we look at these things—that building costing R57 million is one of them— certain requirements must be complied with. One of the requirements is that the proposed project must answer to the economic requirements of the time. This applies to everything—a railway line, a station or whatever. When additional railway lines, air services or sea transport is made available, the question is whether it is going to be competitive. Are there other bodies that are going to compete and provide cheaper services? It must also be ascertained whether the necessary capital and labour is available to be able to carry the proposed project through successfully. The economic development in the country is also taken into account. Is the existing need so great that the project must be begun at once, or can it be postponed until later when technological development will facilitate matters? This is what happened in the case of the Post Office. Finally, the potential market must be studied. Will the service be profitable? Can one develop a region, as happened in the Northern Cape and with the Sishen-Saldanha project as well? If the answer to all these questions is positive, the project may be set in motion.

To the hon. the Minister and his top management I say that we are grateful that they are acting in such a balanced, coordinated and economically justifiable way as far as our Railways Administration is concerned. We hope and trust that they will be able to do so with an equal amount of success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I have before me the amendments by the hon. member for Umhlanga and the hon. member for Orange Grove. I want to begin with the hon. member for Umhlanga. The NRP states that it refuses to approve this budget unless the Minister of Transport Affairs gives the assurance that the Administration will, inter alia, review the operating accounts of all services with a view to making economies and eliminating all unnecessary and wasteful expenditure. However, the hon. the Minister and the Management have been doing this throughout the year, and not merely once a year, and therefore I think it is easy for the hon. the Minister to give the hon. member that assurance.

In the second place, the hon. member calls for all projects on the Capital Account to be reviewed with a view to reducing the demand for capital funds to the barest essentials. I have no fault to find with that, because this, too, the hon. the Minister and the Management have been doing consistently. But what are the “barest essentials”? That is where I find fault with the view of the hon. member. It is essential that the Railways should develop the infrastructure of South Africa in such a way that no serious bottlenecks occur with regard to transport during boom periods. If the hon. the Minister does not do that, that hon. member will be the first to reproach him for not being able to render essential services to private initiative. The hon. member states that the hon. the Minister should do everything in his power to prevent excessive capital expenditure in boom periods, but on the other hand, sufficient to meet the needs of the infrastructure of the country. The hon. the Minister is therefore acting correctly, because that is what he is doing—indeed, that is what he has sought to do this year and last year as well—because in view of the cuts of the past few years, there has been a danger that a serious shortage could occur in certain instances as regards the infrastructure of South Africa. Therefore it is essential in these times that the hon. the Minister and the management should give this very careful consideration, because the rendering of service is an essential requirement for efficiency in the economic life of South Africa as a whole, and that is very important.

The third point is that every effort must be made to raise productivity and profitability to a level at which tariff increases no longer act as a spur to the inflationary spiral. This is a very difficult matter. What is the “profitability” of the Railways? I do not quite understand that. The Railways is not meant to be a profitable undertaking. It must see to it that its financial structure is in order, but it must cover its costs. That is what the constitution requires. If the hon. member means by his amendment that productivity must be increased to such an extent that the increase in wages and salaries which is partly responsible for tariff increases will not give rise to an increased rate of inflation and will not result in an increase in costs, in other words—the productivity of the workers must be increased—if that is his intention, then this side of the House can find no fault with it. That is essential, although it is a very difficult task. However it is an ideal, but I wonder when the day will come when salary increases for Railway and Government officials are not inflationary. That is an ideal that the whole world strives for, but for which no solution has yet been found.

This brings me to the hon. member for Orange Grove, who amazed me this evening. He refuses to approve the budget because attention was not being given to the desperate need to fight inflation and to control the rapid increase in the cost of living. He maintains that attention is not being given to these problems. But is that true? Does the hon. member really believe what he is saying?

Yes.

What is the position? The Government has a printing press—I admit that—but the coins and bank notes, as a percentage of the total supply of money and quasi-money, is a meagre 11% or 12%. However, they have put this forward as the main reason for the vast quantity of money in circulation. They said that the Government is printing the money on its printing press. However, that is untrue. As I have said, the total value of all coins and bank notes is a meagre 11% or 12% of the total money and quasi-money in circulation. However, what is still more important is that that percentage amounted to 12,5% in 1973. In 1979 it was 11,4%. It has therefore dropped. In September 1980—and we must recall that there was a boom period in 1980—it was a mere 11,5%. Therefore, since 1973 it has in fact dropped. If there is one characteristic of the hon. the Minister of Finance which deserves to be greatly appreciated it is that over the past few years he has succeeded in keeping the increase in the real expenditure of the State down to a mere 1,5% per annum over a period of six to seven years, in very difficult circumstances. That is a fantastic achievement, and therefore the accusation levelled by that side is not in fact well-founded.

I have calculated the total State expenditure as a percentage of the inflation rate. How does it compare? After all, they say that Government expenditure is responsible for inflation. However, I do not know which comes first, the chicken or the egg. The inflation rate for 1977 to 1980 was 45%, but real Government expenditure over that period increased by a mere 50%, a bare 5% more than the rate of inflation. I say that it is a fantastic achievement for the State to be able to set that record in these times. Therefore we can only say that the hon. the Minister of Finance was right when he maintained that he had implemented financial discipline with regard to Government expenditure in South Africa, and in fact has done so better than ever before. We can really pay him that tribute. The allegations from that side of the House are not well founded, because they are untrue.

The hon. member for Orange Grove made a few amazing economic statements this evening. He began by saying that the increase in salaries and wages was too little— please note, too little! He wants the hon. the Minister to give more, because that, I suppose, would not be inflationary! However, what does the hon. member go on to say? He maintains that the Minister should not finance the increases in salaries from tariff increases. He must finance them from loans. What does that mean? [Interjections.] In the first place, of course, that is inflationary, because in boom times one does not budget for deficits, since a deficit is inflationary. One budgets for surpluses. That is not all, however. According to the argument of that hon. member the hon. the Minister should therefore budget for a bigger deficit this year, but that deficit has to be recovered at one time or another. However, when does one budget for a deficit? The answer is: In times of recession and depression.

Or if you are a Prog.

I have never learnt about that type of economy before. I am hearing about it for the first time this evening.

I think that in introducing this budget the hon. the Minister showed very great responsibility in that he made the increases relatively constant. I only hope the hon. the Minister’s surplus will be far greater, because the Railways needs that, and it needs it—as the hon. member for Sunnyside said—because if there is one imbalance in the financial structure of the Railways, it is the proportion of interest-bearing capital to non-interest-bearing capital. Do hon. members know why businesses go bankrupt? One of the most important reasons why a business goes bankrupt in difficult times is that the burden of interest it bears is too high in comparison with its non-interest-bearing capital, because that is a fixed burden which cannot be reduced. It remains constant. Even if one’s business slows down, one still has to pay one’s burden of interest. Accordingly the first requirement for a sound business is that there should be a sound financial structure. The hon. member asked: “What is the ratio?” In 1980 the ratio was 81% borrowed as against only 19% selfgenerated capital. This is certainly disproportionate, Sir, and as long as this ratio exists, the Railways will experience problems in a sensitive period such as this, and the object is therefore to temper the sensitivity to business cycles of the Railways. The best way of doing this is to add surpluses to one’s self-generated capital so that the ratio may be 50:50 or 60:40. 60% borrowed and 40% self-generated capital is also reasonably healthy, but 50:50 is really the ideal ratio. Sir, I should like to express our greatest appreciation to the Ministers of Transport who, in difficult times, have begun to rectify the financial structure of the Railways. The first Minister who made a start on this was Minister Lourens Muller. At the time I was in the Other Place when he began this task, and the Minister who followed him, Minister Heunis, took the matter further. I should like to convey my greatest appreciation to those two Ministers who did the spadework in this regard. I want to ask the present hon. Minister of Transport Affairs to continue with that policy, because in that way he will do not only our private sector but also our country the greatest service if, within 10 years, he can achieve a sound ratio. We want to ask the hon. the Minister to carry on with that principle.

Sir, let us take another look at the question of inflation. The hon. members of the Opposition say that we are doing nothing about inflation. The hon. member said: “The first thing we must do is to increase wages and salaries and in this way look after one’s people by giving them work.” Sir, the best thing one can do at a time like this is to give one’s people work so that they can earn a salary. Hon. members know that there was a problem of widespread unemployment and the State said: “Now we must try to get more work for our people.” This was done by accelerating the growth rate. It was not easy; it was difficult, but it had to be done. Public expenditure had to be increased. It was done, and the State achieved fantastic success in getting the economy moving again within two years, so that today we have the highest growth rate in the world, namely 8%. Sir, in my humble opinion it would have been better if the growth rate had been 6% and not 8%. I say that it is more responsible and financially more sound for us to plan for a growth rate of 6%. The growth rate of 8% sets too heavy demands on production factors and it increases costs, with the result that inflation is inevitable. We are planning for a growth rate of 6% or 5% this year. There are also other means used by the State to limit inflation. The hon. member says that the State is doing nothing to combat inflation. One thing that the State is doing to combat inflation is to increase productivity. How does one increase productivity? There are many ways of doing so, but the most important way is through training.

In the past year alone there has been an increase of 27% in expenditure on State education for our population. Does this not look like a basic method of combating inflation? And hon. members opposite say we are doing nothing.

Thirdly, the Government has already begun to take steps to limit the amount of money in circulation. How does one limit the amount of money in circulation? Various steps can be taken. One is to increase interest rates. That was done recently. Secondly, one must look at the credit ceilings and at the ratio of advances to deposits. The State is going to do so. I agree with the hon. member that we must reduce the amount of money in circulation in South Africa. There is too much money in circulation. However, he cannot blame the Government for that. The good gold price is partly responsible for that. Who expected the gold price to rise to $800 in one year? We received R10 milliard in one year. That flooded the country with money. Everyone knows that. Was that a bad thing? Did hon. members want the State simply to pump it in willy nilly and neutralize everything by depositing all of it in the Stabilization Fund? The Government cannot work like that. One businessman after the other said: “You must take care. Do not rush into anything, because then you will create more problems than you solve.”

The hon. members went on to say that tariff increases would inhibit economic growth. We do not differ with them on that score. They added that the salary and wage increases for employees were inadequate and that they would make a drop in their standard of living inevitable. The two amendments lack substance. For that reason we on this side of the House are unable to accept those amendments. I agree that as long as the Minister is faced with inflation it is very difficult for him to avoid tariff increases. Indeed, it is impossible. I am one of those who feel that it is not for the State alone to solve inflation—it is a matter for the State, the employers and the employees as a whole. What is more, it is not only for South Africa, but also for the world to do so. Until such time as the world, on which South Africa is very dependant economically, in the sense that we are a country with a high import tendency, has succeeded in getting this problem under control, the question of increases in the cost of living, tariff increases and price increases will continue ad infinitum. If we are unable to control it better than in the past, if we cannot do what Switzerland and Germany have done, then we are heading for economic problems for the world and for our country as well. Accordingly we must devote all our energies to combating inflation.

The Part Appropriation which the hon. the Minister introduced attests to a very responsible approach. The increases have not been excessive. The burden imposed is a reasonable one. After all, we know that if one makes the burden on one group too heavy, that increase will be counterproductive, because when one does that one often loses more business than one gains. Instead of dropping, one’s deficit increases. Secondly, I think it was necessary for the hon. the Minister to announce salary increases. It is now being said that the salary increases are inflationary. It is being said that this budget is in fact inflationary because of the salary increases. If it is true, as the hon. members opposite say, that we can expect an inflation rate of 20% this year—I do not want to say it is true or untrue, but I should be amazed if it were so high—that would mean that with the average salary increases of between 12% and 13% there will be a difference of 7%. That is already an achievement. What is the effect of the tariff increases on the cost of living in South Africa? Hon. members opposite say that they will give inflation a tremendous boost. Have they made any calculations? The Railways have. It is estimated that the direct effect of these tariff increases on the cost of living will be 0,9%. Please note, the direct effect. If for the sake of argument we were to say that the indirect effect was 50%—it could be a little more, but it could also be a little less—then that would amount to, say, 1,5%. We wish we could have avoided that. The hon. the Minister would be the first to say that he wishes he could have avoided it, but he was unable to avoid it. I think that one and all will agree that in these times we are living in, taking into account the time of prosperity in which South Africa finds itself, and taking into account the scarcity of labour it is experiencing—not unemployment, but the scarcity of skilled labour in particular—and since in addition to this it must provide for major expansions in the Railways to meet the need for an adequate infrastructure, this is an achievement of which we can be proud.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the previous speaker in complimenting the hon. the Minister on a very responsible and very sound part appropriation measure, and I also wish to avail myself of this opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Minister on his first introduction of a Part Appropriation Bill. We know that the Rail way staff will grow as fond of him as the farmers were.

The South African Railways and Harbours play an extremely important role in our economic growth, in our stability in this country. Our transport industry has a proud record in this sense that people have confidence in it, not only at home but abroad as well, because when a ship or an aircraft arrives here, it is off-loaded and re-loaded. We do not have any problems here with strikes and boycotts. We have a proud record as far as our trade is concerned, and we have the Railway and Harbour staff to thank for that. That is why I am pleased at this increase. We do not begrudge any member of the Railway staff receiving the salary increases and additional benefits from this appropriation the enjoyment of those increases, for this will in future assure us of a happy and satisfied staff who will serve this country with great dedication. Our Railway staff maintain an extremely high turnover in this country. This is also one of the departments in which human relationships play an important role. The number of passengers conveyed by the Railways testifies to this. The work is being done with so much dedication and so smoothly that we can only be grateful. If we consider the tonnage conveyed by the Railways, we see that the Railways has always kept abreast of what was expected of it.

There is one sector of our Railway staff to which I wish to convey special thanks this evening. This is a sector of our Railway staff which is not always in the limelight and of whom not everyone is always aware. I am referring to the road transportation service. I have a constituency which depends to a very large extent on the road transportation service. The railway line from Cape Town to Pretoria-Johannesburg passes through approximately the whole length of my constituency, but everywhere towns such as Sutherland, Fraserburg, Loxton, Merweville, Prince Albert and so on are dependent on bus transportation. These are people who in difficult times, as is happening at this particular juncture when a drought is prevailing in our area, have scant regard for time in their efforts to serve that area by conveying the necessities of life to that area. These are the men who are responsible for the delivery of bread, newspapers and sheep fodder to those towns. Sometimes they work under very difficult circumstances, and I wish to thank them this evening.

The South African Railways began in a small way with the construction of the railway line from Cape Town to Wellington in 1859 and the 3,2 kilometre railway line between Durban and Point in 1860. In spite of such a small beginning, however, it has always been able to keep abreast of developments, and as the diamond and gold fields were discovered in the ’70s and ’80s of the previous century, the railway system was expanded. That is how it came about that the railway line was the only direct link between north and south, between Cape Town and Pretoria and further north. As I have already said, the railway line runs through my constituency. When the first bridge was built over the Buffels River in 1879, the railway line was able to cross the Buffels River at Laingsburg. The railway line has consequently been a tremendous stimulus to the development of Laingsburg. The train bridge across the Buffels River near Laingsburg can testify this evening to craftmanship and to engineering skill of an extremely high standard, because it withstood the flood waters.

If we examine the effects of the floods on the S.A. Railways and the infrastructure in a northerly direction, we see that they were of tremendous extent. Both approaches to the bridge were washed away and for several kilometres the railway line hung suspended in the air in several places. However, the Railways sprang into action and immediately made a survey of the staff who would be available and also of the necessary material and other requirements. Initially it was very difficult to reach the affected areas, and the first inspections had to be carried out by means of helicopters. There were no communications. At first not even radio communications were successful. Within the space of a few hours after the extent of the damage had been established, more than a 1 000 people were moved to these points. It was not only workers and their equipment, but food and accommodation, and in addition provision had to be made for staff within the disaster area who were without work, food or shelter and who were at their wit’s end.

During this time the Railways had to look after and make arrangements for passengers who had been stranded, for travellers who were marooned somewhere between Beaufort West and Touws River, to ensure that they reached their destinations. Prospective travellers had to be informed and alternative travel arrangements recommended. Bus transportation had to be established between Swellendam and Worcester. They also had to make arrangements with organized commerce, such as the Sakekamer, the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries to stop the dispatch of further goods to prevent an accumulation. Steps had to be taken to ensure that when the railway line was open again, the service would be able to function as smoothly as possible. At the same time the repair teams had to be organized and brought to the points where they were required the most.

From Tuesday evening until the early hours of Sunday morning there were people who worked extremely hard. There were people who worked 24 hours out of 24 to open this railway line and to get the main artery from north to south functioning again. If one considers that 56 000 cubic metres material was required, of which plus minus 27 000 cubic metres had to be conveyed by rail to the fill areas, it was a remarkable achievement. Five or six loads were used between Touws River and Worcester, and the same number between Worcester and Swellendam. The largest quantity was used at the Buffels River bridge. This had to be off-loaded and placed in position. The people involved gave no thought to time, and I was there in person to see it. To me it was almost an impossible task to conceive of how it would be possible to have the bridge open to traffic by Monday. Consequently I was amazed when they told me that it might be possible to allow the first train to cross the bridge on Sunday afternoon. The first train left Cape Town on Sunday morning to cross the bridge that Sunday evening. That testifies to hard work; it testifies to a team effort, and we are greatly indebted and highly appreciative of the General Manager of the S.A. Railways, the hon. the Minister and all the officials for making it possible to open this section so soon, so as not to cause any further disruption in that area—and I am not speaking only of my own constituency, because all north-south traffic crosses that bridge. To tell the truth, to this day I am still unaware of any complaints about disruptions. Everyone understood the position and they too have only the highest measure of gratitude and appreciation for the Railways. That is why I thank the hon. the Minister, and wish him well. May he have many happy years in this department.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the tribute which the hon. member for Beaufort West paid to the Railways Administration for the way in which the repair work was tackled and completed after the recent floods. I believe we are all justifiably proud of the efficiency which the Railways Administration displayed in this regard.

The hon. member Dr. Visser is an economist. True as always to his profession, I suppose, he treated us to a tremendous diversity of figures. In just about every case on which he quoted figures, he tried to tell us what an enormous achievement this really was on the part of the Railways. According to him things are not really as bad as they are being made out to be. This reminded me of the old chap who was involved in a car accident. When his wife came home the servant had to break the news to her. She told her mistress that the car had overturned. “The bad news” she said, “is that the master broke his leg. The good news is that his socks are still undamaged.” That was more or less how I felt when the hon. member Dr. Visser was elaborating at such length on all the achievements of the Railways Administration, particularly when he indicated that the rate of inflation was really not as alarming as was being alleged. However, as we have shown here repeatedly— this is an indisputable fact—it is inevitable that all tariff increases will have an effect on the rate of inflation and its upward spiral. This is taken for granted. In actual fact this is an indication that all is not well with the economy as such.

Furthermore I should just like to place on record my gratitude to the Sectional Management of the Railways in Natal and to congratulate them on the centenary train which they introduced on the Durban— Pietermaritzburg run this year. I believe this is something with tremendous potential for attracting tourists. The way in which it was undertaken, was most commendable.

†I should like to refer now to another matter, something very close to my heart, but about which I have very grave reservations. I am referring of course to the virtual “go-ahead” as it were that has been given with the installation of a shuttle passenger service between Berea Road station and a halt on the existing railway line somewhere between Gardiner Street and Aliwal Street along the Esplanade. As far as I am concerned there is no doubt that once this halt is in full operation, the next step will be a doubling of the railway line, and before we know where we are there will be a fully fledged railway station right in the centre of Durban’s famous and beautiful Esplanade area. We are told now that only limited facilities will be made available on that shuttle service. Of course, that will only be in the beginning. Ultimately the public will demand extended facilities, and the price Durban will have to pay for this is, I believe, quite incredible. We all have to admit that the Durban Esplanade is one of the most beautiful, if not the most beautiful, part of the central city area. Once this proposed shuttle railway service is embarked upon, however, the Esplanade is bound to become some sort of a backyard area, instead of the romantic and picturesque spot it is at the moment. One just cannot allow an influx of literally thousands of people into that area. I am sure it will ultimately be tens of thousands of people, if not more. The Esplanade is basically a residential area and we cannot hope that it will be able to retain the same character that it has now, once that sort of thing is allowed to happen. The point I want to make is that we are about to destroy the established character of the Durban Esplanade. The shuttle service project will also inevitably cause an increase in noise pollution. There is no doubt about that. This is beyond dispute. The influx of thousands of commuters will also result in more littering. It will, sadly, also lead to an increase in the crime rate. That is something which we have to accept. It is common cause that crime is associated with railway stations. All this is bound to happen just because of the shortsightedness of railway planners. Whether the Durban city council or the Railways Administration is to be blamed is, I believe, quite irrelevant. The reason why I am raising this matter is because I believe that the Railways Administration should never have allowed a situation to develop in which the rape of the Esplanade, if I may put it that way, is most imminent. An alternative scheme should have been devised to bring commuters into the city centre of Durban.

The development of the new Durban Station was such that the four main lines were built on the city side of town and then there was also the development on the Berea side of town. As a result of that—and this is the information that we have from the Railways themselves—the city was effectively cut off from the new station. It is quite incredible that a situation should be allowed to arise where a new station is built—after waiting for it for years and years, I may say—and in the process the station is cut off from the centre city. It is absolute madness. We are now told that to utilize land in the vicinity of the old station, that is, north of Soldiers Way and of Pine Street, is impractical and that it will prove too expensive. I believe that although it may be expensive it certainly will not be impractical. From time to time one becomes rather tired of hearing that the Railways cannot operate a feeder line of this nature to any area north of Soldiers Way and Pine Street because, as has been said, it will not be viable. However, Sir, are all the activities of the Railways profitable? Why must we have two sets of rules here? Why has there to be one set of rules for Durban and another for the rest of South Africa? It is nothing new to find that a service of the Railways is not viable. I should just like to quote to the hon. the Minister what was said by his predecessor in regard to the development of commuter services along the Esplanade. In reply to a question I put to him only 15 months ago, he said—

So there you have it, Sir. Why then use the argument that any alternative line that may be built will also be unprofitable? I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and his department to see whether they cannot find an alternative solution; perhaps even to link up the two areas by means of a tram service might be a solution. The Government must not complain if we in Durban feel that the activities of the Railways are to blame for this state of affairs and that they just do not care about the voters in that particular area. I am referring here particularly to the central city area where there has been a deterioration in the quality of life of the people there. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if the NP has any idea of putting up a candidate in that area which will now fall into the Durban Point constituency, they can forget about it. They can forget about it if they are going to have an eight coach platform built there and change everything.

*I just want to return to the S.A. Airways for a while. There are just two minor matters in this regard which I want to touch on very briefly. When one flies to Durban from places like Kimberley and Bloemfontein as well as Upington, there is always the problem of finding a connecting flight. I understand that what is happening at the moment—I have experienced this myself—is that in terms of a circular issued in December, if one wishes to make arrangement for the transportation of one’s luggage to the terminal, one can only do so if one has to wait for less than an hour for one’s connecting flight on Jan Smuts Airport. This is absolutely ridiculous. The hon. the Minister can investigate the matter himself to find out what the position is. In most cases the waiting period is an hour or two and the fact that one has to carry one’s luggage around with one all the time before going to the Airbus concourse, with its absolutely poor facilities, to wait for the connecting flight, is something which I believe the hon. the Minister could really pay attention to.

I want to conclude with just a brief reference to the pre-1973 pensioners. The hon. the Minister himself said that those pensioners will now receive the same increases as all other pensioners. However, the point is that these pensioners feel—and I can submit many letters to prove this—that when adjustments are actually made they have so much leeway to make up as regards the dispensation under which these pre-1973 pensioners fall that they are entitled to bigger adjustments, percentage-wise, than other pensioners. I must express my disappointment at the fact that the hon. the Minister, in this case, did not see his way clear to accommodating them in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat discussed matters relating to his constituency to which I am not going to react. We on this side of the House also wish the senior citizens in our community could receive more than they have already received, but on the other hand it is also true that one must cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth. Consequently, although we sympathize with the older people, I nevertheless feel that they are grateful and satisfied with the concessions that were made.

I cannot but react briefly to the remarks made here earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Umhlanga. He referred, inter alia, to the “sloppy attitude towards customers” of the staff. I think this remark was uncalled for. By making it he did the staff a disservice, and I do not think he achieved anything with it. If there were really cases where he experienced problems with the attitude which the staff adopted towards him, there are other ways of taking action, and the management will undoubtedly welcome it if the public were to bring cases of improper conduct to their attention. This will enable them to deal with the officials concerned. However, it is deplorable to generalize in this way, but it once again brings one factor into prominence. Whereas this side of the House have respect and appreciation for the services rendered by the Railway staff, the Opposition always looks down on them disparagingly.

Now you are talking rubbish.

The hon. member also referred to the Airbus concourse, and it is true that it is sometimes very crowded, particularly if one aircraft is scheduled to depart shortly after another. However, the hon. member ought to know that this is a temporary arrangement. He ought to know that it is owing to a shortage of money that the other terminal has not yet been completed. This is a temporary arrangement and I am afraid that we shall have to endure these conditions for a while longer. Great developments are being planned, inter alia, at Jan Smuts airport as well as at the D.F. Malan airport here in the Cape, where they have started on them. The authorities are doing everything in their power to overcome problems of this nature.

The hon. member also complained about the conditions in the cafeteria, but whose sugar and milk—which is what he has just been complaining about—is spilt on the table? Surely it is the public who is responsible for that. Recently I had the privilege of travelling through the United States and Canada for a few weeks, and in many places I had to help myself. I had to pour my own coffee into a plastic mug, and carry it to a table. But there was this difference: When I rose from the table, I took my serviette, wiped the table clean and went to throw the used serviette into a container put there for that purpose. But our people always expect a Black man to walk after them and clean up the mess they have made. Go and see how many newspapers are lying around in the Airbus after the passengers have left. Cigarette butts are extinguished on the floor and left lying there, and the the S.A. Airways is blamed for these conditions.

You should take a broom with you as well.

I think we should rather speak with great appreciation of the work which is being done by Railway officials. Talking about a broom, wouldn’t it be a handy thing with which to get rid of that hon. member?

When I was overseas I took the opportunity of visiting several of our airways offices there, and I did not encounter the conditions which were referred to here today. My time is limited, but I should like to quote a short paragraph from Saturday’s Vaderland. It dealt with a strike at Heathrow. It stated—

Why not? I quote again—

This is the kind of work our people are doing abroad, in spite of the dangers in which they find themselves. This was the attitude I observed among them when I was overseas.

I think it was the hon. member for Green Point who discussed the serving of meals on the aircraft. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that air hostesses, stewards and cabin staff are not only there to serve drinks and wait on people at meal times. Their basic task is to look after the interests and needs of the passengers. It is in times of emergency in particular that it is the task of these people to control the passengers. Even if no meals are served on an aircraft, the staff is still necessary to carry out their important task. The hon. member Dr. Visser and the hon. member for Sunnyside dealt systematically with the comments made by the Opposition parties on the budget. Consequently I do not think it is necessary to elaborate on them any further.

However, I should like to bring a few other matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I wish to begin by referring to certain reports which are constantly appearing in the newspapers, reports in connection with the so-called dissatisfaction which allegedly exists among ground hostesses and cabin staff. It seems to me as though certain newspapers derive satisfaction from constantly finding something with which they can criticize the Airways. This kind of perspective does not do our airways staff any good. It undermines their loyalty and eliminates the all-important motivation. It seems to me as though a kind of vendetta is being waged against the Airways. I know that this matter has been exhaustively investigated, and I should very much like the hon. the Minister to tell us more about it and indicate what recommendations were made in this connection.

Something which ought to receive attention—I think it already is—are the problems being experienced with the Airways’ booking offices, particularly the telephone bookings. I know there are a great many complaints about this service. I myself have already had many problems with telephone bookings. There has of course been an economic revival in the country, with the consequential loss of trained staff, lured away to the private sector. There is also very keen competition in the labour market, which makes it impossible for the S.A.A. to overcome their staff shortage, which leads to these conditions. I know that many steps have already been taken in an effort to solve this problem. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can inform us to what extent we have already solved this problem. I know there are travel agents who have acquired other amenities, there are additional terminals, etc., but because I lack the time I shall not elaborate on this any further.

Finally there has been a very interesting development which came to my attention, viz. the purchase of a so-called electronic “sales guide” which has been adapted for use in the SAAFARI booking system which will provide our agents with a streamlined booking service. I should very much like to know how much progress has been made in this regard, and whether that facility is already in operation.

The next matter to which I wish to refer is one to which the hon. main speaker on Railway matters on this side of the House has already referred. Consequently he has stolen some of my thunder. It concerns the purchase of the 747 combi aircraft. This was a good time to make these purchases. If there was ever any proof of sound planning and well-timed action, then it is the purchase of the combi aircraft in the situation in which passenger and freight traffic finds itself throughout the world today. I am very grateful for the far-sightedness displayed in making this purchase.

Another highlight is the new services which were introduced from Cape Town via Windhoek to Frankfurt, the combi service between Johannesburg and Amsterdam and the service between Johannesburg and New York. The introduction of these services are all important events which occurred recently.

I also wish to refer to the “stratosleepers” which offer first-class passengers in the 747 greater comfort. This is in my opinion an extremely valuable addition to the long routes. Then, too, there is a new prestige class known as the so-called “gold class” which has been introduced on normal flights to and from London. I have not yet had an opportunity to travel in this class, but it sounds to me like an interesting new development. Passengers who pay the full fares for economy class qualify for this, and the benefits include a special ticket-holder identifying that person as a passenger for the “gold class”. Such a passenger may also ask for a special seat, which he receives if it is available. He is received at a special express counter and during the flight he is provided with free drinks and he also has a choice of meals and receives bedsocks, ear-phones and a sleeping mask. He is provided with all these comforts free of charge. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this air-travel class is successful and, if so, when it will also be extended to other international routes, if such a step is being planned.

Another aspect which is of great importance in our Airways today is the security measures which are being taken. It seems as though the searching of hand luggage has been introduced without any problems, for I am not aware of any particular problems in that connection. But there is something which gives me cause for concern, viz. those passengers who board the plane with large items of hand luggage—sometimes not only one suitcase, but two large items of baggage. Some of these pieces of baggage look more like wool sacks than suitcases. These people cause the other passengers untold inconvenience, particularly on the smaller aircraft. In the USA I found that if one boards the aircraft with a piece of hand luggage, one has to put it on the ground between one’s feet, under the seat in front so that one has to endure the discomfort this luggage causes oneself, to say nothing of the security aspects. I think this is an aspect which should definitely be examined.

I wish we could reach the stage where the airport buildings which we have and the facilities offered there will be visibly used by the travelling public who pay to be there. In contrast with overseas airports there is an unnecessary—I emphasize “unnecessary”— congestion of people coming to meet passengers or see them off at our airports. These people cause those who have paid to be there enormous inconvenience. I think the Department of Transport Affairs which controls the buildings should give serious consideration to charging an entrance fee, in spite of the problems involved. Last year I also asked for entrance fees to be charged to keep unnecessary people away from the airports. Not only do those people cause the airports themselves to become congested, but there are no longer enough parking places either. As a result of this situation we also have a serious vagrancy problem to contend with at Jan Smuts Airport. The position is becoming worse. A method must be devised of ensuring that airports will be there for the convenience of the people who use them. I shall preferably skip the other aspects in this connection, since they have already been raised by other hon. members.

I should like to say a few brief words about our domestic services. The fly in the ointment—and I am coming back to this—is the high fuel prices. Internally fuel costs are an average of 10 cents per litre or 30% higher than the average costs in Europe. In comparison with other places, for example New York, South America and Australia, they are far higher. On the domestic services, therefore, one has a great problem with the price of fuel. In addition there are two factors in particular which influence our internal role and to which we shall occasionally have to give some thought. The fact that the SAA actually has a monopoly, is one aspect. This aspect was the subject of consideration discussion from the Opposition side today. Secondly, the SAA is part of the State transport undertaking, as was also very carefully spelt out here today. There are many people who feel that this situation should change in the direction of a so-called free-market system. We are not opposed to this, but the history of the Airways in South Africa began after the Second World War and accordingly it was determined that the SAA should connect the main centres in South Africa with one another, while private airlines would provide the feeder services. If we tamper with this, the consequence will be a situation of uneconomic duplication. Since then the SAA has expanded tremendously, but measured by overseas standards with large populations and strong industries, our industry in South Africa is extremely small. We are large in Africa, but small in the world. The way in which the SAA is being operated—and, as I have already said, the criticism that it is a monopoly is sometimes expressed—is in my opinion the only sensible way in which to operate. If one takes the realities of the situation into consideration and places the national interests first, one must arrive at that conclusion. This statement may not be acceptable to some people, but I am going to defend it.

In the first place the SAA and the SAR form part of a national State transport undertaking, together with other branches such as road transportation, harbours, etc. The hon. member for Bellville also referred to this. If we examine the air travel industry in general it is clear that chaotic conditions are prevailing, particularly in the countries where there is so-called free competition. Competition for the sake of competition can be extremely detrimental because it may lead to competitive duplication. This is what is happening overseas. So, for example, no fewer than seven airlines are operating between New York and Los Angeles, all of them non-stop from the one terminal to the other. They do not even land between these two points. If one wants to arrive somewhere between these two points, one has to change flights and make use of other services. Since the air routes were thrown open, competition on the most popular routes has grown at the expense of the less profitable ones. What is the result? The result is that the profits have shown a down-turn towards very heavy losses. According to my information those losses amounted to more than $800 million. Competition has not, as is alleged, replaced monopolies, but has unleashed blind forces. Aircraft manufacturers in America have received only 19 new orders this year as a result of the dire straits in which overseas airlines find themselves. A developing country such as South Africa, where the airline industry is small in comparison with other countries, cannot afford such a situation. Our airways are being operated on purely business principles, and many statements which are being made here, are far from the truth. Today, owing to the scarcity and high prices of fuel, it is more necessary than ever before that unnecessary duplication should be eliminated. No airline can afford to keep an aircraft costing R35 million grounded as a reserve. We use the Airbus aircraft on the routes from Cape Town to Durban and Johannesburg, and those routes carry 75% of our internal traffic. A second carrier would not make these services more profitable, in fact it would cause our airways to find itself in the same quandary as that in which many of the overseas airlines already find themselves.

The other aspect which I should like to touch upon is the fact that our Airways is supplementary to the Railways. These two bodies do not compete but complement one another. I am consequently requesting the retention of our system on the grounds that our internal services are adequate, are being effectively operated and that the costs for the consumer is realistic. Moreover, we are rendering a service of a higher standard. Our standard of technical maintenance is extremely high, and we are rendering a convenient and reliable service to businessmen. I believe that we should stick to this system, and that we have no reason to be ashamed of it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kempton Park will understand if I do not react to his speech, since I am going to discuss an entirely different matter.

I have the honour to represent a constituency in which the S.A. Railways is very prominently visible, audible as well as recognizable. The railway line runs straight through the residential areas of the constituency. At places and at times the locomotives pass through there with quite a lot of noise. The railway line divides that part of the world into north and south and limits the crossing of streets to such an extent that pedestrian and vehicle traffic are forced into patterns which are dictated by the S.A. Railways. The Koedoespoort workshop is enormous. The present hon. Minister, as well as his predecessor, both visited this area during the past year to take cognizance of what can be achieved by the people of the Railways. This workshop is larger than most factories in the country, and highly technical and mechanical scientific processes are developed and brought very close to perfection there. A substantial number of the voters in Koedoespoort work for the Railways. Many of them live in houses which they rent from the Railways at fair prices, or which they have acquired for themselves with the help of Railway loans. If one negotiates on behalf of such a voter with the Section Manager’s housing office, his staff office or whatever office one cares to mention, one realizes that, by making adjustments, a housing machine has been built up there which knows its pattern and standards but which has nevertheless not become deaf to the needs of the individual, even though it is not always very easy to pluck the right string.

I should like to talk about these people today, because they are the people who have to make their contribution or else the wheels cannot be kept rolling and the major South African carrier cannot deliver the goods. They must make their contribution so that the Railways can deliver the goods. Measured against the Additional Appropriation which was introduced here today, this is happening all along the line.

The people of the S.A. Railways have already come a long way. To me a small Railway house and a few pepper trees or bluegums, halfway to nowhere, at some isolated spot along our interminable railway line, a locomotive hissing and puffing and blowing its whistle, a few men on a handcar which has to be propelled uphill along the line with much effort and strain and almost runs by itself downhill, a man in a uniform and a cap handing instructions to the driver on a ring and receiving instructions from the previous station and a man walking along the side of the train tapping the wheels with a hammer, all these things symbolize the Railways as we knew it. Today, however, it is the Blue Train, luxury, technology, long sections of railway lines welded together, diesel and electric traction, computers, engineers, a General Manager with a doctor’s degree and equally expert deputees in other operating and scientific fields, who do not belong to any staff associations. Running parallel to this are seven classifications of employment, the incumbents of which are members of seven different staff associations and in between, between now and then, stretches a long road of success.

One of my childhood memories which I could not fully grasp at the time, is of a man who came to say goodbye. He was going “to the Railways”. He had been a bittereinder in the Anglo-Boer War. Yet he had gone to fight in South West Africa because Louis Botha said it was our duty. That was adult talk, and one of them said it was a great pity that some bittereinders were today UP supporters. He found work on the Railways because he had fought in the 1914-T8 war. He was being given favourable treatment, to go and work for a starvation wage while others could find no work at all. He with his job and others without any jobs were all on the way to becoming poor Whites. It is a heart-rending picture, but for the General Manager with his team who are planning, directing, leading, considering and deciding, and for the seven staff associations, this was the small beginning up there in the north, which cannot be underestimated. In the middle ’twenties a former Speaker of this House was sent to Natal by the Railway service to investigate the poor White problem among Afrikaners in the employ of the Railways.

There in our part of the world farmers—I am now speaking of farmers as people from the farms—went to work for the Railways. On the track they had to do hard physical labour. The Railways pushed north of the Vaal River when the two presidents met on the Vaal River bridge, when Vereeniging got its name and chose two clasped hands for its municipal coat of arms. Further south there had been railway lines with their own tradition for a long time before that. The English on the Railways arrived in the Transvaal together with the gold-seekers, and they also came in the Anglo-Boer War, and the Railways, as we knew it, only came afterwards.

Today the S.A. Railways is a large organization, the largest employer in the country which recruits people from all groups, professional, technical, clerical and other skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled recruits from all population groups. The workers’ corps, with the exception of top management and other managerial ranks, are members of seven staff associations, which I should like to mention here.

The first is Salstaff, the Salaried Staff Association. There are 28 000 of them. They are clerks of various grades, station masters and draughtsmen. Secondly there is the Footplate Staff Association. There are 9 000 of them. They are drivers, stokers, yardmen, locomotive greasers and boiler cleaners. Thirdly there is a union of 8 000 train staff and operating grades, conductors, station foremen, shunters, guards and signalmen. The Artisans’ Staff Association has approximately 23 000 technicians, artisans and apprentices as members. Membership of the Employee’s Union of the S.A. Railways and Harbours is approximately 12 000, consisting of checkers, freight handlers, storemen, examiners and repairmen. The Spoorbond membership numbers approximately 6 000, consisting primarily of platelayers, lift operators and drivers in the cartage service, the road transportation service, etc. Finally there are the 3 000 members of the S.A. Railway Police, with ranks varying from constable to captain.

I had access to the salary scales of these people as they were before the hon. the Minister announced the increases today. Those earning the most were the senior stationmasters and captains in the Railway Police. Artisans and locomotive greasers earned the least. Under the present conditions of inflation most people find it difficult to make ends, i.e. income and livelihood, meet. However, there is no doubt that these people are now able to maintain a far higher standard of living than their predecessors who used to work “on the Railways”. Their progress as far as conditions of service, accommodation, medical benefits, pensions etc. are concerned must now keep pace with conditions of service elsewhere, even in the private sector, otherwise the Railways will not be able to find the necessary staff to do the work. These are proud people, members of a proud institution. As I have said, the S.A. Railways Administration is the largest single employer in the country, and also the largest single component in the transportation network of the Republic.

The train services and road transportation service of the S.A. Railways, which in all respects compare favourably with the best in the world, are on all levels of administration and in all the facets of the physical labour which is performed and executed, carried by people. The efficiency and purposefulness of such an institution is like a mighty stream in forward motion. It is an important component, which makes its contribution to every industry and business concern in the country, as well as to many outside this country. Most business undertakings and industries are so directly affected by the availability of rail finks, delivery facilities, rates, etc., that these in fact make a direct contribution to the efficiency and profitability of the undertakings concerned.

Quality in the sense of efficient rendering of service not only involves the knowledge, skill and expertise of a worker, but also—in particular, I think—the human qualities of such people. No one can tell whether the human dignity of that person who went to work for a starvation wage on the Railways after the Second Anglo-Boer War grew stronger in his search for better days as far as his standard of living was concerned, or whether it withered away. One thing we do know, however, and that is that he had to be strong to survive. We must remember with gratitude that these people always knew that man cannot five by bread alone. It was they who established the ATKV 50 years ago, and they did this for the “promotion of Afrikaans on the Railways and elsewhere”. This is a unique cultural organization in this respect that it harnesses and refines the strength of the Afrikaner within a particular occupational group.

The struggle to ensure that Afrikaans came into its own on the Railways became part of the upliftment of an impoverished sector of the population which was also threatened by spiritual decay. The struggle for his language saved his selfrespect and favourably influenced the Railwayman’s approach to his work. He became a proud, loyal worker, who could not be shunted around. He was proud of the Railways; the Railways was proud of him.

I wish to remind hon. members that the cultural activities of the ATKV at the time of the symbolic ox-wagon trek in 1938, as well as those of the Rapportryers of 1949, became the heartbeat of an awakening nation, and perhaps more than other activity except political activity itself, contributed to the establishment of the Republic of South Africa in 1961.

In the year 1949 there was the language break-through by the ATKV, when, after an investigation by a Government commission, equal treatment for both languages on the Railways was eventually introduced. The Railway Language Bureau became a factory for the technological vocabulary of the Afrikaner. The Taalgenoot has been published since 1931, and it now has a circulation of approximately 100 000. In the ’thirties Hartenbos, and subsequently Klein Kariba and Natalia were acquired. In 1932 these people established the S.A. Noodhulpliga. The Vrou- en Moederbeweging was established in the ’forties. It is the ATKV who saw to it that the SABC became Radio South Africa and that a religious programme was broadcast over the radio every night at a quarter to seven. In 1966 there was the establishment of the ATKV chair for Afrikaans culture and folklore at the University of Stellenbosch.

It is entirely possible that the contribution made by these people to a sustained awareness of identity was one of the greatest single factors which shaped the development of the ethnic pattern which will eventually become the overwhelming political aspiration of all people in this country. It is as well to remember that they did not try to take over by revolutionary means. They recruited newcomers by making themselves strong and nourishing their souls while they tried to take care of their physical needs. They paved a way which is there for everyone to see. They did not wish to surrender or to be engulfed. They made their contribution by continuing to be themselves while they served the community and their country.

With this tribute to the people of the Railways I say farewell to this House. I was here for such a brief period that it would have been wrong to have discussed this matter for a long time, but I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of the House, the officials and everybody concerned very cordially indeed. I say in all earnest that I would have been the poorer if I had not been a member of this House.

Mr. Speaker, if one analyses the behaviour of the NP Government and the S.A. Railways, one observes one common quality which emerges, a quality which is characteristic of the NP and the SAR.

Both of them always late!

One need only look at the establishment, history and conduct of the NP and place it in perspective. If one does this, one sees that the NP always puts the interests of South Africa first. The same applies to the S.A. Railways. Actually it is an extremely pleasant task to prove this statement, and I can do so on the basis of a few examples.

However, I want to go further by indicating how both the NP and the SAR are playing an indispensable and complementary role in the new constitutional concept, a unique constitutional break-through, a realistic and practical initiative, namely the constellation of Southern African States, and they are playing this role with only one object in view, and that is that it should be in the interests of South Africa. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about the Opposition parties. During the great moments in our history those political parties aligned themselves against the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] A flag, a national anthem, citizenship, a republic of our own, the independence of our national States—all of them concepts in the interests of South Africa—were opposed tooth and nail by those parties. In this unique constitutional concept, which is just as exciting as our becoming a republic, the SAR is going to play an indispensable role, as I shall indicate in a moment. But what are the hon. members of the official Opposition, and specifically the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, doing? They are in fact making a joke of it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition sees a constellation as something which hangs in the air, as he put it on 26 January in the House of Assembly this year in column 41 of Hansard. He thinks one is looking up at the stars when one speaks of a constellation.

I wish to state unequivocally and frankly that if the SAR in particular is not going to form an integral part of this constellation of Southern African States, it will not get off the ground. Generally speaking the South African transportation system will be one of the basic elements in this new constitutional concept in Southern Africa. It is an indisputable fact, a truth, that the prosperity and development of any country depends on its channels of communication. After all, it is the endeavour of every Government to create for its country and its people in all spheres, in the economic sphere as well, the opportunities and the climate in which its country and its people can prosper. The economic success of the participating States and the economic success of the constellation of States will therefore depend on whether the transportation system of South Africa, specifically, can keep pace with the developments in many spheres, for example agriculture, industries, import and export, labour, the exchange of assistance, etc. South Africa and its transportation system will play a key role. Put differently: If the transportation system of South Africa does not make the grade, if our transportation system is not effective and functional, the constellation of Southern African States will not succeed. A prerequisite for success here is consequently a top-notch transportation system. The big question is whether our transportation system, and in particular our Railways, is capable of forming this extremely important substructure for this new constitutional concept.

Let us accordingly establish whether our transportation system in South Africa could form a sound foundation, particularly in an African context. It is important to bear in mind that this constellation is not going to be based on a European or American model but that it is going to have a unique individuality, an African character. We shall first have to scrutinize and evaluate the transportation system in South Africa, and then glance at the influence it has on the transportation systems of the possible participating States. In a country without transportation there is regression; with transportation there is development and progress.

As regards transportation in this subcontinent of Africa south of the equator, in other words, in Southern Africa, road transportation is not the best means for the developing countries of Southern Africa, with their vast distances to be covered. Road transportation cannot feasibly be introduced as a mass transportation system. It is only economically justifiable for medium to short distances. The heavy tropical rainfall of this region regularly washes away the road network. As far as road transportation is concerned, South Africa’s influence is not great and it is indeed very small in comparison with the Railways.

Then, too, the influence of air transportation is limited because air transportation is capital intensive and requires a high degree of skilled technology. In South Africa and Southern Africa it cannot make a major practical contribution to this constellation.

Undoubtedly water transportation is the cheapest but only about half of the rivers on our continent flow into the sea. In addition most of these rivers are not perennial. They are seasonal and in the dry season alternative methods of transportation have to be arranged which could entail increased costs.

Beyond any doubt, rail transportation is the cheapest one when cost and the time taken is calculated in proportion to volume. For example, rail transportation over long distances of more than 800 km is almost four times cheaper than road transportation. Consequently rail transportation is the most important means of transportation in the economic development of a country in Southern Africa. Unfortunately railway lines were generally constructed for imperialistic and political purposes in most African countries, for example, for the sole purpose of conveying minerals taken from the earth to a harbour, and not in order to serve the country properly. Add to this the difficult geographical features of our continent, for example steep gradiants, and we realize that our subcontinent has real transportation problems.

By the way, another problem with which African States have had to contend is the lack of natural harbours. Ten of the 16 States in Southern Africa are land-locked and consequently have no harbours. Of the 15 existing harbours the RSA has six.

According to statistics the per capita contribution of our transportation sector to the gross domestic product in the RSA transportation infrastructure is eight times greater than that of the subcontinent. It is also well-known that it is only in Southern Africa that railway transportation comes into its own to any great extent. As far as South Africa is concerned, it is an indisputable fact that our transportation system is the best in Africa because our strategic position, our history and our stable political order have created the climate in which to develop our transportation system into one of the best in Africa.

The S.A. Railways, which uses the narrow-gauge railway line, has adopted a very positive approach to this aspect and has in fact turned it into an advantage. The same applies to the brake system, the pneumatic brakes and the train lengths—all to the benefit of South Africa. In other words, the S.A. Railways has developed its own unique, practical, money-saving transport technology which can be used to great benefit by the participating States in a constellation of Southern African States. The time necessary to refer to other aspects of the railway technology of the S.A. Railways is lacking. I shall refer in addition only to its composition, brake-blocks, its high stability bogey, its permanent way research, heavy-load research and tractive development. In this way the S.A. Railways can play an indispensible role in the transportation system of the proposed constellation of States.

If we look at the development in the national States, at the projections for the next 20 years, it appears that transportation in these States will increase ten-fold. Then one realizes that the experience and skill of the S.A. Railways should benefit greatly here and should also be able to make a very great contribution.

Finally, we are speaking of these great plans of the S.A. Railways and this constellation of States, but behind these structures one finds people who are making their contributions, railway officials from the lowest to the highest ranks. Each one’s contribution, attitude to labour, sacrifice, enthusiasm, the services he renders, the pride in his work, his willingness and the message he conveys to others about his work, is the determining and decisive factor in all these developments. That is why the S.A. Railways and the NP has one quality in common, and that is that they always put the interests of South Africa first. That is why I wish to ask the hon. the Minister—I know he has a generous heart and he has done a great deal for the farmers—never to forget the railway-men, particularly the pensioner and their dependants, but to give them the necessary incentives, material and spiritual, because they not only earned it, they are also worthy of them.