as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, as follows—

1. (1) There shall be paid to Anna S. Pohl with effect from 1 October 1981 a pension of R4 800 per annum in recognition of her esteemed contribution to the South African theatre industry and the Afrikaans culture.
2. (2) There shall be awarded on compassionate grounds to D. J. Uys, formerly Senator, a pension of R4 800 per annum with effect from 1 October 1981.
3. (3) There shall be awarded on compassionate grounds to Marjorie E. D. Courtenay-Latimer, formerly director of the East London Museum, a pension of R1 200 per annum with effect from 1 October 1981.
4. (4) There shall be awarded on compassionate grounds to Vera H. Masson, widow of R. Masson, formerly acting judge of the Natal Native High Court, a pension of R1 980 per annum with effect from 1 October 1981.
5. (5) The pension payable to R. C. H. Bigalke, formerly director, National Zoological Gardens of South Africa, in terms of the Pensions (Supplementary) Act, 1976 (Act No. 96 of 1976), shall be increased on compassionate grounds to R6 144 per annum with effect from 1 October 1981.
6. (6) If S. van Rensburg, formerly train control officer, pays an amount of R598,29 to the New Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund referred to in section 2 of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act, 1971 (Act No. 35 of 1971), in the manner and on the conditions determined by the General Manager of the South African Railways, the period 1 September 1941 to 31 July 1944 shall be deemed to be pensionable service for the purpose of the said Act.

W. J. SNYMAN,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

15 September 1981.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, as follows—

Your Committee begs to report further—

W. J. SNYMAN,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

15 September 1981.

Report to be considered.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last week I had reacted to the hon. the Minister’s budget speech by saying that this was a budget of gloom as far as the travelling public of South Africa was concerned. I had also indicated that the whole tenor of the hon. the Minister’s speech suggested that we had had a very narrow escape from tariff increases right across the board, and I fear that unless there is a dramatic change in fortunes, we can expect further increases when next year’s budget is introduced.

Certainly, as far as passenger fares are concerned, the increases are unreasonable and punishing for the travelling public at large, and in particular for commuters in the lower income groups. In general these increases, when added to the increases announced in March 1980, and again in February this year, mean that passenger fares on main line trains and on the Airways had run up at least 40% over the past 18 months. If that is not punishing, what is? In some instances, in the hon. the Minister’s own words, commuters using return tickets will now face an increase, in terms of the proposals in this budget, of 33% to 60% in addition to the increases over the past 18 months.

Apart from the fact that these increases are unreasonable and punishing, there is a real danger, I believe, that they can be counter-productive as far as the use of our transport services by sections of the travelling public is concerned. It is ironic, in fact, that in the same speech in which the hon. the Minister announced these increases in passenger fares, he should also report on a 5% increase in main line and suburban passenger journeys and tell us that the reason for this is that “owing to the high price of fuel greater use is being made of public transport”. That is what the hon. the Minister said in respect of the 5% increase in passenger services.

What is the hon. the Minister now trying to do with these punitive increases in fares? Is there not a real danger that more and more people will revert to using private transport, which is often more congenial and convenient, rather than being subjected to the constant hikes in public transport costs despite the high price of fuel? The travelling public of South Africa really find themselves in a “no win” situation either way. If they use private transport they are hampered by the astronomical increases in the price of fuel and if they use public transport they are fleeced by the hon. the Minister with his ever-increasing passenger fares. Short of staying at home, their travelling costs are going to be a further substantial addition to their ever-increasing living costs, and they are faced in fact with an intolerable burden.

This brings me to deal specifically with the plight of commuters, more particularly those in the lower income groups who certainly cannot stay at home and are made to rely on public transport, largely because of Government policy. I refer particularly to Black commuters in the urban areas who are compelled, because of Government policies, to live long distances away from their places of employment and are therefore totally dependent on public transport to get to and from work each day. As we know, the result is that the Administration has been compelled to provide rail and bus services to meet this need, and we also know that those services are uneconomic from the operating point of view. Hence the ground for the subsidy which the Administration receives from the Treasury in terms of the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee.

The hon. the Minister, in an aside during his speech last Wednesday, referred to the fact that this year alone the hon. the Minister of Finance had allocated an amount of R200 million for these services. The hon. the Minister then further stated that negotiations were taking place between him and the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to further arrangements in this connection. I believe it is absolutely imperative that there should be clarity on this issue as a matter of urgency. It is, as we know, a highly sensitive and delicate area which involves the travelling costs of hundreds of thousands of the country’s labour force, people who are in no situation at all to bear the actual costs of these services which are presently provided by the Administration at uneconomic rates. I just want to know who is going to bear the ultimate financial responsibility for these services. I think the country wants to know that. I think business wants to know that and the people concerned want to know that. Who is going to bear ultimate financial responsibility for these services? It is of course a matter of very great topical concern at this stage, because in terms of the Government’s policy of regional planning in regard to our economy it has been said that there will be no place for subsidies and grants from the central Government for services of this kind. Where then are we heading in South Africa? Is it the Government’s intention to place the economic burden for the provision of urban commuter services on the private sector? If it is, I believe the consequences can be very serious indeed for our economy and for all concerned.

I think the hon. the Minister should come clean with us and with the country. He should tell us what the intention is. Is it the intention of the Government to place the burden for this upon the private sector of our economy? The hon. the Minister owes it to us to tell us what the future of these financial services is.

I dealt with our criticism of the budget in respect of the increases in passenger fares and tariffs, and the danger it holds in regard to commuter transport in South Africa. There are two other major areas of criticism with which I should like to deal and which make it impossible for us to support this Appropriation Bill. They are, firstly, the operation of Government policies, which are inflationary and which hamper the Management in their attempts to operate our transport services on sound business principles. Secondly, we in these benches are not satisfied that the return on the massive capital investment in transport services reflect adequate and prudent planning on the part of the Administration. But before motivating the last two major areas of criticism I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (1) the increases in rail and air fares are unreasonable and punishing to the travelling public at large and more particularly to commuters in the lower income groups;
2. (2) the attempts by the Management to operate the Transport Services on sound business principles are being hampered by unrealistic Government policies which are inflationary and add to the ever increasing operating costs;
3. (3) it is not satisfied that the returns on capital investment reflect adequate and prudent planning on the part of the Administration.”.

I have already dealt with the first leg of the amendment, the part relating to passenger services and passenger fares.

With regard to the second leg I want to say that we have sympathy for the Management, which we believe is generally competent, though not infallible, and which is committed to trying to run our services on sound business principles. However, I believe that they are very often obstructed in their efforts because of unrealistic Government policies, a fact that adds to the Administration’s operating costs. I refer in this instance particularly to the massive increase in the price of fuel. Throughout the hon. the Minister’s speech last Wednesday there were repeated references to the increase in fuel prices which the hon. the Minister blamed for most of the present difficulties of the Administration. He told us, after dealing with the capital works programme, that the Railways had had to cope with great escalation problems and he said that the increased fuel prices were the greatest single factor in this regard. He told us again that the improved operating results for the year had been offset by the excess in the Airways’ fuel account. He told us that the main reason for the increase in Airways expenditure was the increase in the fuel price on 6 July, which he said was very much higher than they estimated. So one must accept that the fuel prices, more than anything else, are the cause of the present malady in the finances of the railway and transport services in South Africa.

As I said, I can sympathize with the Management in this regard, but the Government cannot escape responsibility for the escalation in fuel prices. Firstly, even allowing for the continuing international fuel crisis, why is it that South Africa is so much worse off than other countries when it comes to drawing on available fuel resources and negotiating prices for our own requirements? That is a question we must ask ourselves and we must remind ourselves what the answer is. The basic reason is that because of the Government’s racial policies, which have made us the polecat of the world, we are compelled to look to the grey market for our fuel requirements and to pay prices accordingly. The public are forced to suffer the financial consequences of this and they must be reminded of this fact and what the reason is. But even within the parameters of this dismal situation one must question the wisdom of the handling of the fuel price increases, and the financial problems of the Railways at the present time are a stark reminder of the effect these increases are having on our economy. In spite of all the warnings of organized commerce and industry and others, warnings of the social and economic consequences of major fuel price increases, the Government proceeded again this year to increase the price of automotive fuel and in so doing offset its own anti-inflationary measures to a substantial degree. Why should the economy have been burdened in this way with the full impact of the additional costs which the falling value of the rand and its oil-purchasing capability has apparently brought about? The Government was warned that the impact on the economy would be far-reaching as fuel is an input cost as far as the cost of most economic activities are concerned and an increase in transport costs must affect every single commodity bought and sold. When the components of the existing fuel price are examined, something like 40% of the price is made up of excise duty, of GST and of Government levies. One would have thought in these circumstances that in the interest of cushioning the inflationary impact of the fuel price increase, of which the Railways, including the Airways, are now victims, the Government could have reduced excise duty on fuel, leaving only a portion of the amount of the increase to be passed on to the consumer, including the Railways.

So, Sir, these then are some of the problems with which the Management of the Railways have to contend in their efforts to run the Railways and Airways on sound business lines. The problems are not of their making but they certainly are of the making of the Government and are the direct results of its political and fiscal policies.

Another matter I must raise while dealing with political and other policies affecting Railways and Airways services is our relationship with our neighbouring States in so far as transport services are concerned, and I think particularly in this instance of Zimbabwe. In this regard, the hon. the Minister’s speech when presenting his budget, when compared with the speech of his predecessor in March, 1980 is as significant for what it does not say as for what it does say. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor devoted an entire chapter of his speech 18 months ago to what he termed “Economic interdependence of Southern African States and the role of the South African Railways and Airways”. This hon. Minister did not even refer to this aspect in his budget speech. In his speech last March, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor reminded us of the opening address of the State President at the commencement of that session when the State President referred to the contribution of the South African Railways towards ensuring stability in this subcontinent. I quote from Hansard of 5 March 1980, col. 1998, where the hon. the Minister’s predecessor had this to say—

I agree with him.

These were fine, ringing phrases by the former Minister but where are they today? The hon. the Minister has just said that he agrees with those sentiments but I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what has happened to our commitment to use our transport services to bring prosperity, peace and security to the Southern African region? What has happened to the benefits we can offer, in the words of the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in transportation, in respect of our unique knowledge and understanding of the problems of Southern Africa?

Where is your polecat story now?

Instead of positive initiative we are seeing severe signs of withdrawal. Locomotives and rolling stock are withdrawn from service across the Limpopo and there is talk of a crippling transport crisis in Zimbabwe as a result with considerable and disastrous potential consequences for the Zimbabwean economy. There is a coyness about this on the part of the Government which is totally at odds with the gravity of the situation for the Southern African region. We are told that these things should be regulated and should be discussed at Government-to-Government level. Why are we at this stage behaving like reluctant débutantes? Who took these decisions to withdraw? I do not believe it was this hon. Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Minister which department in fact gave him his orders? Was it the hon. the Prime Minister who was involved in this? Was it the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Was it the hon. the Minister of Defence, or was it perhaps the HNP that determined the attitude of the Administration in this regard? [Interjections.] Hon. members can complain as much as they like but one wants answers to these questions. Certainly in the past, even given the fact that neighbouring States like Maputo have professed Marxist ideologies, there have not been these strictures and restrictions. Negotiations have taken place normally at General Manager level. There has never been a problem about this. Why the change and what will be the situation in the future? This is what I want the hon. the Minister to deal with when he replies to this debate because these matters are of enormous topical interest in this Southern African region.

The third leg of the amendment I have moved deals with the fact that despite massive capital expenditure, despite new techniques and despite new methods, the returns on these investments, have been disappointing and one has doubts as to whether this reflects prudent and adequate planning in the first instance. As I said the other day, we have been experiencing a period of an economic upswing and we are now entering a period in which there will at least be a levelling off situation if not a downswing, and we have had enormous capital expenditure. I want to know what the benefits are of all this planning and expenditure. This is not always evident when one looks at the budget speech of the hon. the Minister. Certainly the Richards Bay line is an exception. Coal exports are a great help to our operating situation and now we have a bonanza of an unexpectedly large maize surplus for export which will help, but not all of this can be attributed to advance planning.

When one thinks in terms of planning, one thinks particularly of the chaotic situation which has occurred in recent months in regard to our containerization programmes. I think the hon. the Minister owes us an answer on this one. The total congestion and the eventual breakdown of this service at the City Deep terminal is surely something which could have been foreseen. I want to know why it was not.

There were early warnings and certainly organized commerce warned on several occasions that there were risks which the Administration should have foreseen in regard to the whole containerization situation. They warned years ago that there were great dangers in placing a total reliance upon the already over-burdened Johannesburg rail link. They warned of the dangers of channelling the entire container traffic for the PWV complex through a single terminal. They warned also of other deficiencies at that depot.

The Associated Chambers of Commerce also some time ago warned the Government that the Railways’ confident assumption that users would work containers around the clock was totally unrealistic. For various reasons the container handling structure was never subjected to a real capability test until about mid-year 1980, but even in the previous recession years there were times when container transit ex ship to arrival at City Deep averaged over 12 days. So, there were ample warnings of what was to come and apparently very little was done about it.

The hon. the Minister now tells us that steps are being taken to provide another terminal. This is to be welcomed, and we do welcome it, but at the same time one cannot help thinking that with proper planning it should not have been necessary for us to wait first for a crisis before proceeding to expedite the provision of these facilities. So much then for the container saga.

Another matter which I should like to raise relating to planning is the question of the computer centre in Johannesburg which was the subject of much debate in February this year. At that stage Parliament was asked to appropriate the sum of R57 million for the erection of a computer centre. My predecessor as spokesman for the official Opposition, the then hon. member for Orange Grove, questioned this in the strongest possible terms and he told the hon. the Minister that he would have done better by buying existing buildings. He said, for example, that they could have bought the old Escom building in Braamfontein four years ago for R3 million to R4 million. That was a suggestion which he threw across the floor of the House.

At the stage when tariff increases were again the subject of the budget, he questioned the expenditure of a sum of R57 million for a new building, but the hon. the Minister knew better and when he replied to the debate, he said that the existing computer facilities had become inadequate. He was adamant that a sum of R57 million was justified, and he used as reason—he stated that specifically—that these services had to be in a single building. That was the one reason which he used. A second reason which he used—I quote his words—

In other words, the hon. the Minister said that we had to have a single building and an underground structure for security reasons.

Was he serious when he told the House that? Now, in this budget speech, he tells us that because of escalating building costs the Railways have now decided to acquire two buildings—not one building—Shell House and Guardian Liberty Centre, and that the total cost involved will be some R30 million. Six months ago he was prepared to spend R57 million, but in a matter of six months he has found that he is able to save R27 million. Where therefore is the evidence of responsible planning on the part of the Administration?

We are still building …

The hon. the Minister says they are still building it, but in February this year he used all sorts of arguments to justify an expenditure of R57 million. Suddenly, now, perhaps as a result of the questions put by the Opposition, he has come to his senses.

I listened to you.

Yes, but the country was going to be asked to spend another R57 million, which the hon. the Minister now has managed to save within the space of six months. This does not savour of real planning on the part of the hon. the Minister and his department, nor of an effort to cut down expenditure and to ensure that money is spent where money can best be used. Again, this supports the third leg of the amendment I have moved. When looking at the record of the Administration, one is not satisfied that careful thought and consideration have been or are being given to planning. For these reasons, I believe, we should not pass the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, and it is for this reason that I have moved the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, although I want to welcome the hon. member for Berea as chief spokesman for the Opposition in this debate and to congratulate him on his new capacity, unfortunately I cannot felicitate him on his début, particularly not on the content of his speech and the mentality which he displayed. I shall come back to the motivation of my standpoint later on.

It was the hon. the Minister’s first appropriation that he introduced here, and I want to extend my hearty congratulations to him on his particularly good motivation thereof, particularly on the length of his speech too. It is most probably the shortest, most to the point Railway budget which has ever been submitted in this House, and by saying this, I am not trying to criticize the hon. the Minister’s predecessors.

The hon. member for Berea reminded me of Oom Koos van der Merwe who got up early one morning. After the first roosters had jumped down from their perches to peck at a few maize kernels near the gate of the chicken-run, Oom Koos looked out of his bedroom window and suddenly turned round and said to his wife: “Mother, there is something very fishy going on here, a big drama.” His wife then asked: “What is the matter?” He replied: “The pet lamb and the grindstone are missing”, and like a bullet from a mauser, automatically, she replied: “Yes, but I have told you long ago that the pet lamb was going to swallow the grindstone.” We encounter the same mentality here—totally unrealistic. After all, a pet lamb cannot swallow a grindstone.

However, it is true to the Opposition’s mentality to say: “I told you so.” I have become accustomed to this type of mentality over the past 15 years. According to them planning is irresponsible, and therefore so is the budget. However, only one piece of evidence was submitted to support their statement, and this was a poor attempt, viz. the investment in the building for the central management system in Johannesburg. Furthermore, vague reference was made to the neighbouring States, but everything that was raised, was unfounded. This hon. Minister and all his predecessors in previous debates have issued an open invitation to our neighbouring States. As recently as this morning the Deputy General Manager referred to it when he said that they are involved in negotiations with the neighbouring States. The General Manager carried out some neat footwork in this regard. They are negotiating and successfully doing business with neighbouring States in the east and the north. Although it is difficult to imagine, it has been done; it is part of practice and reality. This hon. the Minister repeated the invitation and one of his colleagues repeated in a previous debate. They said, inter alia, that good relations with regard to South Africa’s transport network are worth more to these States than MIGs and AK rifles. They now say brutally that we are indifferent and are doing nothing in this regard. How can they say that this Government is developing an HNP mentality? Surely this is reckless, irresponsible and a-national. We cannot conduct any positive discussions or debates here if we do not show a common piety towards our own fatherland, as well as respect for what is being done on the international political front, the front of international relations, by our leaders individually. I want to invite that hon. member and the speakers who are going to follow him, to reflect a little, and I am going to give this example. I am going to elucidate a few things about which we can conduct a positive, constructive, critical debate. I hope and trust those hon. members will have the magnanimity and sense of fair play to follow this example.

Reference was made to passenger services and the losses that are suffered due to those services. The question was posed as to where those losses should ultimately be recovered, i.e. who will ultimately have to pay for them. It was subtlety suggested that it was not due to the policy of the Railways, but due to the policy of this Government that this sin or evil was being caused. However, this is not the complete picture. Surely this is not how we should look at the problem in perspective. There is a loss on the transport of White passengers too, and they travel just as far as the non-Whites do. In fact, many of them travel further than the non-Whites. The non-White already comprise 20% of the first-class passengers transported on our suburban and other trains. Therefore, it is outrageous to allege that it is due to the racial policy of the Government that these losses are being suffered. Surely this is only half of the truth.

I mentioned constructive criticism and discussion, and I invite those hon. members to participate in such a discussion so that a solution can be found. The hon. the Minister indicated that a committee has been appointed to investigate this matter, in cooperation with the hon. the Minister of Finance, publish a report and make recommendations on how to recover the socioeconomic losses on passenger services in this country. Some success has already been achieved with the R280 million which was voted for this, with R200 million as permanent interest-free capital for the Railways, i.e. capital on which no interest is paid. Then there is also an additional R80 million. The Franzsen Committee indicated that there are three parties that have to be involved in the solution of the problem, viz. the State, the employer and the employee. The wage gap has been narrowed. Non-White employees are in a much better position due to the fair, just policy of this Government. They are increasingly being given the opportunity to make a greater contribution towards their own transport.

I think the time has now come to ask the hon. the Minister for the long-term and short-term recommendations of the Franzsen Committee to be implemented. This is a standpoint that I have already adopted previously, and one would think that they would second it. However, they did not do so. After all, it is more pleasant to suck poison, to make political capital out of a very serious, complicated, complex national problem, viz. transport, the most sensitive sector of our domestic economy when it comes to economic fluctuations or up and down swings. However, hon. members come along with their hare-brained contributions. I am tempted to say that they are walking across a clean floor with dirty feet. It is a very delicate matter. If they had come up with such a recommendation, we would have supported them. We would have welcomed it. I sometimes feel so despondent when I listen to those hon. members’ arguments. If the hon. the Prime Minister would allow me to do so, I shall offer my services privately to the hon. member and his party so as to instruct and uplift them to some extent on the basis of three basic factors—planning, saving and marketing. Then we would be able to conduct the debate on a higher level. Then we would be able to stimulate and fertilize one another’s thinking better. Those hon. members can help to solve the problems of the moment by approaching them more constructively and positively and not making so much petty-politics out of them.

There are also other solutions to the problems regarding the passenger services. They can be solved by looking at the occupation of seats of trains and buses, and at the cost factor. At the moment between 30% and 60% of the costs of our passenger services are being recovered through revenue. If we can increase revenue to 50% of costs, we shall be able to improve total revenue by 20%, which would be the ideal position. We must strive for a cost factor of 85%. The problem can also be solved by honest, in-depth discussions and debates. Train services that do not pay, for instance short siding services, can be curtailed. Train services out of peak times can be replaced by bus services. When long trains cannot be fully occupied, people can be transported from the East or West Rand to the central city area by buses, and vice versa. If the hon. member for Berea were to submit proposals of this nature, he would convince me that he is really interested in a national issue like this one and in the problems of his fatherland. However, the hon. member is making politics out of it. Here and in other circles we can conduct very positive discussions if we approach the matter as a national problem. In any event, it is not simply a national problem; surely it is a world problem. To allege that it is simply due to the racial policy in South Africa that the passenger transport services are not profitable, is, I am tempted to say, a deliberate untruth.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. However, the hon. member knows exactly what I am referring to. This problem is not simply a localized, South African problem, but it is being experienced throughout the world. I want to repeat that the solution lies in reconciling the cost factor and the revenue factor, and reviewing the occupation of seats of trains and buses. Then the matter must be finally settled on the basis of the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee. The three parties that must be involved, are the State, the employer and the employee. In these times of prosperity the employer could afford to make a contribution, and there are many of them who are only too willing to make a contribution with regard to the housing of their employees, and they could just as well do so with regard to the transport of their employees as well. The State too will find its niche in the formula for solving the problem.

It must.

Yes, it must, and it will do so and is doing so to a certain extent already. However, what I am asking, is that there should be further negotiations for the acceptance and implementation of the long-term recommendations of the Franzsen Committee.

I want to say something else in connection with the hon. member’s allegation regarding the so-called defects of the increase of tariffs for passenger services. I said that I was going to give an example, and I invite hon. members to participate in a positive discussion. Has the time not arrived for the increase of tariffs for passengers and goods to take place on an on-going basis, more regularly and more often, but to a lesser extent, particularly in view of the trend that the cost of living is adopting in the country? When did we last increase tariffs? Between 1979 and 1981 they were not increased at all, with the result that we fell behind in comparison to the cost of living index. However, now when we want to make up the backlog, by means of these small increases, inter alia, without fanning inflation further, one is subjected to this fuss. In all sectors it is customary to introduce these little increases reasonably and fairly, on an annual or a seasonal basis or whenever it is necessary. I wonder whether the time has not come for us to simply take the bull by the horns and look at this. The public must also prepare themselves for it.

In this way we can conduct a positive dialogue on the problems of the Railways in various spheres. It is easy to talk about saving on capital expenditure. The expenditure in this regard amounted to R1 600 million last year, or if one takes into account the additional repayment of loans, contributions to home ownership schemes and the elimination of rail crossings, it amounts to R1 800 million. There are a few inputs in this industry in regard to which the Administration and the hon. the Minister cannot do very much. I want to point out a few of them. The Railways needs a certain minimum staff in order to achieve a specific production coefficient. The Administration finds it difficult to save on staff without giving rise to labour unrest. Is this what the hon. member opposite is proposing by way of one of his arguments in favour of savings? Can the Administration save and should it save in this respect and in so doing cause labour unrest? It would have been very appropriate if the hon. member for Berea had expressed his appreciation towards the Administration for the very good relations that exist between the Administration and the staff associations and for the fact that under extremely difficult circumstances it did not experience any labour unrest and is still on very good terms with its staff associations and has their loyalty. 12 000 Non-Whites were trained without a fuss being made about it or broadcasting it to the world. They were trained as assistant technicians, station masters, ticket inspectors and whatever you wish. This was accomplished both during and out of working hours. It really is an achievement. It really merits a mention. It made a positive contribution in the time in which we are living. However, we do not hear anything about this. Another fine example is the 60-off card by means of which our elderly people and pensioners can now travel at 60% of the normal cost. There are already 20 000 people that are making use of this. In times in which the Railways has occupation problems, this contribution is being made quietly with a view to the occupation of seats on the one hand and providing a service to our pensioners on the other.

It is very important for the hon. the Minister to give his serious consideration to introducing the necessary increases on a more regular basis—whether it be annually or bi-annually—in order to adjust our tariffs and such to the cost of living index. As far as the passenger problems are concerned, we must investigate a few of the aspects which I pointed out, viz. the occupation of seats, cost structures and negotiations in order to establish whether we cannot bring about cost savings by means of joint train and bus services outside peak times without having a detrimental effect on the development and other facets. I am of the opinion that, with or without the co-operation of the private sector, this may well be a practical possibility.

Mention was made here of criticism, criticism of the transport of maize. The allegation was made that the Maize Board and the farmers themselves are dissatisfied. I read in the report that attention is given to the infrastructure from time to time. This is to be appreciated, particularly when one thinks that the transport services are the most sensitive aspect of the economic life of the Western world. Chronologically, we are two years behind the rest of the Western world. When they show an upward economic trend, we only experience it later on. When they experience a downward economic trend, we experience it here as well, only at a later stage. We only have to think of the revenue derived from the transport of steel, coal, etc.

I am impressed by the expansion that is being undertaken at the moment. In this regard I am thinking for instance of the electrification of the stages between De Aar and Port Elizabeth, between De Aar and Beaufort West, between Broodsnyersplaas and Richards Bay, as well as the construction of hangars for jumbo jets in Johannesburg, and what they are doing at Bapsfontein. It is clear from the above that attention is being given to the infrastructure timeously, so that we do not possibly have to be accused tomorrow—by those who do not view matters in perspective—of being the cause of problems arising, and that no growth being able to take place in a time of growth because the infrastructure is inadequate.

To save on capital investments, which were made rationally and after a great deal of thought, means looking for trouble, just as one looks for trouble when one tries to save on staff. I cannot but congratulate the Railways Administration and the hon. the Minister himself on this insight of theirs. Within a year or two we shall have practical evidence of the value of that insight. In this regard I can simply refer to one single example, and this is the export of coal through Richard’s Bay, where the export 80 million tons of coal per annum instead of 40 million tons is being planned within the foreseeable future. There already is a market for this quantity of coal. Surely this is evidence of insight. It is correct advanced planning. It is evidence of action in the national interest.

Now one really has to experience fellow South Africans disagreeing with this, trying to put stumbling blocks in our path. This is being done without a single valid argument in favour of such behaviour, apart from the argument about neighbouring States and about a single building in Johannesburg. I am convinced of the goodwill, the insight and the understanding of hon. members opposite, and I therefore invite them—I invite them very sincerely—to act positively. I can also assure them that hon. members on the Government side will adopt a positive approach to every subject that they discuss and will discuss it with an open mind, taking into account what must be of greatest importance, particularly at the present point in time and in the best interests of the employees of the Railways.

The long-term recommendations of the Franzsen Commission are important now. I think the time has come for us to give urgent attention to them. We must give urgent attention to them in order to work out the correct formula and also in order to answer the almost politically cowardly question of who should pay for this. It must be done in the interest of peace and balance in the minds of everyone in this country. I also want to assure the hon. member for Berea that he need not be afraid. For the past 30 years and more this Government and its various State departments have proved that they have the future of this country and its people at heart. Therefore, my message to everyone is: “Never fear when Hendrik Schoeman and his department are near.”

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Rand has asked hon. members of the Opposition to conduct the debate in a positive and constructive manner. I am going to try to do just that today. I want to say to the hon. member, however, that inflation is a hot political potato today. It is something which politicians realize is of great concern to the public. Therefore he must expect that when actions are taken by the Government that tend to exacerbate inflation, there will be a reaction from Opposition politicians. But having said that, I do believe that the Railways are unfortunately in a “catch 22” position today. That is to say that as far as passenger tariffs are concerned, they are caught in a dilemma arising from rising costs on the one hand and on the other hand a policy in terms of which in the past it was said that we shall subsidize passenger transport for one of two reasons: Either because of ideological policies of the Government which have taken workers further away from their place of work than they would normally be, or alternatively, because it is said that transport is a cost factor that the average person cannot bear and therefore it must be subsidized. I myself say that we must be careful of the whole concept of subsidies because if one persists in subsidizing more and more one will eventually reach the stage that we have reached with transport, where the railway passenger services are losing something like R680 million a year. Therefore I believe that we must take a new look at this whole situation, and that is what I hope to do here this afternoon.

One way we can fight rising costs and inflation is through greater productivity and more efficiency. Another method is by opening the whole transportation system of South Africa to more competition. I do believe that the greatest leveller in the interests of all concerned in a free enterprise economy is competition. To my mind at the present time the South African economy is suffering because there is too little competition in South Africa. For this reason I wish to move as a further amendment—

1. (1) institute a more effective efficiency and economy drive which will minimize the effect of rising costs in order to avoid tariff increases in the 1982-’83 financial year;
2. (2) speed up the transition of tariffs based on the principle of “what the traffic can bear” to one of “cost of service”, with the cost of all socioeconomic services being borne by the Central Government;
3. (3) review its accounting methods to provide greater clarity in allocations of revenue so as to enable the South African Transport Services to compete more favourably with the private transport sector;
4. (4) set a time-table for the transition of transportation in South Africa to an open, multi-modal system in which there will be freer competition between all sectors, including the South African Transport Services.”.

Like the USA.

Well, it is an ideal we should strive for.

Then you will see a mess in this country.

In reaction to that comment by the hon. the Minister, I should just like to say that if one studies the American transportation services in the past one will see that there has been too much feather-bedding as regards rail traffic as well as in the Airways, as they are now finding as a result of the air controllers’ strike. Because of this strike, they are now finding that airlines are operating fewer flights and are likely to make greater profits than before, and also that the number of controllers they thought they had to have was not necessarily correct. This is a lesson the hon. the Minister can learn from the American experience and start applying it to his department.

I realize that in an evolving industrial economy such as South Africa has, and operating in a country such as ours, which is very complex, it is difficult if not impossible to achieve the ideal free market situation at this time in our history. I will concede that there is a case for a degree of protection or for incentive-based preferential treatment—and here I include subsidies—when it comes to opening up new industries, new industrial areas or new transportation systems in the cause of decentralization. I am prepared to concede these points. However, I do believe that when this Parliament decides to make these concessions it is of paramount importance that we not only acknowledge as parliamentarians that we have a responsibility to ensure that these concessions are not exploited or manipulated by those who enjoy them, but that also by constant vigilance, maintaining an active interest and asking probing questions, we do in fact ensure that such misuse does not take place. After all, this is what I believe good government and budget debates are all about.

This brings me to the first major point I wish to put to the hon. the Minister, namely the role of Parliament in this debate in monitoring the Administration’s performance, its function in the economy and its contribution towards the overall wellbeing of the South African economy. Surely this can only be achieved through a close scrutiny of the Administration’s operating capital expenditure as represented in the annual White and Brown Books which are placed before Parliament. This can also be achieved by asking the hon. the Minister probing questions which can often, I submit to him, reveal deep-seated problems within the Administration. However, I asked the hon. the Minister in February whether Parliament was not just becoming a rubber stamp as far as this role which it is supposed to perform is concerned. I say this because slowly but surely the amount of information that is being provided to parliamentarians is being whittled away. For example, the White Book that we have before us contains some 16 pages dealing with the details of the budget. Last year the White Book contained 53 pages. When I came to Parliament in 1974 the White Book contained 120 pages of information for parliamentarians. The Brown Book has been reduced in size from 177 pages in 1974 to a mere 87 pages at present. This question of reducing the amount of information provided to members of this House was raised in the Select Committee earlier this session and I opposed it. I opposed it because I believe that we need this information when we are trying to do our duty correctly. After some debate it was conceded that members of the Select Committee would be provided with information dealing with the details of the individual accounts. I have a copy of it here and I thank the hon. the Minister for it. This represents an additional 26 pages which possibly other hon. members do not have. I believe that members should be given this information.

If they ask for it they will get it.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the point.

Why waste paper when we can save money?

I want to indicate to the hon. the Minister that when we do ask certain questions, we do not get proper answers. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister. We are being asked here to approve of a budget of R7 200 million this year and the information we have received in this regard is minimal. It seems to me that the longer I am in Parliament, the larger the amount of the budget and the less information other hon. members and I receive to enable us to come to decisions. Obviously, this is a very bad trend.

This brings me to another bone that I should like to pick with the hon. the Minister. This is in connection with a question I asked the Minister earlier this session. I am referring to question 183 for written reply. The question reads, inter alia, as follows—

The hon. the Minister is fully aware of what has happened in regard to containerization in recent months. The hon. member for Berea also referred to this matter. We know that there were something like 5 000 containers logjammed in the pipeline, to such an extent that some customers were having to wait weeks if not months to have their goods cleared through the container depots. I found this rather puzzling because after all that is a brand new system. We have been told it is one of the most modern, most computerized, most efficient container systems in the world, and we spent hundreds of millions of rands on it. I was worried what was wrong and my question, I believe, was so worded to find out first of all whether the system had been underdesigned and that it therefore could not cope with the flow or whether it was not being operated correctly. My complaint against the hon. the Minister is the reply which I received. This is the reply—

I just cannot believe that this was the case, because if it is the case, then it must be so that there are no container flow records being kept on a day to day basis. I want to submit to the hon. the Minister that in any transport system or any materials-handling operation, especially one that is so modern as ours and one which we built recently, it is absolutely essential to keep daily records of the flow of containers into and out of the system. The only conclusion that I can come to is that either there was such a logjam in the system and that those involved were too embarrassed to reveal the daily or weekly figures or else that no effort was made to keep these figures on an hourly or daily basis with the result that things got completely out of hand and the inevitable logjam occurred.

I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that I do not put questions on the Order Paper because I want to look good in my Hansard, as I know is the policy of some hon. members. I do so because I seek information on matters which I believe to be important. I want to say to the hon. the Minister very frankly that I believe this answer was an insult to my intelligence, and I object to it in the strongest terms.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what was wrong with the container service. I was most concerned to hear the hon. the Minister say in his Second Reading speech that an additional R20 million is now to be spent on satellite depots at Rosslyn and Capital Park. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there were errors in the original planning of the scheme. Was there a complete hashup in the computerizing of the system in recent months and also, alternatively, whether the companies which are using the system, are using the container ports as warehouses and, if so, should they not be hammered by considerable increased demurrage charges?

I was amazed to read in the Press some months ago that the Conference Lines had to spend an additional R3 million on containers because the turn around of containers in the system was too slow. More recently—I just do not have the press cutting right here—I read that empty containers are being stockpiled or dumped in container parks because the shipping companies believe they can make more money in shipping goods out of South Africa rather than shipping containers out of South Africa. If this is the case, there is a buildup of capital here which can only lead to additional costs and inefficiency and can only exacerbate the problem of inflation.

The Constitution Act says that the Railways must be run on business principles and therefore I believe if this fault fies with the Railways’ customers, then it is about time that the Administration should tell them that if they want to use the container ports as a warehouse facility, they will have to pay for it. Alternatively, if it is the Railways that are at fault, then I believe that someone should get a rocket from the hon. the Minister to make sure it does not happen again.

The principle that the Railways are to be run on business principles brings me to the second major point I want to raise this afternoon, namely the future role of the Railways as a business orientated enterprise. As I have already said, the Constitution Act stipulates that the Railways must be operated on business principles with due regard being given to the agricultural and industrial development of the country. In order to accommodate the development aspect, we know that a differential tariff structure was introduced many years ago which resulted in the charge of higher tariffs for higher valued goods and the money thus obtained would be used to subsidize the lower valued agricultural or mining goods. So today we have our high and low tariff structure to which the hon. the Minister referred in his budget speech. In other words, the tariff policy was based on the principle of what the traffic can bear. The hon. member for Berea said that if we moved towards doing away with the subsidies and passing that onus on to the private sector, it would result in chaos. I should, however, like to submit to the hon. member that the private sector is paying it at the present time. While we are declaring a loss on the passenger traffic, it is the high-rated traffic that is in fact paying for it. We know that this subject has been discussed many times and I am not going to refer to all the commissions that have investigated it, the most recent one being the Franzsen Committee.

However, I do believe that the whole transport system in South Africa has in recent years changed considerably and as such demands a relook at the situation. Firstly, we now have a very extensive rail and road network that we did not have 30 or 40 years ago. Secondly, we have a highly technologically developed road, rail and air transport network. Thirdly, our mining, agricultural and industrial development is well advanced and well served by virtually all the necessary infrastructural services. Fourthly, Sir, the world prices of certain agricultural and mineral commodities have improved in comparison to what they were some years ago. Fifthly, our Black industrial workers are, relatively speaking, enjoying a rapid increase in earnings, which, with better education and in-service training, are bound to escalate. Finally, there is a growing realization in this country that there must be a greater emphasis on more open and free competition in a freer economy, with greater opportunities to the entrepreneur and the small businessman. Nowhere can this be seen better than in the development in the road transport sector in recent years.

The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister is whether it is not time for the Railways to be placed on a purely business basis; that is to say, that tariffs should become more cost-orientated than they are at the moment? I accept that there has been a movement in this direction in recent years, but is it not time to set a deadline, for instance that by 1985 all tariffs should be on a cost basis? The reason I call for this is that if we want a truly efficient, multi-modal transport system, based on competition, then, I believe, the Railways must be freed entirely from socio-economic burdens. In short, this means that if there is to be open competition between road and rail, the Railways must be free of the burden of high-valued goods with high tariffs in order to subsidize the low-valued goods and passenger services. In this regard another question needs to be answered: Firstly, should the Railways not be paid the full cost of passenger traffic? If passengers are to be subsidized, let it be done entirely by the central Government, as it is done in the case of bus services. This is in fact happening at the present time.

Secondly, should the subsidies or concessions that are allowed for export and decentralized developments, not be carried by the central Government rather than by the high-tariff users of the Railways? Some may say that havoc would be caused in the economy should the Railways summarily change its rating policy. This I am prepared to concede, Sir, and that is why I suggested that the changes should take place over a period of say three years. However, one factor I believe has to be accepted, and that is that if we want an open transport sector with more competition, such as has taken place to a limited extent as a result of the Road Transportation Act of 1977, then the Railways must be unshackled from its present socio-economic responsibilities and should be allowed to compete on equal terms with the private sector.

Let me make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that I am being purposely provocative here this afternoon, because I do believe it is high time we had a debate on this issue. So to be even more provocative, why should the coal mines be subsidized to the extent that they are being subsidized on the Vryheid-Richards Bay line, and as far as wharfage charges are concerned at the bulk handling terminal, resulting in an increasing loss for Richards Bay Harbour? Why should this be done when export sales are skyrocketing, way above what was originally anticipated? They were 20 million tons, they are now 44 million tons and will have reached 80 million tons, I believe, by the year 1985. This is also coupled to coal prices that have escalated considerably as a result of the energy crisis. So why not ask the question: Should they not be charged the actual cost incurred by the Railways in transporting and handling their product?

Finally, if we are to fight inflation, to strive for greater efficiency through greater competition and to achieve the objective set by the constitution, namely that of being run on a business footing, the suggestions I have made certainly merit the serious consideration of the hon. the Minister.

In conclusion there is a third point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. I am referring to the accounting system employed in the accounts presented to Parliament. I believe that this system should be based on the same methods and systems of cost allocation as one would find in the private sector. There should be no doubt in the minds of any of us what the real economic performance of the Administration is. For example, in the hon. the Minister’s speech he said that last year the Administration had an operating surplus of R43,9 million, when in fact the actual operating surplus was in excess of R190 million. I say this because if one studies the accounts, one finds that there was R153 million contributed from revenue to the Revenue Reserve Account, which is, after all, a capital account. Those are actually operating profits going into a capital account. In simple terms one could say that the Railways made an extra R153 million which it put into its capital reserve in order to finance future capital expenditure. It is true—I concede this—that in the past the rates of depreciation charged against revenue were insufficient to enable the Administration to recover the original investment, especially in times of high inflation. However, the Select Committee on Railway Accounts has, over the past two or three years, passed recommendations that I believe have gone a long way towards correcting this situation. I appeal to the hon. the Minister, however, to have a method of accounting adopted that will clearly show exactly what is happening. The Revenue Reserve Account, as it functions at present, should in my opinion be abolished. There should be only two capital accounts, i.e. the Depreciation Reserve and the Higher Replacement Reserve. Might I also say that the formula used in charging these costs against revenue must ensure that the Administration’s capacity to carry out the transport function, in terms of capital assets, is not eroded by inflation.

Here is another point I should like to put to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. I recommend that the interest earned on the investments of the funds in these accounts should be added to the reserves and not to revenue, as is happening at present. By doing that I believe that we will ensure that not only the capital base of the Railways Administration is assured, but also that there will be that degree of capital formation that is required in any progressive business enterprise. After this has been done, I believe that all operating surpluses should be credited to the Rates Equalization Fund. Providing the Administration is fully recovering the cost of running the socioeconomic services, as I have suggested it should, by doing this the Rates Equalization Fund will be allowed to function as was originally envisaged. From one year to the next this Fund would provide the flexibility that is required to assist the Railways Administration in becoming a truly competitive operation in competition with the private sector.

Finally I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell the House this afternoon exactly how much his Administration has in its various capital reserves in terms of cash and investments.

Yes, tucked away.

I believe there must be in excess of R1 400 million in reserves. If I am correct, I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: Would it not have been much wiser, at this time when we are fighting inflation, to have financed more of the capital expenditure this year by using a greater proportion of these reserves, instead of borrowing as we have done? Surely in a time of high interest rates, as we are experiencing now, it would have been far wiser to use our own reserves and our own capital than to use borrowed capital, bearing in mind all the time that with the higher replacement cost funds and the normal depreciation reserve being fed through the system over the year, these funds or reserves which the hon. the Minister has, will be replenished as the financial year proceeds. I offer these thoughts to the hon. the Minister, and I sincerely hope that he will come back with some answers to my questions.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few things about the speech made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The amendment which the hon. member moved can be debated. There is merit in the amendment which he moved. However, we can only debate the merit of the amendment if one basic aspect is isolated, i.e. that the socio-economic services undertaken by the S.A. Railways should be singled out and attached more firmly to the Exchequer. Only when this has been done can we argue in terms of a greater degree of competition. But before this matter has been pointed out, it cannot be done, and the hon. member can avail himself of this opportunity to take this aspect further with the hon. the Minister of Finance. I shall return later to the details of the hon. member’s speech and particularly the capital aspect. There are certain matters in regard to which I do not agree with the hon. member at all, but I think in general the hon. member made a constructive contribution.

I come now to the hon. member for Berea. He made the most irresponsible speech ever made in a debate. I am not saying this as a cliché and I am not saying so because this side of the House wants to become involved in a vehement debate with that side of the House. However, the hon. member came forward with an amendment. In the third leg of his amendment he criticized the Government because “there has been no return on the capital expenditure of the S.A. Railways”.

That is not correct.

Something to that effect. In any case, if there has ever been capital investment in South Africa, it is the investment being undertaken by the S.A. Railways in terms of the creation of an infrastructure, so that the entire economic sector of South Africa grows and flourishes year after year. I wish to repeat what I have said before, namely that the profits of trade and industry are based on the capital losses suffered by the South African Railway in establishing the infrastructure. Take Richard’s Bay harbour as an example. This represents a certain capital investment. Of course the dividends on it will not be calculated in terms of what the Railways gets out of it but in terms of foreign exchange earned for South Africa. The entire basis of the hon. member for Berea’s argument falls away because he is looking for capital investment by the Railways which returns to the Railways, while the capital investment by the Railways is essentially aimed not at doing what is best for the Railways, but what is in the interests of the country or what is generated in the interests of the economy of the country.

I wish to return to what this debate is actually intended for, namely an exposition of the working estimates and capital budget of the Railways. The Railways closed the financial year ending on 31 March 1981 with an operating deficit of R67 million which, in terms of section 20 of the Act governing the financing of the Railways was debited to the Rates Equalization Fund.

This amount of R67 million must be seen against the background of two factors. In the first place the transport sector is one of the most sensitive barometers in a country’s economy. The loss of R67 million over the past year must also be weighed up against the economic climate of the past year which was characterized by a higher degree of liquidity, high interest rates, manpower problems and increased consumer expenditure. If we glance at the financial results of the past year, you will allow me, Sir, to emphasize one particular aspect, namely that the economies of the major trading partners of the S.A. Railways showed few if any signs of recovering from the moderate recessionary conditions in which they find themselves. This fact in itself had a direct effect on the export of raw materials such as steel and asbestos in particular, and this is then reflected in the operating results of the Railways over the past year.

If we consider the operating results of the Railways over the past year, we can say that under difficult conditions the financial state of affairs remains basically sound and we can congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Management on the financial planning and financial discipline displayed to achieve these results.

If we consider the working estimates for the coming financial year it would appear that an operating surplus of R3,6 million has been budgeted for which, after provision has been made for a transfer of R174 million to the Revenue Reserve Fund and after an amount of R28 million, owing to the increase in tariffs, has also been taken into account shows that it is intended to close the coming financial year with an operating surplus of R3,6 million. When we look at the separate main services, and at the separate main services, and at the working estimates of the four main services for the coming financial year, we find that the stable pattern of the past repeats itself. This is namely that the financial backbone of the operation of the South African Railways is the profit of R160 million shown on pipelines. There is also a surplus of R132 million which is being estimated for the harbours as such. The Cinderella of the entire working estimates of the S.A. Railways is and remains the railway services themselves, for which an operating loss of R123 million is being estimated in the coming financial year. There are of course particular circumstances which apply in this connection. This is a matter to which I shall refer again later.

Taking everything into consideration—as far as the four main services are concerned—a total surplus of R146 million is being estimated, which is being offset by means of cross-subsidizing of the four main services. As far as the working estimates as such is concerned, there are no significant problems, yet there are a few bottlenecks to which I shall refer later in my speech.

I should, however, like to devote the rest of my speech to an aspect which, as a result of certain circumstances in Railway debates during the past number of years, has not received sufficient attention. This is the question of the capital budget. I maintain that the obtaining and the utilization, as well as the creation of capital, are the most radical and most dynamic demands made on every managerial function. If this is true in the private sector, it is also true in the case of the S.A. Railways, because the crucial test as far as the capital programme is concerned, is not the conversion of capital into assets. This is not the crucial test. The crucial test is the conversion of capital into an asset which is connected with the managerial and policy objectives of the S.A. Railways. What is more, the test for a sound capital policy lies in establishing whether the capital is used in such a way that it fulfils the policy and managerial objectives of the South African Railways and yet is also synchronized with the economic objectives of South Africa as a whole. This is the test for the utilization of a capital programme.

When we therefore return now to the capital budget—that is, the Brown Book—we observe that the Administration has made provision for a capital budget of R1 869 million. This consists of a gross investment of R1 608 million. This capital portfolio also makes provision for the redemption of loans totalling R113 million, the transfer of R140 million to the Home Owners’ Fund, and an amount of R7,5 million for the fund used for the elimination of level crossings. On the one hand, this is what is involved in the capital budget as such. But how is this capital programme financed? In his budget speech the hon. the Minister said that it was intended to finance this capital expenditure by means of R1 065 million in the form of internal and external loans. An amount of R740 million would be found by means of Treasury loans, R325 million by means of other loans and R804 million by means of the generation of own capital. If one adds these three amounts together, one sees that the total capital expenditure amounts to R1 869 million. This will be financed by the three components I have just mentioned. If one goes through the capital budget with a fine-tooth comb, one sees that as far as new work on open lines is concerned, an amount of R780 million is being estimated, of which the largest single item is R101 million for an increase in the carrying capacity of the Broodsnydersplaas-Richards Bay project. For rolling stock an amount of R360 million is being estimated, of which the largest single item is R149 million for the purchase of diesel and electric locomotives. Then a further amount of R70,9 million has been estimated for the electrification of various sections. The largest single item here is the electrification of the Beaufort West-De Aar-Port Elizabeth section. If one considers the Airways, an amount of R245 million has been estimated, which basically amounts to the purchase of Boeing aircraft, as the hon. member for Kempton Park will indicate later.

This is a general summary of the capital programme which is being envisaged and how this capital programme will be financed. I wish to state that there has been a radical change in terms of the character of the financing of the capital programme of the South African Railways. In the past capital projects were initiated to comply with the development directive given to the South African Railways. Railways, harbours and stations were built and services were introduced, although in terms of purely financial consideration they were not and are still not economical. An infrastructure was created. The arteries of the economy systematically reached maturity, and trade and industry, agriculture and mining could rely to an increasing extent on this growing network. We had this specific aspect as regards the capital programme in the past, that in the development phase of the capital programme and the establishment of services and other industries the capital programme as such was in an inverse ratio to the growth of the country’s economy; in other words the greater the growth in passenger services and the provision of capital projects in terms of capital services, the greater the loss suffered by the South African Railways in meeting these service demands. The greater the exports and the greater the capital investment to make this possible the greater was the loss on low-rated traffic. An aspect which the capital programme wishes to highlight is the fact that the South African Railways met the growth requirements of South Africa without sharing in its growth. Now the economic realities of inflation and depreciation and rising costs have forced the Administration to switch to a new dimension in the financing of its capital strategy. This is a strategy which not only calls for specialized knowledge of capital forming and utilization on the part of the Administration, a knowledge and an expertise equivalent to any knowledge and expertise found in the private sector, but this new capital strategy is particularly attuned to a sensitivity in the creation of an infrastructure as a basic component in the struggle for survival here in South Africa. The test in terms of the provision of capital projects is that you must be able to read the future correctly to be able to establish an infrastructure in such a way that when the development comes the infrastructure is there to supply the growth which follows. Because the programme and in particular the capital programme has undergone a drastic change over the past few years I should now like, with the consent of the hon. the Minister which he gave me yesterday and with the blessings of the chairman of the Select Committee, to set out clearly, for the sake of the record, the policy of this side of this House on the policy of the financing and provision of the capital programme.

On the expenditure side of the capital programme provision is mainly made for four basic components, namely gross investment, the repayment of loans—R113 million this year—contributions to the home owners’ fund—R140 million—and the elimination of level crossings. On the other hand, how is capital generated? Capital is generated in terms of loans. In terms of section 16(1) of Act No. 48 of 1977, loans are obtained in the first place from the Treasury, and since 1973 the S.A. Railways has also had its own private borrowing powers to negotiate loans on the local and on the international market to finance its capital programme. However, capital is also generated from the Revenue Reserve Fund which basically means that the Revenue Reserve Fund is a fund of accummulated surplusses which are budgeted for. This is a very important matter. Funds for the Revenue Reserve Fund are budgeted for annually and are then transferred to an appropriation account from which the amount budgeted for is transferred to the Income Reserve Account. The question of the Tariffs Reserve Account no longer forms part of the capital programme and I therefore ask that the hon. the Minister have a look at the Tariffs Reserve Account.

Then there is the Capital Reserve Fund and the Higher Replacement Reserve Fund which I shall now deal with in detail. This brings me to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who discussed depreciation and the Higher Replacement Reserve Fund. Every business enterprise must make provision for two things, and that is depreciation and the higher replacement costs of assets. As far as the Administration is concerned, depreciation is calculated on the historic life of the asset, and this is then written off against the Depreciation Reserve Fund. This fund is not a fund for capital creation; the fund was originally intended only to replace the initial investment. However, provision also has to be made for higher replacement costs.

Higher replacements costs are calculated on the present replacement value of the asset and are then set off against the depreciation of that particular asset and the balance at a rate presently running at 70%, and placed in the higher replacement reserve which generates capital. Basically, therefore, as far as the capital programme of the Railways is concerned, there are only two funds from which capital can be generated: The Revenue Reserve Fund on the one hand and the Higher Replacement Reserve Fund on the other.

I now come to the question raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, with which I do not agree. I am referring to the interest on the two funds. Originally these two funds are fed from revenue. Revenue suffers the “loss” to make provision for these two funds and therefore any benefit which may accrue to these funds should not remain in the funds as such, but should return to the revenue from which they were originally taken, otherwise we are making too much provision for (a) depreciation if there is any interest and (b) the higher replacement costs.

Finally I wish to refer to another matter and that is the question of self-generated capital as against foreign capital. I wish to suggest briefly that there is one universal norm for the solvency of an undertaking, and that is the question of the debt ratio. The universally acceptable norm is a debt ratio of 1:1. At present the Administration’s debt ratio is 32:68, and is therefore still far from the ideal, but we wish to ask the hon. the Minister to make provision, systematically and without excessively inhibiting the economy, for the debt ratio of the Railways to move closer to the ideal norm of 1:1 because (a) self-generated capital is the cheapest capital which can be obtained in the generating of assets and (b) this norm serves as an entré to overseas investors for obtaining capital which can be invested in South Africa.

Against the background of the working estimates and the capital budget I wish to conclude by referring to two matters which are causing the Administration mounting concern. I am referring to the loss suffered on passenger services. What 725 million passengers at a loss of R640 million amounts to basically is that every passenger redeems only a third of the costs by means of his fare while two-thirds is subsidized by the Administration. This is an aspect which will also be dealt with and elaborated on by other hon. members.

What is becoming more prominent and is a source of concern in the running of the Railways is the loss that is being suffered on high-rated traffic. It is calculated that high-rated traffic at present comprises 12% of the volume of traffic, while it is responsible for R800 million of the income. If we go back 10 years, we see that the pattern then was that high-rated traffic was 15% of the total volume of goods conveyed and was responsible for 47% of the income. From this it is clear that as far as high-rated traffic is concerned the South African Railways is systematically being squeezed out of the market. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I wish to deal with an aspect touched on by the hon. member for Berea, viz. the problem of inter-state transport as it affects the Railways, politics, the South African Government and so on. I wish to point out that a number of blatant untruths have been uttered, centering around attacks on the South African Government, the Minister of Transport Affairs and the S.A. Railways, as regards the transport policy of the RSA in regard to South Africa’s neighbouring States, the Black States of Southern Africa. According to these countries, the RSA is out to wreck the economies of the Black States surrounding the RSA. This accusation has now gathered fresh momentum, and it is clear from reports in the local and international Press over the past two to three weeks that this matter is being fomented afresh.

A perfectly normal business contract between the RSA and Zimbabwe relating to 25 diesel locomotives is being magnified to the extent that it is being contended that the RSA does not wish to assist these countries and thereby wishes to cause instability in those countries. I wish to state very clearly that neither the S.A. Railways nor the hon. the Minister could renew this contract under any circumstances, and I shall provide the reasons why they were unable to do so. Due to two reasons the 25 diesel locomotives were urgently required for internal use in South Africa. In the first place, the winter peak season for the transport of coal was at hand. Due to a severe winter—it even snowed in Johannesburg—the normal demand was far higher than last year, and additional tractive force for the conveyance of that coal was urgently required. Apart from this, the maize farmers had a record maize harvest this year and the Railways had to jump to it at once in order to convey the maize to the harbours so that extra storage space could be created inland. For this purpose, too, additional tractive force was required. Due to the increase in the demand for tractive force, the Railways refused to renew a contract which had already expired. Seen from this angle, this should have put an end to the accusations hurled at the Minister and the Railways in the past, but in spite of that they were criticized even more severely when they indicated that they could not make the diesel locomotives available. In order to assist Zimbabwe Railways, the hon. the Minister and the S.A. Railways went further. When the contract expired it was not immediately stated that 25 units were necessary and had to be returned immediately. They were gradually incorporated into the South African system and were therefore gradually phased out of the Zimbabwean Railway system. This was done to afford the Zimbabwean Railways an opportunity to regulate their own affairs and solve their own problems. However, the Minister of Transport of Zimbabwe, Josiah Chinamano, held South Africa responsible for the economic crisis in his country. He even went so far as to level accusations. I shall refer to some of those accusations shortly. However, the flames were fanned even higher when the General Manager of the Zimbabwe Dairy Board had the following to say at a recent meeting of the Institute of International Affairs in Johannesburg—

But why not give the locomotives to them then? [Interjections.]

The absurdity of this criticism and also of the question by that hon. member is clearly proved when it is pointed out that in the past it has been stated very clearly in this country—inter alia by the hon. the Minister—that people must come and discuss their problems with us and that we shall try to assist in solving the problems. Only last week—but as usual the hon. member was apparently not present at the time—it was very clearly indicated once again why it was essential that we should discuss these matters. The hon. the Minister let Mr. Chinamano know, inter alia by way of the Press, that it would be as well that cognizance be taken at Government level of the bottlenecks on each side. He indicated that there could be mutual negotiation in an effort to eliminate the bottlenecks of both sides, because there are bottlenecks on our side as well. At present we are engaged in goods transport on a large scale. I therefore support the attitude of the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole that this matter must be discussed at Government level, because this matter has now been elevated to the status of an international political incident. However, the Zimbabwean Government is refusing to speak to the hon. the Minister, but is continuing to announce the following in the world Press—

When a country tries to solve its problems in this way and in this spirit, it can only expect a cold shoulder. Unfortunately these accusations have a far wider audience. It is true that the world Press swallows this up hook, line and sinker.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member would do well to remain silent so that I can continue. In the Sunday Express of 13 September 1981 a Western diplomat is quoted as follows—

The diplomat continues—

The Western diplomat is not taking into account the existing practical situation. The Government of South Africa, through its leaders, has repeatedly expressed its concern about the fact that economic chaos in its neighbouring countries can only lead to instability in Southern Africa.

It further seems as if the Western countries are already seeking a scapegoat in case large sums of money promised for development in Zimbabwe do not yield the desired results. At the recent aid conference held in Zimbabwe, Britain and the USA alone committed themselves to an amount of R625 million. I wish to state categorically that if they want to ensure that that money has the desired effect, they must not look to South Africa alone but must also provide other aid from their side to assure that the desired aid has the effect they wish, and they should not already be looking for scapegoats. The inherent weakness of the economies of Zimbabwe and the other Southern States is the biggest single bottleneck, and is responsible for the economic instability in those countries. I should like to quote from the latest annual report of the World Bank which strongly endorses this statement. It reads as follows—

This “southern region” is made of the Black States surrounding South Africa—

But no, the RSA is criticized for this. However, the World Bank refers to the inherent weakness of these countries. This is what an authoritative body has to say in this regard. The criticism levelled at the RSA in regard to transport has become considerably more violent in recent times, particularly over the past month. I predict that that criticism will become even more violent in the near future. One of the most important reasons for this is that the Southern African Development Co-ordinating Council, which was established by nine countries to make themselves totally independent of the transport system of the RSA, has up to this stage been a relatively dismal failure. The unsuccessful record of this organization is leading to serious frustration among its members. These growing frustrations will increasingly give rise to wild allegations being made against the RSA. These frustrations are further fanned by totally unrealistic expectations as regards transport quality and quantity in the countries in question. It is impossible to obtain confidential figures, but when the available figures are analysed they show that between 50% and 60% of the total imports and exports of Zimbabwe, Zambia and Zaïre have to pass through the RSA. There are various reasons for this state of affairs, and by considering these reasons hon. members will understand why the frustrations of the nine countries are running so high and why their criticism of South Africa is correspondingly violent. I want to furnish some of these reasons—there are a large number of them but I want to dwell on four specifically. The railway lines linking these countries with the sea are either closed or are unreliable transport arteries. In recent times the one hope, viz. the railway line to Beira, has been a victim of the RSM resistance movement in Mozambique. This resistance movement disrupts that railway line at will. This leads not only to delays but also to an unreliable service, with the result that importers and exporters no longer want to make use of that railway line between Beira and the north to convey their goods. This has reduced the effectiveness of that railway line to a very low basic percentage.

Secondly, I want to dwell on the Tanzam railway line. A great deal has been said and written about this. To sum up, one could say that according to the most recent information, this railway line is capable of utilizing less than 50% of its operating capacity due to a shortage of rolling stock, maintenance problems, a shortage of trained staff, etc. Moreover, the harbour which serves the railway line utilizes less than 40% of its available capacity.

The aspect of utilization of capacity at harbours is a major problem throughout Black Africa, particularly among the Blacks States of Southern Africa. Not one of these harbours utilizes much more than 40% of its originally developed capacity. I am not going to dwell on the Benguela railway line, because the last time it was in operation was in the early ’seventies. The facts surrounding that line are well known.

Thirdly, these countries are severely affected by the acute shortage of trained staff for the repair and maintenance of the transport system. Up to and including independence, Zimbabwe had sufficient rolling stock and line capacity, but the policy of the Mugabe Government, of making matters difficult for those who do have the necessary knowledge to operate and maintain the transport system, has resulted in them leaving the country. Accordingly, the rolling stock and other operating equipment, as well as the railway lines, are being left in a more and more deplorable condition, which not only limits the operation of those railway lines but makes it dangerous as well.

Fourthly, there is the incapacity of Zimbabwe, Zambia and other States to purchase the spare parts that are required and to obtain new equipment—this further contributes towards the accelerating deterioration of this situation. The most important reason why they are unable to do so is the poor creditworthiness of these countries. However, this is a problem faced by all the poorest countries, and not only these countries. I wish to state as an example that the latest report of the executive council of the International Monetary Fund indicates that in 1980, the burden of debt of the 110 poorest countries increased by R100 000 million to the astronomical figure of R370 000 million. Zimbabwe arranged an aid conference in order to escape the dilemma in which poor countries find themselves. Zambia is already more than 15 months in arrears with the repayment of its foreign loans. The most extreme example of all is Zaïre, whose foreign debt amounts to more than 100% of its gross domestic product. In such circumstances no one sells them anything and as a result the situation deteriorates. The situation is also aggravated by the inherent weakness of the economies of these countries. The Minister of Transport of Zimbabwe levels at South Africa the accusation that the fuel purchased by Zimbabwe is being delayed somewhere in South Africa. What he fails to add is that he waits until the stocks are very limited before purchasing further stocks. The present stocks first have to be sold in order to obtain money to purchase a further supply. The existing stocks therefore have to be sold in order to obtain the funds to purchase more. And then South Africa and the S.A. Railways are criticized if this fuel is not given priority treatment in South Africa’s harbours and on its railway routes. No, Sir, normal business transactions and sound economic relations are not maintained in this way, particularly if a country breaks diplomatic relations which have existed for many years and then runs from platform to platform to advocate sanctions and grant assistance to those organizations which seek to paralyse South Africa’s transport infrastructure.

The inherent inability of the transport system of Zimbabwe in particular to eliminate the bottlenecks is most evident when we consider the following two aspects. I should like to discuss these two aspects because they are brought about by Zimbabwe itself and are not, as is contended, imposed on them by the Republic of South Africa. The first is that as far back as the end of last year a request was made by the national railways of Zimbabwe to the S.A. Railways to reduce the number of wagons that had to cross the Limpopo due to the inability of the Zimbabwean railways to handle rolling stock. The second is that the road transport from the RSA to Zimbabwe and other countries north of the Limpopo—which has played a very major role in solving the bottlenecks—is also forbidden by the Government of Zimbabwe. The reasons for this given by Zimbabwe are that the volume of that traffic is so great that they are unable to handle it. Moreover, they do not have the capital and other funds to maintain their network of roads, nor do they have the necessary knowledge and equipment to carry on with this. What it amounts to, therefore, is that they are forcing the majority of northbound traffic to a standstill as soon as it gets to the bridge over the Limpopo River. And yet it is the Republic of South Africa that is criticized. Not a word is said about the inability of Zimbabwe to allow freight to pass to countries north of the Zambezi by road or rail. These aspects are conveniently forgotten when the old cry, which is now being revived again, is raised, viz. that the Republic of South Africa is withholding transport facilities to Black Africa and that this is leading to instability in the economies of those countries. I am convinced that it is more than time that these facts be publicized when causes are sought for the inherent weaknesses of the economies of Zimbabwe and the other neighbouring countries. It is time that Zambia and Zaïre should make clear to Zimbabwe the influence its attitude and policy towards the Republic of South Africa are having on their own economies. One would therefore be justified in asking why the transport relations of Zimbabwe—and this probably applies to Zambia, Zaire and certain other countries—with the Republic of South Africa are regularly, and to an increasing extent recently, blamed for the poor economic conditions in the interior of those specific countries. I feel that when these matters are investigated more closely, there are a number of matters that came to the fore. I should just like to mention three of them.

The first is the exceptional inability of Mr. Mugabe and other leaders to counter the serious domestic problems resulting from economic crises, shortages of food and fuel, etc. The aim of the criticism and accusations is to cover up these problems and keep the spotlight away from them. They prefer to focus the spotlight on the Republic of South Africa, which is supposed to be engaged in undermining those people.

The second aspect to which I want to refer is that Mr. Mugabe is trying to place the blame for his weak economy, for which he alone is to blame, on others. In the third place, it seems to me as if preparations are being made to hold yet another international conference for the purpose of begging money for the Third World; with the theme, of course, that countries included in this category such as Zambia, Zimbabwe and to a certain extent the southern province of Zaïre as well, are being forced into economic collapse. When we analyse the criticism that has been mentioned, against this background, then one of the most important aspects to which reference has to be made—and this applies in particular to the world Press, which is now also beginning to criticize this—is that the domestic affairs of those countries and of all the countries in Southern Africa must be taken duly into account when criticism is expressed as to why the Republic of South Africa is supposedly oppressing those countries. As I have already indicated, no allegation of this nature could be further from the truth. It is untrue that South Africa is intentionally out to undermine the economies of those countries. The truth is in fact that those countries are clearly showing their inability to stand on their own two feet, and that it is for that reason that they are trying to make South Africa the scapegoat for their own failure.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed there are one or two points that come quickly to mind, and I shall deal with these later. But first of all I think one must first ask whether any of the reasons regarding the creditworthiness of the States to the north of us would disappear only if their approach to us is through ministerial channels. We either have a problem or we do not have one.

When one thinks of the S.A. Railways one has to come to terms with the role that the S.A. Railways play in this country. Does one regard this organization as some great socialistic bureaucracy that has seized control of the nation’s transport needs, or does one believe that they are a dedicated group of top-flight public servants who have set themselves the task of supplying the country with the essential transport infrastructure that it needs? I must say quite unequivocally that I believe the latter. I believe that in the S.A. Railways we have a remarkably fine organization. When one thinks of it, it must be one of the most difficult enterprises to run and to control. It is sprawled over 24 000 km of track, 60% of the total track of Africa, and it is as responsible for an accident and for inefficiency in Bitterfontein as much as it is in Benoni. It employs over ¼ million people and it can move anything from an egg to a 200-ton machine. It operates 24 hours a day whatever the weather, and it has to keep its staff efficient and motivated with far less flexibility in salaries and employment conditions than private enterprise can easily offer. Yet Lloyds of London says that over a period, when the tonnage the Railways moved increased by 50%, the labour component increased only by 10%. I think that is a remarkable achievement. It has had an annual increase in operating efficiency of 8,8% at a time when the rest of South Africa has had an increase in its productivity of only 0,2%, and it measures, I think, 25th on a scale of 27 nations in the improvement of its economy.

You are a gentleman. You are making a fine speech.

Technically speaking the S.A. Railways is regarded as one of the most advanced and biggest railway systems in the world. Only the USA and West Germany have spent more on capital investment in recent years. It has developed all sorts of technical things, e.g. centralized traffic control, AC power and possibilities of speeds and loads are now available to us that were never ever considered possible. All this makes the job of a political critic a little more difficult, but not impossible, because there are areas where the S.A. Railways are open to severe criticism. I am not sure that one of them is not precisely in the area that the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed has attempted to defend. I believe that if the situation was not as he described it, if it was not already a difficult situation, there would not be an opportunity for us and we must learn to differentiate between our opportunities and our problems. Frequently our opportunities come just as a result of our problems. The S.A. Railways has been used most effectively as an instrument of sophisticated international diplomacy, but I have the strong feeling that we have not got the sulks and that we are not actually being big enough to take advantage of the situation that is an opportunity for us in our negotiations with the countries to the north of us. That might require that we have to be unusually co-operative, unusually bending, and this “toenadering” might have to come from the side that is biggest and strongest, which is us at this stage.

Secondly, in the winter months there is no doubt that there is a serious shortage of coal trucks for the delivery of local requirements. The inability of the South African Railways to provide trucks that are required compels collieries to use road motor transport services frequently at an additional cost of 50% of the pit-head price of coal. It receives no recompense for this very substantial loss but as the responsible supplier the colliery has to keep factories open and this year considerable difficulty has been experienced in this particular sphere.

Coal is shipped through Durban on a permit system. Arrangements are made for sufficient trains to get vessels away within an allocated time but during these same winter months when sufficient trucks are frequently not available a considerable amount of foreign exchange is wasted because the demurrage charged by these ships averages about 10 000 dollars per day and it frequently happens that individual ships are involved in demurrage charges amounting to 60 000 dollars. This is a great deal of foreign exchange that is being completely wasted because sufficient railway trucks are not available. The coal that is normally exported through there is coal destined for Korea. This is a wonderful opportunity to export coal we cannot use ourselves and it is an invaluable source of foreign exchange.

I think the following questions are pertinent and that the hon. the Minister should answer them. Firstly, can the hon. the Minister give us some indication when facilities to accommodate the new allocations will be available at Richards Bay? Secondly, when will existing allocations through Durban be moved to Richards Bay? Thirdly, is it envisaged that additional coal facilities at Richards Bay will be a South African Railways development and open to all export permit holders? Fourthly, what is being done to alleviate winter railway truck shortages supplying the coal market? Fifthly, if a breakdown should occur between ourselves and Mozambique, will exporters through Maputo be accommodated at Richards Bay? Sixthly, does the hon. the Minister intend to construct an alternative rail link through Swaziland to Richards Bay to meet this eventuality?

The Government is correctly convinced that the free enterprise system holds the biggest opportunity for South Africa to develop sufficiently fast to create opportunities for all her people but industry is very concerned about the intrusion of the railway activities upon manufacturing areas which it regards particularly as its own. For example, the very big foundries and workshops at Koedoespoort, Bloemfontein and Salt River do considerable manufacturing which private enterprise not only could handle but also needs to handle. We believe that at Bloemfontein and Salt River 1 300 goods wagons are being built annually at a time when private enterprise is set to produce these wagons. It needs to produce these wagons and for the past two years it has been working at one-third or half capacity. It does not believe that the South African Railways is doing this job efficiently. It believes that the Railways are already running more than 12 months behind their own schedule. This means that raw material has been lying around waiting to be included in the manufacturing process for 12 months and I think hon. members will agree that at present interest rates that is a prohibitively expensive operation. We all know the tendency that big organizations have to empire build. This happens in any concern and it is something against which management has to guard. It is frequently the best managers who tend to want to expand and grow but the reasons are always suspect. Costs are easily hidden and frequently these diversifications are taken on to avoid getting rid of people or moving people whom one finds it embarrassing of difficult to move. In the ’sixties the Railways actually appointed a commission that investigated the whole question of manufacturing in competition with private enterprise. I think that the majority decision was that this should not be and it was suggested that the Railways phase themselves out of this manufacturing process. This time last year it was reported that on the Railways 21 000 Blacks were doing work previously done by Whites. I think this is a wonderful achievement. We all see it in our businesses all the time that that is the only area in which we are going to get tomorrow’s labour.

What I am interested in is what the Railways are doing to house these people. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us. From the returns we have it would appear that of R236 million in funds supplied for housing, R52 000 was actually allocated for Black housing; that is if I read page 10 of the memorandum correctly.

The next point I should like to discuss is the question of segregation on the Railways. Can we not do away with segregation in passenger transport on the railway lines? In Port Elizabeth we find with buses that the quicker one can do this, the less trouble one has. Can we not put all the money and all the effort which we put into separating people into building and maintaining standards? Surely that is where tomorrow’s fight will lie; not in the question of what colour skin people have, but our big problem is going to be to build and maintain standards in this country, and I believe the sooner we get away from these racial divisions, the better. I can see no reason whatsoever why the trains that run in the mornings into Cape Town cannot be for all classes irrespective of race.

I think the logjams of containers have been adequately dealt with by the hon. member over there.

Another matter which I should like to raise concerns the following. The Government is so focussed in on spending tens of millions of rands on creating new industrial areas that it ignores the established ones that are in need of Government support. Let us look at a town like Port Elizabeth where we pay R124 more on a container which goes from our town to the Reef than is paid on a container which goes from Durban to the Reef. This is so notwithstanding the fact that our port stands 50% utilized. That is a tremendous investment in capital that could be constructively utilized and I believe it is economically sound for the Railways to give a preferential rate to Port Elizabeth where we have an enormous unemployment problem—over 25%—and a huge population in dire poverty. I think this will be something of inestimable value.

In the middle of the last century when the railways had just been started the Attorney-General of the Cape Colony said about the railways—

The railways have certainly come a long way since those days. It has played a cardinal role in tying together this wide-spread country and I think it has earned itself justified credit all over the world for the job it has done.

I have one more request of the hon. the Minister before I sit down. Would he please use his influence to stop the S.A. Airways thanking me for travelling S.A. Airways on domestic lines when I have no other choice? [Interjections.] Secondly, could he do something about that scrambled egg which we have for breakfast? I think he would earn the gratitude of the whole country. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member for Walmer made a very responsible and constructive speech, except for one point, when he discussed the abolition of segregation. However, I shall come to that later.

It is really to be regretted that the chief spokesman of the official Opposition did not make such a speech this afternoon. I listened to the chief spokesman of both Opposition parties, and I must say that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti made me think, while the hon. chief spokesman of the official Opposition almost made me laugh.

I think that the hon. member for Walmer asked certain questions in a very responsible way. The questions put by the hon. member are, however, questions which the top management and the hon. the Minister ask themselves all the time. When, in contrast to his front-bencher, he makes such positive speeches here, I am sure that he will fit in very well with such a team of people.

The hon. member for Berea began by saying that the budget was inflationary. However, that is by no means true. If the hon. member can show me just one point in regard to which this budget is inflationary I would be pleased. What has happened? Rates for passenger transport have been increased. However, it is not going to result in food prices being increased if a person has to pay 10% more for his ticket. Therefore it is not inflationary.

The hon. member said that this was not a sound and economic budget, and that due to the race policy of the Government the management was unable to function properly. There were a lot of complaints about the race policy, but the hon. member did not mention a single instance where it resulted in high cost. I should like the speakers who are to follow him to tell us in what respect the Government’s race policy has led to higher cost. If we were to lump everything together, as the hon. member for Walmer said, would that result in lower costs? If everyone had to use the same turnstiles and platforms on the stations, would that mean that fewer trains would be used? Would it result in a drop in the wages of labourers? Would the trains use less fuel? Could less be spent on buildings and rolling stock? How and where would we be able to save thereby? The allegation that costs are constantly rising due to the Government’s race policy, is devoid of all truth.

If I have two buses and one is full of Whites while the other is full of Blacks, how can a single cent be saved? It cost exactly the same to operate those two buses. [Interjections.] Will it cost less if White and Black travel together in one bus? In my opinion, that kind of plaint is outrageous, and it is high time we brought the Opposition to book. They must tell us in what respect we have spent too much money.

The hon. member for Berea went further and linked the race policy to fuel prices. How he can do that is beyond me. The hon. member for Walmer praised the management for their good work and I thank him for doing so. In contrast, the hon. member for Berea criticized them. I believe that South Africa ought to thank and pay tribute to the hon. the Minister, the top management and every official of the S.A. Railways for the outstanding service they render South Africa.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Berea has ever managed a café, a chainstore or a large undertaking, but I take it that he knows something about good business principles. What is stipulated in section 103 of the Constitution? I shall quote it for him—

That is what is provided in the Constitution, and the hon. member cannot indicate in what respect the Railways, the hon. the Minister and the Government are not managing the Railways and harbours on this basis. Apart from that, the Railways are providing a socio-economic service of enormous scope for South Africa and its population and for the lesser privileged in this country. What has happened in regard to this budget? A subsidy of R360 million has been allocated in regard to passenger transport for the lesser privileged. Of that sum, R80 million is for the bus service commuters, R80 million for train commuters and R200 million due to the exemption from interest. This gives a total of R360 million. If the Railways were to do away with the socio-economic services—as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said—and were to ask every passenger to pay the full tariff, then those on that side who are still going to discuss this matter could perhaps tell me what taxes should be increased in order to obtain R360 million from the taxpayer’s pocket. If that is not inflationary, then I do not know. If we must recover this from high-rated traffic, low-rated traffic or passenger traffic, would that be inflationary or not? Those hon. members must say where that money is to come from.

They are calling for tariff increases. That is what they want.

I think the hon. the Minister is right. That is all they want. All they want to do is to cast the Government in a poor light once again. [Interjections.] What are conditions throughout the world? As the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Post and Telecommunications have indicated, we have had a fine growthrate. We know that the OECD countries have had a growthrate of minus 1% and they are the strong industrial countries of the world. What has being happening recently? Imports have remained at a high level but our exports have dropped. In other words, the Railways have had fewer goods to transport. In spite of that, the Railways has nevertheless done so well that it has at all times been able to keep its head above water.

The hon. member for Berea also discussed containerization. There have been problems in that regard. However, does that hon. member blame those problems on the Railways alone? It is true that congestion occurred at City Deep. [Interjections.] However, the hon. Opposition did absolutely nothing to encourage the business world, the businessmen, to accept containers out of normal office hours. [Interjections.] The hon. Opposition is babbling so loudly that I wonder whether one should take the trouble to speak to them, particularly to the hon. member for Yeoville.

I am not talking to you; so mind your own business.

The Railways granted a special discount of 15% to 25%. From 1 April this was increased to between 20% and 33⅓%. This was done so that commerce and industry could accept the containers after hours.

They did nothing about it.

Why did they not do anything? Is this the task of the Railways alone, or should commerce and industry also do their share?

That is right.

I think it is high time that we should say to commerce and industry in this country that they themselves should contribute their share too. After all, commerce and industry in this country are making money. We see in the newspapers every day that company profits are increasing by up to 100%. They are declaring dividends of 50%, 60% and even 70%, but when they have to play their part in receiving their own goods after hours, they do not wish to do so.

They play golf on Saturdays instead.

There you have it! I think the hon. the Minister should take steps to see whether there are no suitable times outside normal office hours during which these goods can be received. We must consider whether those people cannot be motivated to fetch their own goods so that this persistant criticism can stop.

The hon. member for Berea also referred to the fact the lesser privileged have to pay too much due to tariffs having increased by 10%. What have we had over the past few years? Consumer expenditure has increased enormously. Private consumer expenditure increased by an estimated 50% for the Whites, 8% for the Coloureds, 3% for the Asians and 36% for the Blacks in 1979. Income has increased to such an extent that it is calculated that over a period of five years the income of the Blacks in this country will exceed that of the Whites. If that is the case then surely it cannot be said that those people have no money. After all, one should be grateful to the NP for this phenomenal growth. What else have we found, apart from the problems experienced by the Railways due to prices having risen? The value of the rand has dropped. In 1970 the value of a rand was R1, but in 1980 the value of R1 was a mere 32 cents. That is how the value of the rand has dropped. In spite of that drop, for which the Railways, the hon. the Minister and the management are not responsible, they have succeeded in balancing the Railway budget, and although there is the occasional minor problem, we have another excellent year ahead of us. The hon. member for Berea also overlooked the fact that one of the greatest cost factors is the increase in wages. Due to the fact that wages have increased, the rates for passenger transport services have had to be increased. If the cost of labour has increased by 23,4%, what does the hon. member for Berea expect? Where is the money to come from? Although wages have increased by 23,4%, the tariffs have increased by a mere 10%. Surely, then, the Government has been fair, and we have no complaints on that score.

I also wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Bellville in regard to the financing of the capital budget. I think that history has been made in South Africa over the past few years and the hon. member for Bellville spelled this out brilliantly as far as the capital budget is concerned. In the 1979-’80 financial year, self-generated capital amounted to a mere 17%, and now it is 32%. Where has this money come from so suddenly? It is due to Treasury loans valued at R854 million which were converted into permanent capital. Hon. members opposite should rather thank the hon. the Minister, the Government and the management today for the fact that this large Treasury loan has been converted into Railway capital to enable the Railways, the consumers, the passengers and everyone in the country to assist. Instead, however, hon. members are ungrateful. Just think what the burden of interest is on R854 million invested at 8,7%. It would be R74,3 million. This therefore entails an enormous saving for the Railways. As regards the loans for the financing of the capital budget, we also wish to thank the Government, the hon. the Minister and the top management for the fact that use is being made of internal loans as well as self-generated capital. For the year 1981-’82, only R320 million has to be borrowed abroad. It is as well that we should make use of our own domestic resources and that the Railways should also make use of its self-generated capital and not borrow too heavily abroad, thus running the risk of finding itself in the dangerous position of being dunned for money we do not have. There has been a substantial outflow of capital this year, but it has been used to redeem overseas loans. As a result the Railways may be able to get by without any foreign loans in the near future.

I should also like to refer to the population census. This, too, is a matter on which one should take an overall view. The Railways has a large number of workers. However, what are the average annual earnings of an employee in South Africa, expressed as a percentage? If one considers what an employee earned in 1970 and what he earned in 1979, the percentage increase for the Whites was 141,9%, for the Coloureds 169,4%, for the Asians, 217,2% and for the Blacks, 293,3%. Therefore, in spite of what the hon. member for Berea had to say about the lesser privileged, it may be seen how these people’s wages have increased over the past nine years. This has been an enormous increase, and we shall not encounter this anywhere else. However, there is another factor we must consider, and that is the rate of population increase among these people. Let us take all the population groups into account. The S.A. Railways has the task of transporting everyone. What has been happening in South Africa? If one compares the position in the years 1970 and 1980, one finds that expressed as a percentage, the population increase has been as follows: Whites 18%; Coloureds 24,5%; Asians, 23,7% and Blacks, 30,8%. Since I have been in this House, the official Opposition has never asked or encouraged the people of colour to apply family planning. They refuse to do so. They prefer to encourage people to create other problems. I think the time has come for us in South Africa to appeal to the Black leaders, the Coloured leaders and the Asian leaders not simply to adopt a mendicant attitude and expect the White man to give them everything—there is a limit to what one can give—but to encourage family planning. I want to ask the hon. member for Berea whether he is prepared to make such an appeal to people. If he does not wish to do so he should tell us why not. He might as well tell us at the same time when he is going to do so. I think it is high time that something is said about these matters, too.

Let us take a brief look at the position with respect to Richards Bay. I do not only want to look at the good things, I also wish to look at the problem areas. What has been the cost of Richards Bay? In this budget the operating expenditure amounts to R11,6 million. Then there are the finance costs amounting to R22,2 million. This gives a total of R33,8 million. If one includes depreciation, amounting to R8,7 million, the total is R42,6 million. In contrast, the revenue has been a mere R23,5 million, which represents a deficit of R19 million. That deficit on Richards Bay alone is a major deficit if one looks at it in isolation. In the case of Saldanha Bay we have a similar picture. There the total expenditure amounts to R33,1 million as against revenue of R26,9 million, representing a deficit of R6,2 million. However, should one concentrate exclusively on these deficits? It is true that we have financial losses in this respect at the moment, but as previous spokesmen and the hon. the Minister, too, have said, these two projects have earned more than R3 000 million in foreign exchange. Now I ask myself what has been more valuable for South Africa: The R3 000 million in foreign exchange that has been earned, or these small deficits—I call them “small deficits” in comparison with that vast sum. This shows us that the top management, the Minister and the Government have adopted a balanced approach in promoting the interests of South Africa; they do not simply ask whether this one project is making a profit or not.

I wish to conclude by referring to the hon. member for Walmer. He very sensibly asked to what extent something could be done to divert the transport of goods from Durban to Richards Bay. It is true that at the moment the Durban harbour can still handle all those goods. Of course, it is not so easy to divert it to Richards Bay because Durban has the whole infrastructure and all the importers’ and exporters’ agents are in Durban, and it will take a great deal for them to divert the goods to Richards Bay. However, harbour facilities for handling general goods, particularly heavy goods, already exist at Richards Bay. Another three similar quays for general goods are being built. I think it would be as well if the hon. the Minister could spell out to us what else is being envisaged, how soon the quays for general goods will be ready and when it will be time to divert more goods from Durban to Richards Bay. In case there is a collapse in the Maputo area, we shall also be prepared to receive the additional traffic at Richards Bay.

What is the Railways worth to South Africa? The S.A. Railways handles a great deal of money. It purchases many capital goods and industrial goods. However, only 10% to 15% of these goods are imported. The entire balance is therefore spent locally. However, trade and industry, that benefit by this, are silent. One does not hear from them. I think it is time for us to say to trade and industry that they should say something about the good business they are able to do due to the investment by the Railways and the work the Railways gives them in all spheres. Agriculture, too, is benefited, but I think that trade and industry in South Africa are benefited far more than the agricultural sector. Since the Railways suffers such losses on passenger transport I think we should ask ourselves who benefits most by the passenger services. Surely trade and industry—and not agriculture—benefit most by the transport of all the passengers in the country. If this is so, the question arises as to whether it is not time for trade and industry to contribute more heavily to transport. This could be done, for example, by way of an extra tax to be utilized for the purposes of transport. Employers in the private sector ought to compensate their employees for tariff increases. Employers in the private sector ought also to compensate their employees for accommodation and the expenditure involved. I think that in that way, all the good services rendered to trade and industry by the Railways can be stressed to a greater degree. The private sector can certainly contribute more to this, particularly in view of the fact that for the most part, private enterprise makes good profits.

For example I call to mind one Press report I read over the weekend from which this aspect is clear. According to that report the Railways has just spent R20 million on an order for laminated sleepers. This is an exceptionally large order. The order has to be met by five enterprises within a period of three years. Everyone would agree that this is an outstanding contract. I do not want to go into the details further. However, taking everything into account I believe that the Railways in South Africa are providing an outstanding service, a service which is unequalled in every respect. We are grateful for this. The hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration can carry on with the good work. South Africa is grateful to them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sunnyside reacted very thoroughly to the criticism that ‘was expressed here earlier this afternoon. I think that he has left the speakers who will follow him, very little to which they can react further. Furthermore, he delivered a very informative speech, on which I should like to congratulate him.

When one looks at the operating results of our harbours, and also takes into account the results of our two young harbours, we come to the conclusion that these operating results were in fact a tremendous achievement, an achievement which could only have been made if there had been excellent administration of our harbours. Therefore, when we evaluate these operating results, it is only right that we should look at various aspects of our harbours. Whilst the Railways Administration—at present, in any event—have at their disposal properly ordered institutions through which our harbours can be properly controlled, we must realize that this has not always been the case in the past. For instance, one simply has to think back to the position in 1910, when South Africa became a Union. In view of this, it remains an historical fact that the division of our import traffic to the Witwatersrand between the various railways and harbours in those days was a very important crucial problem. However, by placing our Railways and Harbours under one central institution, with one central policy, we were able to succeed, by means of purposeful, functional action, to manage the Railways in such a way that the administration thereof could be properly dealt with and controlled.

With regard to the operating result of our harbours, I also want to point out the tremendous harbour development which had to take place in our country in order to keep pace with the development in other spheres in South Africa. It is true that the Railways Administration was faced with limited possibilities. Our harbours were limited. These were restrictions that had to be overcome, for instance by establishing an apparatus for dealing with mass freight, and also by establishing other services by means of which we could prove to world shipping that not only could South African harbours provide them with the best apparatus for dealing with rail freight, but that they could also render additional services. However, it always had to be done in a competitive fashion and at reasonable tariffs. For instance, we can mention that 50 years ago our harbours could handle a mere 9 000 tons of freight per annum. Compare this with the handling ability of our harbours today. Furthermore, we must also take into account the very important part which our export of minerals played in this regard. Bearing all these things in mind one realizes that by making the development of harbours a priority, the Railways Administration has always been able to keep pace with developments in international shipping.

In this regard I should therefore also like to refer to our separate harbours. Reference has been made here today to the operating losses suffered by our two young harbours. It was also correctly pointed out that if it were viewed in isolation, it would indicate a loss, whilst in terms of foreign currency, it indicates a mighty achievement for South Africa.

Traditionally we had the old harbours of Walvis Bay, Table Bay, Port Elizabeth, East London, Mossel Bay and Durban. Recently the two well-known harbours of Saldanha Bay and Richards Bay have been added. It is also true that fantastic achievements have been made in various spheres at these harbours. If one simply takes note of the fact that Saldanha Bay was planned chiefly for exporting iron ore, that it is in a position to handle no less than 8 000 tons of iron ore per hour, and that Richards Bay, which was chiefly planned for exporting coal, can succeed in exporting no less than 24 million tons of coal per annum, and that its apparatus is in a position to deal with no less than 7 000 tons of coal per hour, one realizes what tremendous achievements can be made here. However, on the other hand, although Richards Bay was of course chiefly developed for the purpose of exporting coal, it also made provision for exporting other commodities. For instance, one can think of chrome, phosphate, sugar, maize and so on. These commodities are being exported to such an extent that the harbour has apparatus which enables it to ship at a rate of 2 000 tons per hour.

This brings me to our old harbours. For instance, if one looks back over a period of 10 years at the development which the harbours experienced, one realizes how the Administration really kept their finger on the pulse of the needs of our harbours. If they did not do this, we would fall behind. If one looks at the statistics—the statistics that I have before me, for instance, do not include the costs of container cranes and smaller sums, i.e. expenditure on single items below R100 000—one finds that over the past 10 years no less than R168 million has been spent on development at Table Bay. At East London the sum was R14 million; at Durban R84 million; at Walvis Bay, R1 million; at Saldanha Bay, R205 million; and at Port Elizabeth, R70 million.

What is more, it did not stop there. This afternoon Opposition speakers sang the old song of “lack of advance planning” again. If there is one body in the South African domestic economy that can truly give a thorough account of advance planning, it is the Railways Administration. If one takes the harbour at Port Elizabeth as an example, one notes that tremendous new works are being envisaged within the following five years, but have not yet reached the final planning stage. For instance, there will be a new tanker berth harbour, a crane repair workshop, a new container depot, the extension of quays Nos. 2 and 3 which became essential due to the increase in trade at that harbour, and what applies to Port Elizabeth’s harbour, applies, of course, to our other harbours too. The Railways Administration has its finger on the pulse of the needs that He ahead.

I also want to refer to another aspect of our harbours, viz. the roll-on/roll-off service. When the Algerin, which is a roll-on/roll-off ship, arrived here in April 1979, a really new roll-on/roll-off shipping service was introduced to our South African harbours. From that day we have been able to conduct a shipping service of this quality with Scandinavian and European harbours, and this applies to all our harbours. Of course, this means tremendous advantages for modern shipping to such an extent—and of course it depends on the commodity that one wants to ship—that in East London, for instance, no fewer than 605 tons of copper can be shipped per hour in this way. What is more, whereas in the old conventional way, 12 shifts of eight hours had to be worked in order to load a certain number of tons of freight, in terms of these new methods a mere four shifts of eight hours each are required, i.e. previously it was 12 shifts of eight hours each and now it has been reduced to four shifts of eight hours each for loading the same amount of freight. This is a tremendous achievement, a tremendous development which was in fact essential in order to enable the Administration to keep pace with the modern development of harbours in the international sphere.

Reference was also made here today to our harbours which can be used to serve other parts of Africa. It is true that due to the inability of the African harbours to provide their respective countries with the necessary freight, our harbours have been and still are being made use of from time to time and they also lend themselves to being of assistance in this regard.

This brings me to a further aspect when we want to evaluate the operating results of our harbours, viz. the modernization of our tug service. Speaking of the tug service, it is important to know that if one does not keep pace with progress in the important spheres regarding one’s harbours, then one cannot provide international shipping with the necessary services and it is always essential to keep one’s finger on the pulse of new developments. For instance, on 25 September last year we saw the end of an old era when the well-known J. D. White coal-fired tug was withdrawn from service. On that day the old era of the coal-fired tug ended and we gradually changed over to the diesel tug. Today we have 28 of these tugs in operation which is a tremendous asset to the Administration, and I want to tell you why. In the first instance, the employment, the actual employment per diesel tug was decreased by 40%. On the other hand, the fuel costs also decreased considerably. Now you may ask how the fuel for a diesel tug can be compared with that for a coal-fired tug. This is how it works. If one takes the coal that a coal tug uses per day and one takes it to Sasol and asks them to manufacture diesel oil from it, then only a quarter of that diesel oil which they can manufacture from that freight of coal, is used per day by the diesel tug which is in operation these days. Therefore, this means a tremendous saving of our natural resource in this regard too.

This brings me to a further aspect in connection with our harbours, viz. containerization. Reference has been made here today ad nauseam to the problems prevailing at City Deep. Of course there is a problem and with regard to containerization in general, there will naturally normally be problems, but no one on the Opposition side referred today to the tremendous international achievements that South Africa has made with regard to containerization.

Containerization is actually a relatively new institution in the world and over the past four years it has increased at a rate of 49% per annum in South Africa. Show me any institution in which there has been such a rapid increase that is not faced with problems on the long or short term. It is very interesting to note that in 1977 we handled 155 972 containers, whilst in 1980 we handled 569 558 containers. This reflects a tremendous increase. If one looks at the projections for the following five years, what does one find? Of course, the rate of increase will decline, but it nevertheless remains a tremendous rate if one takes note of the fact that the projection for 1981 shows 669 000 containers as against 882 000 containers for 1985.

Of course, containerization is here to stay. It is very interesting to note that the Administration has succeeded by means of our harbour container terminals to render one of the best services in the world. For instance, compare the achievements of our harbours in the sphere of handling containers with those of any other harbours in the world, and one finds that Port Elizabeth handles 39,6 containers per hour and Durban comes second with 38 containers per hour, whilst Cape Town comes third with 29,9 containers per hour, but Rotterdam handles a mere 27,9 containers per hour; Zeebrugge, 26; Hamburg, 19,3; and Southampton, 15,1 containers per hour.

And now?

There are mighty achievements which should fill our country and its people with endless pride and that is why we should pay tribute on this occasion this afternoon to our brilliant officials in the Administration. However, what else is happening? Experts from abroad are visiting our harbours to see what tremendous progress we are making in the sphere of containerization and how our system of containerization works. Where can one encounter a greater achievement than what has been achieved by our Administration?

A good thing about our entire system, is something that does not often happen in this modern world of ours. This is that a healthy competition arose and still exists between our various harbours with regard to achievements in containerization. Until last year Port Elizabeth held the record for handling the most containers per hour per 24 hours, viz. 1 452, but shortly after that Durban improved upon this record by handling 1 521 I containers per hour over 24 hours.

That is a great pity.

My good colleague the hon. member for Aliwal says that this is a great pity, but now I want to comfort him, because as far as the average per month is concerned, Port Elizabeth still holds the record.

As far as containerization is concerned, it is quite natural that there should be problems and that there will be problems in the future too. However, the hon. the Minister has given the assurance that more terminals will be made available. Other methods are also being found for combating the problems. What is important, is that this system is working in the main and it is working very well to boot. In comparison with what we find in the sphere of international shipping, we have the highest regard for our people who are keeping this new system running so well.

Furthermore I should like to refer to the achievements of our harbours themselves. I call them achievements. It is a good thing to take note that Richards Bay, for instance, handled no less than 28 million tons of freight; Durban, 19 million; Saldanha, 14 million; Port Elizabeth, 6 million; Table Bay, 4 million; and East London, nearly 4 million.

Now we come to the total amount of freight handled by our harbours during the past financial year. No less than 1216 million tons of freight were landed and 6416 million were shipped, i.e. the enormous volume of 77 million tons. As hon. members know, our harbours obtain their income from harbour duties, wharfage, tugs, lighthouses, etc., and in the past four years the income has increased from R119 million to R296 million this year. Accordingly, however, our expenditure has increased too from R58 million five years ago to R203 million this year. In the meantime our surplus of R60 million has increased to an estimated R93 million.

I feel that on this occasion we can really tell the Administration that they have succeeded in making their mark in world shipping, because not only do they have the ordinary shipping services, but they have also made freight handling apparatus available to shipping at fair, competitive tariffs, Therefore, we pay tribute to the Administration for the tremendous achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Newton Park, and it was interesting to hear what he had to say about the J. J. White. When I was a small boy, I always played with a model yacht built by J. J. White, who was one of our harbour captains. It is also interesting to note that we have always had a small number of Irish harbour captains in this country. They were recruited by my grandfather, who also worked for the S.A. Railways, for employment in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I think we all accept that in general our harbours are being operated smoothly, and we ought to be grateful that this is indeed so. However, I do not want to discuss harbours this evening, but should like to come back to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister.

†In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister spent some time on housing. This is a most important aspect of our national life and, clearly, the Railways as an employer of 270 000 people has a very important role to play. We are constantly getting calls from the other side of the House that the private sector must play their part in housing their employees, and in this regard the Railways has done a commendable job over the past 70 years as far as housing for Whites is concerned. In fact, an analysis of the ratio of departmental houses to the number of White employees from 1920 onwards shows a fairly consistent figure of 1 dwelling to every 4,5 employees. According to figures given by the hon. the Minister in his speech last Wednesday, there are 69 483 houses occupied by White employees, which are departmentally owned or financed. That gives a very healthy ratio of 1 dwelling to every 1,7 White employees. Unfortunately the same position does not hold for the other race groups, particularly the Blacks, and that is something I shall deal with in greater detail presently.

Over the last 60 years the proportion of White employees of the South African Transport Services—I shall endeavour to use that name since that is what it is now called—reached a high point of 56,5% in 1940, largely as a result of the absorption of many Whites during the depression years, but this has subsequently declined, according to the General Manager’s report of 1980, to 43%. Indeed, I think we all recognize that that percentage is likely to decline even further. This fact is recognized by the hon. the Minister in the very sensible recognition he has given to the new Black Staff Association, or perhaps the more definite recognition of that staff association, and that staff association’s likely or inevitable membership of the Federal Consultative Council of the S.A. Transport Services’ Staff Associations. This is indeed an historic step, and we on this side of the House warmly welcome it because we believe that there should be effective trade unions, which are responsible and which can enter into the process of negotiation and bargaining for better deals. We believe in order and not in anarchy.

It is just as well that you tell us.

Clearly the Black component is going to play an increasingly important role in the activities of the S.A. Transport Services, and not only in the sphere of unskilled or casual labour. In the last election campaign one of my voters, a railwayman, said: “Whether I vote for you or for the Nats, a Black is going to come and work next to me in the same office.” I pointed out to him that the political debate in South Africa was not about whether that would happen, but in effect about how it would come about.

I wish to put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister and to draw his attention to matters that we believe ought to concern him. The housing of Black personnel, for example, seems most curious. I believe that South Africa is entitled to a policy statement from the hon. the Minister on this matter. It would appear that the main thrust in housing is towards unisex hostels. In the hon. the Minister’s speech the figures he gave on housing for Blacks and their hostels indicate a ratio of one hostel bed or one unit of hostel accommodation to every 3,8 Black employees. The figure for Whites is one hostel bed for every 21 White employees. What is most disturbing is that another 30 000 hostel beds are planned for the next four years. Some may be because of the replacement of old hostel facilities by better facilities, but even so there is clearly going to be a very substantial increase in hostel accommodation. At New Canada, the hon. the Minister tells us, R55 million is being spent on a hostel complex for Blacks. He has also told us that 100 houses have been bought by Blacks. No figures are available on departmental houses for Blacks, so it appears that Blacks have to house their families themselves, in contrast to White families who get every assistance with departmental housing at very low rents, in fact so low that the Auditor-General queried those rents. Then there are also subsidized interest rates, etc. These are, in fact, very substantial fringe benefits. What I want to ask is why Blacks cannot enjoy similar fringe benefits so that they can also enjoy family life. Is it the S.A. Transport Services’ policy to have a cheap housing programme for Blacks by simply neglecting their family life? The figures suggest that the S.A. Transport Services support and plan to continue with the hostel or compound set-up based on a system of massive migratory labour. The hon. the Minister must appreciate that we on this side of the House are opposed to a policy that seeks to expand and entrench a system of Black migratory labour. We are opposed to it on moral, political and business grounds.

Right.

Men living with their families in decent homes, in happy communities, are the best employees, and I believe that they are the responsibility of any good Government in any decent society.

There is, however, a more sinister aspect to this. I believe that anybody who opens his mind to writings from academics and researchers working on labour studies, will have noticed a constant Marxist emphasis on analysing any society, including the South African Society. How do they see this whole process of migratory labour? They see it as a White capitalist system exploiting a Black proletariat. On the basis of figures I have extracted from Railway accounts, it seems to me that the Railways policy towards the housing of Black employees would fit perfectly into a Marxist analysis on the basis of capital and proletariat in the South African context.

If the hon. the Minister were to provide 28 000 departmental homes for Black railway men and so have the same ratio in terms of departmental homes as that for Whites, viz. 1:4,5, the S.A. Transport Services would have to spend some R300 million on the basis of a home and services costing around R10 000 each. This is not a large sum for the S.A. Transport Services to pay, but it will be a magnificent investment for South Africa.

The General Manager’s report for 1940, to take only one of these excellent reports, reveals the important role the SAR played in uplifting communities. It is fascinating to read extracts from the report of the Railway Health Officer on page 168, and I quote—

The report goes on to say—

This was amongst basically White workers—

The report goes on to say—

One can read further through the report and on page 169 it states—

It is quite clear that the Railways took a very real interest in the welfare and life of their people. Why can it not play that role again? I know we have other agencies in our society today which assist people, but with 130 000 Black employees, I believe that the hon. the Minister has a responsibility to those people.

We also see it with regard to the Third World meeting the First World. The Railways, just as it played a vital role in the upliftment of the poor Whites and the people affected by the depression, can bring the Black man from the Third World into the First World, and do so with the experience and the background that the department already has. I find it difficult to accept that the Railways can only have a business function. If one wants to take a more enlightened view, its business function is also to care decently for its people.

Let us, however, look at another situation. According to the report, the Railways also established model villages. Two of these model villages are described in this report, viz. Vooruitgang and Rusgenot, and I must presume they were for Whites. I quote from page 128—

So one can go on. But what happens to Black people? The people referred to here, were Whites employed on the Cape Eastern railway line. Black people are not allowed the privilege of living a family fife in these villages. They have to live as men only in these villages. They may be very comfortable, but here we see what trouble was taken to give the White staff decent facilities. I believe that Blacks are going to bring pressure to bear through their staff association and they are also going to bring political pressure to bear for the Railways to give them a square deal, just as the Railways gave Whites a square deal. Let us be frank about it: It is because Blacks are not represented in the House that they cannot press for the same square deal.

Do you represent them?

The White Railwayman’s vote has been a major factor in getting him a decent deal. I believe the hon. the Minister has enough of the milk of human kindness and decency to ensure that the Black man gets a square deal without the hon. the Minister having to be prodded and pushed by Black members of Parliament. In my view the S.A. Transport Services’ policy in regard to the housing and welfare of its Black staff needs a complete revision to bring it into line with the conditions of employment for White staff. I trust that the hon. the Minister will make this a priority as he launches himself in this important portfolio.

The S.A. Transport Services is in the future going to depend more than any other organization on Black skills and management. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has a future’s unit which is looking at how many Blacks are going to be required in the future, say in the next 30 years, in skilled and management roles. Are any Blacks, Coloureds and Indians beneficiaries under the University scholarship scheme which is mentioned in the latest report? Then, is there a programme to educate White staff with regard to some of the changes which are going to come about as Blacks occupy more responsible positions?

In the staff totals in the General Manager’s report there seems to me to be a curious division of staff between what is called “graded staff’—those are Whites—“Railwaymen” and others. Why are Blacks not “graded staff’? Can there not be one grading system for all railway employees so that, instead of Blacks only getting better jobs if there are no Whites to do them, a Black man can know that, starting from the bottom, he can move up and become a station master or the General Manager of the Railways should he work hard, apply himself, be decent and be efficient in the job he does? I believe that that is very, very important.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to devote a great deal of my time to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He began his speech by referring to housing and he discussed that subject at some length. I want to reply to that by saying that I do not believe there is any organization in the country which does more for the housing of its workers—whether White or non-White—than the Railways. The story of the role played by the Railways in the field of housing in South Africa has not yet been written. In my constituency, which contains a very large Railways component, Railways staff were the only people who bought or built houses in Kempton Park during the lean years of the ’seventies that have just come to an end. We greatly appreciate what the Railways does for the housing of its people. But is the hon. member who has just resumed his seat not also the person who, if I remember correctly, provided “housing” on his lawn a short while ago?

Yes, he put up tents there.

Perhaps he should have gone further and provided accommodation for the people concerned in his house. The way I read it at the time, he did not take it any further than his lawn.

It was an act of charity. You have no conception of that. [Interjections.] Did you help any people at the time of the Laingsburg disaster?

Mr. Speaker, the way in which the Railways treats its staff is an example to others. There is not an organization in the country in which there is a better relationship between employer and employee than in the Railways. I am not aware of any organization which does more in respect of training than the Railways.

We shall have to go far to find an organization or situation in which more is done for people, White or Black, than in the S.A. Railways.

To begin with, I should like to bring a very special matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I hope he will not reject my request out of hand. The recent stormy weather, snow and ice caused great traffic disruption on the Witwatersrand. That event made me wonder afresh whether we should not make provision in our planning for alternative airport facilities. The fact is that the traffic at Jan Smuts Airport is very heavy at certain times of the day. This in turn causes problems when it comes to the landing and taking off of aircraft. My question, therefore, is whether the hon. the Minister does not agree that the time is ripe for providing airport facilities in the vicinity of Pretoria. I think that alternative airport facilities are essential with a view to future planning. I am not saying that they must be situated at Waterkloof or Wonderboom. I think we have enough competent people available who could solve that problem if we took such a decision. [Interjections.] To me it is clear, however, that uncertain weather conditions, as a result of which aircraft have to be diverted to Bloemfontein or Durban, for example, do create major problems for all involved. It does not only lead to great extra transport costs. Nor is it only the accommodation costs involved that have to be taken into consideration. Another problem resulting from this is the great disruption. If aircraft could land somewhere in the vicinity of Pretoria, therefore—and one of the airports which may not be suitable for this at the moment will have to be adapted to this purpose—those who now have to be conveyed to Johannesburg could be in Johannesburg within an hour of having landed, whether they touch down at Wonderboom, Waterkloof or wherever. The excellent freeways which are available do make this possible.

Together with this investigation, it is even possible—I do not know whether this has ever been considered, but I believe that hon. members who represent Pretoria constituencies will support me in this—that the time has come for some flights to Cape Town or Durban to depart from Pretoria, or even to land at Pretoria in order to relieve the traffic congestion at Jan Smuts Airport. There may be some merit in such a proposal. I nevertheless believe that it is time this aspect was carefully investigated. Therefore I hope the hon. the Minister will not simply shake his head and relegate this proposal of mine to a shelf where it will gather dust. [Interjections.]

Now I should like to dwell for a moment on the criticism that has been expressed here today, by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, among others, with regard to the so-called monopoly which the S.A. Airways and the S.A. Railways are supposed to have. Every year, the Opposition parties launch an attack on the S.A. Railways and the S.A. Airways, alleging that they have a monopoly. Allegations are made such as: “We must open the whole transportation system to more competition. The country suffers because of too little competition.” The criticism is along those lines. Now I know that it is usually linked to the so-called Freddie Laker organization. Furthermore, they are always suggesting that they are advocates of the free market system. However, I want us to be quite clear about this from the outset. Hon. members on the Government side are very definitely just as strongly in favour of private initiative and of the free market system as hon. members opposite. However, we approach the matter in a responsible way.

With regard to the Freddie Laker organization, however, I want to point out a few things. The first fact I want to point out is that the routes he chooses are the high-density routes. In spite of price increases, that organization is already having financial problems, according to newspaper reports. According to a report in Weltwoche of 26 August 1981, Mr. Laker has major financial problems. He already owes about $300 million and has had to plead with his bankers to give him more time. He blames this on the fuel prices and especially on the stronger position of the dollar. His income is mostly in English pounds, while his expenditure is in dollars. According to the report in Weltwoche, he now wants to provide a more expensive class on his aircraft and he is quoted as having said that he now wants to convey fewer passengers at increased rates.

Having said this, I want to refer briefly to our own South African situation. In my opinion, the way in which the S.A. Airways is operated is the only sensible way of operating an airline. Firstly, taking into account the realities of fife, it is in the national interest that this should be so. South Africa is a small country. We may be big in Africa, but we are very small compared to other industrial countries. I am told that at Chicago Airport, for example, there are 1 000 aircraft movements per day. Compare that with South Africa, then I say we are small compared with the other big industrial countries of the world. In the first place, the S.A. Airways and the S.A. Railways form part of a national State transport enterprise, along with the other branches such as road transport, harbours, etc. Looking at the aviation industry in general, it is clear that conditions are chaotic in many countries, especially in America. If I have time, I shall give the hon. member some information in this connection in a little while. Competition just for the sake of competition can be detrimental because it leads to competitive duplication, and that is what is happening overseas. In this way, for example, no fewer than seven airlines operate between New York and Los Angeles. But if one wants to reach certain places in between, one has to change planes, because the fact is that since the airways were thrown open, the competition for the most profitable routes has increased at the expense of the less profitable ones. And what has the result been? Profits has been converted into losses, and it is calculated that these already amount to more than $800 million. So competition has not taken the place of monopolies, as is alleged, but has rather unleashed blind forces. Aircraft manufacturers receive few orders from the USA. In a developing country such as South Africa, where the industry is small compared to other countries, we cannot afford such a situation. Our Airways is operated purely on business principles, and many statements that are made are far from the truth. Today more than ever before, because of the scarcity and high prices of fuel, unnecessary duplication has to be eliminated. No airline can afford to keep an aircraft which costs between R35 million and R40 million on the ground as a reserve. Our fleet will be further expanded this year by the Boeing 737s, which sounds impressive, but our airline is still by no means the great enterprise one finds in other countries, and we certainly cannot afford duplication. Between rail transport and the S.A. Airways there is meaningful co-ordination. The aircraft is replacing the train as a passenger carrier, and because it is one organization, the one supplements the other. So railways and airways are not in competition with each other. I am therefore in favour of the retention of this system because South Africa’s domestic services are adequate, well operated and efficient, and because the cost is realistic. We provide services of a high standard and the technical maintenance of these is also of a very high standard. In addition, a very good service is also provided to the private sector.

Therefore it is important that one should also give some attention to our S.A. Airways as a whole. I want to draw the attention of this House, in the first place, to the outstanding achievement of the S.A. Airways and, in the second place, to the problems that are being experienced. In his budget speech the hon. the Minister pointed out that a healthy growth was being experienced on the international routes, especially to the USA. On the routes to Europe and the United Kingdom, there has been a slight drop of 1,4% in passenger traffic. This drop is largely to be attributed to the recessionary conditions prevailing in most industrial countries. It is also a fact that most other airlines are experiencing serious financial problems. The year 1980 was a black year in the history of the world’s aviation industry, resulting in a total deficit of $3 billion. So far it seems that this year is not going to be much better.

If we want to have a look at what is going on in other countries, I just want to mention a few outstanding facts. British Airways is going to curtail 16 international services and sell its fleet of cargo planes. Approximately 900 employees are going to be laid off before March next year. They showed a loss of R245 million last year and asked the British Government to raise the credit ceiling from R1 700 million to R2 700 million. Pan American also experienced great problems with losses and their credit facilities were reduced by 50%. As a result, they had to sell the Intercontinental Hotel group which had belonged to Pan Am and cancel an order of eight new aircraft. Surely things are going very well in South Africa when we compare the position here with the position in overseas countries. Continental Airways lost $34,7 million during the first six months of this year and they are also going to lay off 700 employees. At Swissair, the debt has grown to R1 300 million. They are going to curtail their services and reduce their staff by 7 000. I want to say that the aviation industry as a whole is faced with serious problems. Having said this, and without elaborating on it, I want to add that we may consider ourselves fortunate in South Africa in still finding ourselves in such a favourable position at this stage. As I have said, several airlines have had to sell some of their assets to keep their head above water. On our domestic routes there is still healthy growth with regard to passengers as well as cargo. In the budget speech, an anticipated growth of approximately 7% was envisaged, while an increase of 15% in earnings from external passenger services is expected. The external cargo earnings, too, can be increased by 10% by using the 747 Kombis. The SAA is therefore faced with the problem that earnings are wiped out by expenditure, mainly as a result of the high operating costs, resulting principally from increased fuel prices. We on this side of the House also regret the fact that tariff adjustments have had to be made. I realize that in a country like South Africa, where we have very great distances, increased air fares may have an adverse effect on the ordinary transport pattern and may also have an adverse effect—and this really worries me—on our tourist industry. However, tariff increases are inevitable, and I should like to make a few comparisons to show how favourably our air fares in this country compare with those in other countries. Looking at the situation as it will be after the tariff increase has come into effect on 1 October, we see the following: The distance between Johannesburg and Cape Town is 1 271 km, and at the new tariff, a ticket will cost R125, but when one compares that with the position in Australia, one finds that the distance between Perth and Karrathu is virtually the same, while the price of a ticket is R178,40. Between Chicago and Baltimore there is a distance of 1 295 km, but the ticket costs R161,10. Let us take an example such as Cape Town to Kimberley. The distance is 821 km, but between São Paulo and Brazilia, the distance is 838 km. The ticket from São Paulo to Brazilia costs R135,60, while the ticket from Cape Town to Kimberley costs only R98. Between Denver and Oklahoma City, the distance is 805 km and the ticket costs R147,80. Between Sydney and Marochy—I hope I am pronouncing the name correctly—the distance is 834 km, while the ticket costs R113,90.

I shall quote another example. The distance between Johannesburg and Durban is 504 km, and the ticket will cost R69. A similar distance is that between Berlin and Munich, but there a ticket costs R85,10. Between Kansas City and Oklahoma City, a ticket costs R111,30, and the distance is comparable to that between Johannesburg and Durban. I am quoting these examples to show that we are not worse off than everybody else. Of course we did not want these increases, but our services still compare very well with those in other countries.

I now wish to refer to the planning which the S.A. Airways has done and is still doing to make available to us some of the most modern and sophisticated aircraft which have been specially purchased and adapted to the needs of our routes, so that fuel consumption may be kept to a minimum. As far as domestic routes and those to the neighbouring territories are concerned, the HS 748s, which have replaced the DC 3s, are very suitable and they meet the transportation needs, especially to our neighbouring States, while the new B 737s, which are replacing the 727s, have resulted in a fuel saving of 40%. Therefore these aircraft are extremely suitable for our domestic and regional routes. The Airbus is a very popular aircraft which is still giving the best fuel consumption per seat km. On the long overseas routes, because of our geographic situation, the Airways has introduced the 747 SPs, which have become indispensable, as well as the 747 Super Bs, for which no replacement has yet been found. The 747 Kombi, which is equipped with the very latest engine, offers us the best combination for transporting cargo as well as passengers and gives us considerable fuel effectiveness.

Over the years, a fixed pattern has developed in our domestic flights. We know that in the morning, the businessman wants to catch the early plane to his destination. He wants to have a full day available in Johannesburg, Cape Town or Durban so that he can finish his business there, and then he wants to return early in the evening so that he can have supper with his family. This means that we have peak times in the mornings and late afternoons, while there are empty seats during the day. Especially after 20h00 our flights are very poorly supported.

The existing staff and equipment could be much better utilized if we could bring about a better distribution of the journeys. This would in turn have a favourable effect on our operating results. In order to achieve this objective, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister seriously to consider a concession tariff for travellers who are prepared to make use of these late flights. These concession tariffs must offer a special discount. The most powerful incentive is a discount on one’s air fare. If one pays less for his ticket, one will be more inclined to accept the inconvenience of a late flight. To avoid the empty seats which are a common sight in the middle of the day, we should make use of incentives to ensure that our flights are always fully booked. Give a man a discount and ensure that the aircraft is full.

In the short time I have left I want to point out briefly that during the oil crisis of 1972-’73, the fuel account constituted only 12% of the expenditure of the S.A. Airways. Today fuel represents 35% of the total expenditure. In other words, this is an increase of 840%, and to this must be added the long detour we have to make from South Africa through regions where fuel is in any event among the most expensive in the world. Meanwhile, double digit inflation rates are an everyday phenomenon all over the world, something which is making the S.A. Airways even more vulnerable in its attempt to control rising costs, since about 40% of the total expenditure of the Airways is incurred abroad.

If the S.A. Airways ever deserved a compliment, it is for the ability they have shown to hold their own in strong competition with the best overseas airlines, for since 17 or 18 years ago they have been forced to fly around the bulge of Africa. We had to have the aircraft, we had to motivate our people, our passengers had to stay in the aircraft longer than those who could follow shorter routes, but in spite of strong competition, the South African Airways has continued to provide outstanding service, and today it is regarded as one of the best airlines in the world. If the Airways has been able to hold its own in the face of overseas competition, I cannot see why this cannot be done inside the country as well.

As far as aircraft equipment and materials are concerned, we have to import these at highly inflationary prices. A Boeing 747, for example, costs almost three times as much today as it did 10 years ago. Costs can best be curbed by increasing productivity and by using our equipment and manpower as effectively as possible. Much has already been done and much has been accomplished. I have here a small magazine containing an article which appeared in Engineering Week of 18 June, and I shall read just a few quotations—

The only further quotation I want to make from this informative article is the last paragraph, and I do so by way of complimenting our technicians, who are not mentioned often enough. It says—

This is the compliment, Sir—

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to our technicians and we should congratulate them on this great achievement. The Boeing 747 Kombi aircraft which are being used enable us today to use wide-bodied aircraft for all our international services. They are ideal in situations when neither passengers nor freight justifies a separate service. They are equipped with the best improved engines and can convey much more lucrative payloads over longer distances. Their fuel consumption is more economical. The existing fleet of 747s will also gradually be equipped with these engines. As I have said, 13 737s are already on order to be used on our domestic routes. These aircraft are ideally suited to our domestic routes. It is calculated that we shall save 2 316 litres of fuel on the route between Cape Town and Johannesburg. This means a total annual saving of R12 million to R13 million. They use 40% less fuel; their maintenance cost is lower and the cost of technical training for the handling of the aircraft is also lower. We also need to keep fewer spare parts for those aircraft. In addition, the aircraft are being modified to improve their safety and efficiency, provided that this can be done economically and effectively. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I listened so attentively to the speech which the hon. member for Kempton Park was making that I almost forgot what I was going to say to congratulate him on his speech. Over the years he has made a study of Airways matters and today he is one of the experts in this field in this House. The hon. member for Newton Park, who is not here at present, also showed us that he had made a very thorough study of containerization in South Africa.

I should like to single out a few facts just to give prominence to the enormous scope of the activities of the South African Railways and Harbours. There are 10 317 bridges with a rail length of 158 km in South Africa. There are 178 railway tunnels with a total length of 102 km. There are 992 railway stations, not taking sidings and halts into consideration. An annual average of 21 million tons of high-rated traffic is being conveyed and this provides a revenue of R721 million. In contrast 106 million tons of low-rated traffic is being conveyed and this provides a revenue of R889 million. Annually 691,2 million revenue producing suburban and main-line passenger journeys are completed. On average 2 667 trains are operated daily at each of the four busiest main stations. A total of 11 425 vessels called at South African harbours during the past year. The total tonnage of cargo handled at South African harbours—excluding Port Nolloth—was 77,2 million. There are 16 486 road transportation vehicles in service and the total staff employed by the South African Railways is 270 000. The service bonus alone, which was introduced in the place of the holiday bonus, amounts to approximately R114 million a year.

If we take these few facts into account, we get a picture, an overall picture, of the South African Railways set-up. Only then can one really attach true value to the extraordinary efficiency of the top management and the extremely dedicated staff. As the hon. the Minister rightly said there is, from the General Manager, Dr. Loubser, right down to the humblest worker, a spirit of readiness to serve and team-work. To illustrate the expertise and forward planning I wish to quote a report which appeared in yesterday’s Rapport and to which the hon. member for Sunnyside also referred—

This is just one of the innumerable achievements of the Railways.

But then one has to listen to the main speaker of the official Opposition, who says: “This is a budget of gloom because it can only add substantially to the intolerable burden of ever-increasing cost of living which the man in the street has to bear.” The hon. member complained about the 10% increase in domestic airfares. However, he conveniently ommitted to mention the fuel prices which were increased on 6 July 1981. During the present financial year alone this will mean an additional expenditure of R20 million, while in a full financial year it will amount to R27 million. Then surely there is nothing strange about the expected loss of approximately R29 million for the 1981-’82 financial year. This is not a problem which is located only in the South African Airways. The steadily increasing fuel prices are causing problems for airlines throughout the world. Surely this does not affect the man-in-the-street all that much. On the contrary, I wonder how many ordinary people pay for their own tickets when they travel by plane. As far as I know, and perhaps I am completely wrong, it is mainly businessmen, tourists and holidaymakers who make use of air transport. I want to go further and say that if there is a loss on the South African Airways, an even more businesslike approach should be adopted. I should say it is a pity that the increase is only 10%.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti suggested that a more effective efficiency and economizing campaign should be launched. I agree with him. We must economize where possible, but the hon. member did not mention any examples. I want to ask him whether he agrees with me that one of the economizing measures which can be adopted is to do away with meals on domestic flights. I think this is something we can do without in South Africa.

The fact that the Railways is expected to render certain socio-economic services and to recover the resultant losses by cross-subsidizing between the various services, is as much of an absurdity which should be done away with in all haste. There were times when the Railways was known as a welfare organization, but this has not been the case for a long time now. After all, the Railways cannot continue to subsidize people making use of its passenger services.

Every day we speak of priorities, and from time to time a reshuffle of priorities takes place. Changing circumstances require new priorities. We subsidize agriculture under certain circumstances, we subsidize the consumer under certain circumstances, we have subsidized bus transport for a time—this year R104,5 million was involved—and we subsidize the train passenger. Now we even want to subsidize the air passenger as well. If this carries on we shall become a welfare State.

I recognize the right of every person to work. To be honest I have always considered it a privilege to be able to work. Everyone in South Africa demands the right to have as many children as he wishes. In this respect I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Sunnyside in his appeal to the official Opposition to advocate family planning in their organizations, and not simply leave it to us. As I have said, everyone in South Africa demands the right to have as many children as he wants. Whether he can feed them, whether he can put a roof over their heads and whether he can give them a decent education does not matter because the Government has to supply all these needs. One inevitably wonders where all the money must come from. Eventually the taxpayer must pay for the irresponsibility of the other sectors of our population.

Has the time not arrived for the employer—here I again associate myself with the hon. member—to pay his employee a decent minimum wage? Only then can we begin to try to eliminate this enormous loss of more than R628 million in a single financial year in respect of Railways passenger services. Even if we were to increase the fares drastically we would still not be able to eliminate the losses over a period of years. I think it has become necessary for the Government to take an in-depth look at the socio-economic services which the Railways renders and to comply with the recommendation made by the Franzsen Committee that the State should pay for such services, for otherwise the Railways will have no other choice but to announce drastic increases in fares, especially in respect of suburban passenger services.

The backbone of this enormous organization is undoubtedly its staff. On 15 June 1981 there were 116 568 Whites and 155 744 non-Whites in its employ. This gives a total of 272 312, which is 5 110 more than the previous year. The increase in staff may be attributed mainly to the increase in the apprentice quota, the training quota for clerks and the increase in the footplate staff to prevent the cancellation of trains. In some grades there is a serious shortage, for example among the train controllers, station inspectors and conductors. In some sections the shortage is enormous. In the Western Transvaal, for example, the shortage is 60,4%. In other sections the shortage is less. In the Northern Cape it is 46,6%. There is also a shortage of controllers. Even in the road transport service there is a serious shortage of drivers. Of the 716 vacancies in the adult grade on 15 June 1981, 442 posts were temporarily filled by people of colour. In addition 314 Whites and 104 non-Whites were in training on the same date.

There are shortages of ticket examiners, as well as stokers, and drivers for diesel and electric units. I could continue in this way to mention many grades in which, to a greater or lesser extent, there are shortages. There is a shortage in just about every sphere. In the short-term the shortages are made good by appointing staff to work after hours and over weekends, as well as by employing students and pupils during holidays and by using relief staff from the sections in which there are no shortages. For greater use is also being made of female staff members.

In the long term, however, the solution lies in training more and more non-Whites to fill the posts traditionally manned by Whites only. One great problem facing the S.A. Railways—this is a problem which also exists in many other Government departments—is the recruitment of adequate numbers of qualified technicians in the present labour market. This problem has arisen because the Railways cannot compete with the excessively high salaries being offered in the private sector. The same also applies to artisans. It is no longer strange to find a qualified Coloured plumber who earns R1 500 a month, or even far more than that. The private sector is of the opinion that it is much cheaper to buy a well-trained, qualified artisan, technician or even typist from a Government department or similar undertaking than to train that worker themselves. I must add, however, that the private sector is also making a tremendous contribution to the training of technicians and apprentices. But the time has definitely arrived for the Railways to take the lead in binding a worker contractually, if he has been trained by the Railways as a technician, artisan or in any other specialized capacity, to remain in the service of the Railways for a period equal to his period of training. The same principle applies in cases where students are offered bursaries for study purposes. After these students have completed their studies they must remain in the service of the supplier of the bursary for a certain number of years—usually a number equal to the duration of their training. This could give rise to legislation in terms of which all employers are afforded this kind of protection. I am certain that this will be of great assistance in bringing about greater stability in the labour market.

The increased influx of people of colour into the service of the South African Railways has involuntarily caused the Whites to wonder with concern whether, if the young White employees are called up for compulsory military service for two years, the non-Whites who need not undergo compulsory military training will not have a tremendous advantage over their White counterparts. It is generally felt that Whites and non-Whites, artisans and apprentices, who have to undergo military training, should be totally exempted from it. I assume that this problem is receiving attention at the highest level.

Since we are caught up in the total onslaught on South Africa and all its peoples, I wish to hold up the example here today of a very large mining enterprise in South Africa. When this problem arose several years ago in that mining enterprise, the trade union leaders held an indaba. The conclusion they arrived at was that every non-White apprentice appointed had to volunteer for service in the Defence Force for a period of two years. If we can achieve the same thing in the S.A. Railways I believe it would make a tremendous contribution to labour harmony, and it would also eliminate suspicion and contribute a great deal to peaceful co-existence in South Africa. I do not think it is impossible, especially in view of the achievements the South African Railways has already accomplished with the non-White workers in its service.

The Railways and Harbours Artisan Staff Association has taken the lead in bringing about better human relations, and also in the process of eliminating discrimination based on skin colour alone. The word “White” is going to be deleted from its constitution. This means that Coloured artisans are now allowed to join the trade union. This decision was supported by 22 600 White members of this trade union. They already have 22 000 people of colour in so-called White posts. More than 600 clerical posts have already been filled by non-Whites. This takes place on an ongoing basis in consultation with and in co-operation with the various Railways staff associations. The Railways has already made great progress in its declared policy of paying people of all races an equal wage for equal work. We can only say with great gratitude to Dr. Loubser, his top-level management and all employees in the service: “Carry on, South Africa is with you”, even if the hon. member for Berea says that this is a “budget of gloom”.

In conclusion I should like to refer briefly to staff housing. If I had had a say in the matter, housing and unemployment in South Africa would be my number one priority. Under the home ownership scheme, 3 469 new loans valued at R83 million were granted this year. Since 1937 a total of 29 711 properties valued at R380 million have been provided. Since 1954 over 20 000 loans to the value of R29,3 million have been granted to officials with building society support. A total of 12 142 properties valued at R333 250 000 were provided with pension fund support. These enormous amounts have been spent over the years on White housing. Gone are the days when Railways staff had to live in a certain part of a city or town in identical houses. Nowadays the staff are living in the better residential areas of our cities and towns. They are living in the best areas of the city, thanks to better housing schemes and the benefits they enjoy. With the steadily increasing numbers of Coloureds, Indians and Blacks an ever increasing burden will be placed on the shoulders of the Railways to make funds available for housing in this connection as well. In particular, the Railways will have to try harder to ensure that the home owners’ scheme under the leasehold system is successful. There is great interest in this scheme among Black employees with families.

I do not know what has caused the delays or the problems in the implementation of this scheme. If I may hazard a guess, and say that they are being caused by red tape, I wish to make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure without delay that the problem is eliminated as quickly as possible. There are no problems for single Black men or single Coloured men. Millions of rands have been spent every year to house thousands of single men in extremely modern hostels which are equal to those for the Whites, with the same recreational and sporting facilities.

Now I should like to return to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. That young man said …

That “hon. member”.

… that the only reason why provision is not being made for Black housing by the Railways, is that there is no Black man sitting here to ask for housing for himself. What nonsense! What absolute nonsense to allege that this is the only reason!

Would you do without your vote?

Apparently the hon. member for Houghton now thinks she can win a Nobel prize. For what? To plead for the Black people and for peace throughout the world, but …

But she hates the White man.

And how! I have never heard her pleading in this House, or in any other forum in the world or in a document or wherever she may have appeared, for the peaceful continued existence of all people in this country. No, but just let something happen to a Black man; then you will hear a thing or two!

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the main theme of my speech, I should like to reply to one or two statements that were made by other hon. members who have already participated in this debate. The hon. member for Sunnyside asked this side of the House to give that side of the House one instance in which Government policy influences the transport system. He was referring particularly to transport by bus. I want to tell the hon. member that I went to Pretoria recently and while standing in the street waiting for a red bus I noticed that early in the morning the blue buses leave the centre of the city full of Black people whilst the red buses leave for the suburbs completely empty. I also noticed that a little while later the red buses returned full of White people whilst the blue buses returned empty. The first thought that came to my mind on seeing this was that this sort of bus service was certainly not the type of bus service whose subsidization I would support.

Were they Railway buses?

The blue buses in Pretoria are for Black people and the red buses are for White people. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed made a long speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed said in the course of his speech that all the Government of Zimbabwe had to do to get those few locomotives was to apply through the right channels to ask the Government for those locomotives. Then, however, he spent the next half-hour explaining why, in purely economical terms, one should not lend locomotives to such people. Therefore I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Do these buses … [Interjections.] Sir, I should like to know, on a point of order, whether these buses have anything to do with this Railway budget. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Greytown may proceed.

As I have said, the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed went on to explain to us for almost half an hour why, on purely economic principles, we should not lend any locomotives to the Government of Zimbabwe. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us finally whether he is never going to loan these locomotives to the Government of Zimbabwe, for if he did so, it would obviously be completely inconsistent with those purely economic principles.

I should like to make a few points with regard to the subsidizing of rail transport, because the railway system in South Africa is a very important element of our whole transport system, especially with regard to passenger transport in the big metropolitan areas.

In a free market economy it can be argued, of course, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti did in fact argue, that subsidizing distorts the price structures with the result that the best allocation of resources cannot be obtained through the price mechanism. In the transport industry matters are not so simple, however, because certain decisions taken in the past have given certain modes of transport an advantage over others, with the result that a return to pure cost allocation would be very difficult, especially if it were done in a one-sided way by the Railways for example, while the other modes of transport, such as road transportation services, were not placed on full cost allocation. In this way, for example, all the elements of the road system—national roads, provincial roads and district roads, and, in the central city areas, the main thoroughfares, freeways, through roads, etc.—are financed from indirect taxation. The capital expenditure of the road transportation facilities, i.e. the cost of the infrastructure, is therefore not included in the cost element, and this does place the Railways in a disadvantaged position where it cannot compete. In other words, purely from the point of view of the price, road transport services, the conveyance of goods, bus services or private transport are preferred to rail transport, although in a macro-economic sense, these do not constitute the best utilization of resources. The second factor which is related to this is that by subsidizing the cost inputs for price determination, because the infrastructure costs are not included in road transportation, the advantages of an effective total transport system are completely ruled out. Secondly, the periods over which this cost can be written off usually do not correspond, for in the case of a rail transport system it occurs over a long period which would ultimately be better than in the case of a road transport system for example. If, during the early stages of such a system, one concentrates on direct cost allocation, one will not achieve the best system in the long run. In other words, in transport systems which have a declining marginal cost factor it is quite acceptable to subsidize during the early stages of such a system. Therefore I believe that the passenger service of the Railways could be adversely affected if one proceeded immediately to direct cost allocations, especially in the big metropolitan areas, where the transportation of passengers by the Railways can in fact be economically justified in the long term. Another reason for subsidizing is of course related to the fact that most people who make the most use of rail transport do not have a free choice to live close to their places of employment, and it would once again be unfair to subject such people to direct cost allocations. A further argument in favour of subsidizing underoccupied facilities is that initial subsidizing may lead to such an increase in demand that the cost may eventually be covered from tariffs.

The hon. Minister is not only responsible for the Railways, but also for Transport Affairs, which includes national roads. Sometimes it would appear to me as if the hon. Minister is behaving like a certain group of farmers I know. They deliver milk to the co-operative dairy, but then they also compete among themselves in delivering milk to the town on their bakkies. The reason is, of course, that the co-operative dairy does not make any money because they use their bakkies to deliver milk and they use their bakkies to deliver milk because the co-operative dairy is not making money! [Interjections.] The hon. Minister’s Department of Transport decides that it is economically justified to build Du Toit’s Kloof or Van Reenen’s Pass, for example, but when the cost benefits are calculated, the main beneficiaries are usually heavy vehicles which transport goods because the Railways cannot compete because road transport attracts goods away from rail transport … [Interjections.] If one put up tollgates, the road carriers could not immediately pass on the benefit to the consumers, and this would mean that the advantages which Du Toit’s Kloof or Van Reenen’s Pass were in the first place designed to achieve would no longer be valid. This would mean that we would ultimately have two white elephants instead of one good transport system. Since the hon. Minister is the Minister of Transport Affairs as well as of the Railways, I want to ask him to ensure that decisions by the Department of Transport Affairs are not taken in isolation, especially because in a developing country one has limited means.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the debate this afternoon and I must admit that this is the weakest Opposition attack I have ever heard in my entire career. Hon. members must bear in mind that my career extends over many years. It began in the city council of Johannesburg and later I also served on provincial councils, and the weakest performance by an Opposition I have ever seen was that which I saw in this House this afternoon. [Interjections.] And the poorest speaker of all was the very first one. The hon. member for Berea showed today that he was incapable of being a co-ordinator of the idea …

The Johannesburg City Council threw you out …

Will Andy Capp please be quiet? Before something else is banned, the hon. member should rather be quiet. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Berea contends that the Railways should not pay excise duty, and that is a reasonably good point. A better point is that the Railways ought not to pay sales tax. Both of these recommendations relate to fuel. Later, however, he complained about the “free market” and stated: “People should have a right to compete in the free enterprise.”

Who said that?

The hon. member thinks that he did not say that. That means only one thing. Is the hon. member asking that the Railways should be placed in a more advantageous position than the private sector? Is he arguing that the private sector should not be given that benefit? On whose side is the hon. member? [Interjections.] Then the hon. member makes the statement that the HNP influenced the Minister in his decision not to give locomotives to Zimbabwe. I now wish to ask him: Did the ANC influence the hon. member for Berea to make such a speech here? [Interjections.] I am pleased that he says “no”, but we still have to settle this matter. How can a frontbencher of any party in any Parliament in the world attack one of his Ministers for using his department’s means of transport for the advantage of his own country? Where in the world can a member of the Opposition attack a Minister in Parliament purely because he demands that a Minister of another country’s Parliament should hold discussions with him? After all, that hon. member said that we were the polecat of the world. Now the polecat has to creep to make friends. [Interjections.] The polecat, South Africa, has to creep around to make friends. [Interjections.]

No, make friends in order to make friends.

Order!

That only arouses mistrust.

What did the previous Minister say?

I have been listening to the hon. member for Hillbrow for years and have never enjoyed it. The hon. member should therefore give me an opportunity not to listen to him if it is not necessary to do so. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Berea said a number of other things, too, but unfortunately time does not permit one to refer to everything. However, he did say very portentously that subsidies had to be paid. He was totally opposed to the increase. I shall come to that in a moment.

However, there are one or two other hon. members who also said a few things about which we should ask questions. One can often say something in ignorance which causes one’s country a great deal of harm. May I please have the attention of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North for a moment, because there is something I should like to say to him. The hon. member said he had to speak on behalf of Black people here because the Black people were not represented in this House. I wonder whether that hon. member really knows what his constituency is, because even after I spoke to him, he paid no attention to what I said. I shall repeat what I said just now. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said in this House this evening that he had to speak on behalf of Black people because there were no Blacks here.

He did not say that.

He did not say that.

He said that Blacks had to be here to put their own case.

No, he did not.

Oh yes!

Try again.

Order!

That hon. member can say what he likes. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said that he had to speak here because there were no Blacks here to put their own case. [Interjections.]

Oh no.

I have a message for the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He should just sit still for a moment while I am speaking to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said this evening that the Black man could not speak for himself because he was not represented in this House.

Yes, I did say that.

Right. In other words, that hon. member wants the Black man to sit in this House, does he not? Is that right?

Yes, of course. After all, that is our policy.

Good. Then that is really the policy of that hon. member’s party?

Yes, of course. In a federal dispensation.

A little louder, please. The hon. former judge is making such a noise that I cannot hear what that hon. member is saying. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Johannesburg North want Blacks to be in this House on a basis of “one man, one vote”? [Interjections.] Very well, I now have enough for the Johannesburg election. [Interjections.] Therefore it is no wonder that I almost choke on what is dished up across the floor of this House. They make politics so easy for one. They are completely confused.

Oh, don’t cry.

Did hon. members listen to what the hon. member for Greytown said?

He did not say anything.

If one listened very carefully, the hon. member for Greytown indeed said almost nothing. Nor, however, was there any co-ordination between the different hon. members on that side of the House who spoke this afternoon. [Interjections.] There was no single theme in the debate as a whole, no consistent and valid criticism of the Railways. [Interjections.]

In addition, it did not correspond at all with their amendment.

The content of their amendment had nothing whatsoever to do with anything that any of them had to say; absolutely nothing. When the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed made a very good case in his speech with regard to our contacts with Zimbabwe and other countries, for example Mozambique, he indicated clearly where the first love of those members lies. It definitely does not he with South Africa. Nor did their performance attest to respect for the standpoint adopted by a lawfully elected Government that decides on its own affairs.

Are we, then, an illegal Opposition?

To tell the truth, I think so. [Interjections.] If not unlawful, then very hopeless, in any event. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is of course true that there comes a time when one has to cut oneself off from those things that one does not like. To tell the truth, I think that it will not be long before people in this House will no longer take any notice of what hon. members of the Opposition say. However, this afternoon I wish to draw attention to the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. It was a speech one could listen to, a well-considered speech, a speech which clearly indicated that the hon. member has a thorough knowledge of his subject; a knowledge of finance and a knowledge of the activities of the Railways Administration. Hon. members on the Government side also made constructive speeches without exception. However, it is amazing to listen to the arguments of hon. members of the official Opposition.

An operation such as the S.A. Railways has to comply with two requirements. In the first place, the operation has to provide a service. In the second place, revenue and expenditure have to balance. If the revenue and the expenditure do not balance—as is the case at present with regard to the passenger services—then one of the following methods must be adopted. In the first place, tariffs must be effectively increased to meet rising costs. In addition, there has to be a mutual cross-subsidization of passenger services. That is another method. Either the State has to make up losses, or non-paying passenger services have to be terminated. The Railways has been facing this problem for a long time. Cross-subsidization, together with payment by the State for services rendered to the country by the Railways, have balanced the budget. The methods that have been tried in the past have shown that this is not the ideal solution.

Let us, then, analyse the increased fares. The total revenue of the Railways passenger services amounts to only one third of the total operating cost. If therefore we were to effect an increase of 18%, this would mean that the total cost would in fact amount to a mere 6%. If one were to announce an average increase of 18% the effect would be a total cost coverage of only 6%. What passenger can complain when he does not even have to pay 40% of the cost of the service provided. What firm in the world can operate on that basis? If fares only were increased, this would mean that increases would have to be announced periodically and that non-paying passenger transport services would certainly have to be withdrawn, something we do not wish to do. By means of this method the revenue and expenditure will only balance in about ten years’ time. Those rates will have to be increased more or less every three months, or by more or less 20% per annum for more than ten years if we want to maintain the same growthrate.

The present fares, as has already been stated, cover only 34% of the expenditure. Even after the increase our train services are certainly among the cheapest in the world. For a journey from Cape Town to Johannesburg one pays six cents per kilometre in first class, four cents per kilometre in second class and two cents per kilometre in third class. What is the cost of our commuter services? Let us take the example of a train journey between Roodepoort and Johannesburg. For such a journey one pays a mere 63 cents. Do hon. members know how far one travels on that journey? Do they realize that? It means that in first class one pays approximately 1,5 cents per kilometre for that journey and in third class, about 0,5 cents per kilometre. It is no wonder that the estimated loss after the increase—hon. members must listen to this—will amount to R628 million. If fares are not to be increased I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition what method is to be used to balance the revenue and expenditure. At present the Railways resorts to cross-subsidization. This is one of the methods used. This means, for example, that consumer goods are conveyed at a higher rate than is strictly necessary in order to cover the losses on the passenger services. As we know, increased tariffs result in higher prices for consumer goods. The consumer who makes no use whatsoever of passenger services now has to pay higher prices for consumer goods. At present the cross subsidization amounts to approximately R373 million per annum. About 38% of the losses on the passenger services are covered in this way. Therefore the Opposition is not protecting the consumer by opposing an increase in fares. They are acting to the detriment of the consumer, and particularly the pensioner and the less privileged person, by complaining about increased fares. The person who travels on the train has to pay for it; but now the consumer, the pensioner, has to pay for a service he does not use. The prices of consumer goods are increasing due to the increased tariffs caused by cross subsidization.

I want to come back to the commuter services. One of the most important problems in the field of passenger services is definitely the commuter services. These are certain services which ought not to be subsidized by other services. Take the Soweto service for example. In the morning peak period, 212 000 passengers are conveyed. From 6.30 a.m. to 7.15 a.m.—within three quarters of an hour—122 000 passengers are conveyed. Trains comprising 14 coaches have to leave every two minutes. There is no more room for trains. The rest of the day, however, the trains stand empty. The solution may lie in the planning and development of industrial areas closer to Soweto so that two-way traffic can develop. Then, too—and this is important—the employer and employee will have to pay for the services they use. For example, it is easy for an employer to have his employee rise at about 4 a.m. to 5 a.m. in order to travel to an area, whereas the total passengers transported pay for less than one third of the journey. I think that that employer should pay jointly with the employee, who has received good increases in recent times, by way of increased train tariffs. It is understandable that trains are full during the peak period. People sometimes say that they want seats on the trains in the peak periods, but that of course is impossible. It is impossible to give a seat to everyone who wishes to be conveyed on the suburban trains during peak periods. Nor is it reasonable to expect this. When one speaks of the “crash loads” overseas, people who have experience of this will tell one that this is an everyday phenomenon. These “crash loads” are transported over long distances and at far higher rates than are paid by people in this country. From a financial point of view our rates are probably the lowest when it comes to the payment of fares. We have the advantage of services subsidized to such an extent that, as I said—and I want this to sink in as far as the Opposition is concerned because I do not want them to complain about this again—only one third of the expenses of the Railways are covered by passenger services, and that includes commuter as well as mainline services.

Some of the hon. members of the Opposition have said that the State must subsidize passenger services further. Where is the State to find the money? Must sales tax be increased?

[Inaudible.]

The last Cronje who went to Natal on our behalf caused a problem because he surrendered to the English. That hon. member must please just give me a chance.

If the State is to pay, this means that sales tax will have to be increased. Is the Opposition asking that we should increase the subsidy on passenger services or that we should increase sales tax? Are they asking that the passengers and the lesser privileged worker must pay for people who use transport for which they do not pay in full? That is exactly what the Opposition is asking for. This method is definitely not acceptable. It means that direct tax has to be increased. The Opposition always makes a big fuss when there is a budget and they tell one what a hard time the pensioners, the workers and the Blacks are having. They say that the general sales tax on virtually every commodity has to be abolished. However when it comes to transport services and there is a small increase, they ask, in an effort to dish up some kind of argument, that general sales tax be increased. It has then to be used to make non-remunerative passenger services, a paying proposition. Subsidize the service, they say.

Who advocated that?

In all his arguments the hon. member proposed that there should be subsidies. The hon. member must tell me what is to be increased. Where is the State to find the extra money for the subsidization of passenger services? Now there is silence. However, I prefer that to the replies we have had in this debate today. In fact, no replies or solutions have been put forward by the Opposition. In recent weeks we have seen how the Opposition has a new strategy for every portfolio. What is acceptable to them today is thrown aside tomorrow. And after that they tackle something else. Today they are asking, directly and indirectly that we should increase general sales tax in order to subsidize those transport services.

No.

Mr. Speaker, I shall return to the hon. member for Langlaagte in a moment when I deal with the budget itself. I must say that I think it was very unfair of the hon. member for Berea to allow the hon. member for Greytown to make such an ass of himself without giving him some guidance. Surely he could have told the new hon. member that buses, roads, toll charges and things of that nature fall under the Transport Vote and not the Railway budget. [Interjections.] This House has no monopoly for any one member to make an utter ass of himself. Every hon. member has a fairly free opportunity to do that.

I now wish to come back to what I believe is an incredibly cynical budget. It is a budget where the hon. the Minister is socking away more than R200 million from revenue, transferring it through the accounting procedures and then leaving an artificially created shortfall that he now has to make good. As cynically as he did it, so cynically did the hon. member for Langlaagte deal with this simplistic solution. We have the shortfall solely as a result of salting away revenue into capital, plus the surplus that we are not using, so that now we have a deficit. And what has the hon. the Minister done? He has taken a captive clientèle who have no option, namely the commuters, and the air traveller who, because of petrol prices and time and distance and mainly for business reasons has to travel by air, and he has said: “Well here I have a captive clientèle; let us hit them.” And so he has hit them. On 1 April 1980 there was an increase of 15%; on 1 December 1980 there was an increase of 10%; on 1 April 1981 there was an increase of 15% and now again in this budget there is still a further increase. We accept the fact that the fuel price has been increased but the hon. the Minister is taking the easy way out because he has a captive group of people whom he can make pay. All he has to do is put up the prices and in that way make up his shortfall.

That is where the biggest losses occur.

I know that the losses occur there but that is being simplistic. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti told the hon. the Minister what he should have been doing. He should have been working towards an analysis of related costs, working out which services are in the interests of the people of South Africa and of the economy of South Africa and which services are running at a loss because of Government policy and which of these should be supported by consolidated revenue.

Are the Airways running at a loss because of Government policy?

I am talking about commuters on the Railways at the moment. The hon. the Minister himself said in his budget speech that the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission were being considered by the Government at present. Surely he could have waited for a decision in this regard, a decision in regard to the extent to which central Government consolidated revenue should finance losses on passenger services which are the result of Government policy and which were already being subsidized as in the case of resettlement areas. There are also those which are the result of financial accounting which I believe overloads the costs that are debited to passenger traffic. However, until the hon. the Minister is prepared to listen to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and clarifies and simplifies his accounting system, who can tell exactly how each service is being loaded? Unfortunately, I do not have time to deal with this aspect but I do want to say this. No attempt is made to attract first and second class passengers to the main line passenger services today. If anything, such passengers are turned away and made to feel—I believe this is a deliberate policy—that the Airways are there for them and that the fewer the people who use the main line train services the better. [Interjections.] Well, I should like to see some evidence to the contrary because I have not noticed any effort being made to attract passengers to the main line long distance train services by any of the means that are used overseas to try to attract people to use the long distance train services. I have only 10 minutes at my disposal and I cannot mention them all.

You can have five minutes of my time.

The hon. the Minister knows of the dining saloons that are removed from main line trains, the services that are removed, the services that are cancelled and all the other things that have been done which detract from the main fine train services. These things cause the main fine train services to be used less often instead of attracting people—particularly at the present time when it is important to conserve fuel. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will tell us what has been done over the past two or three years to encourage people to use main line train services. As far as commuter services are concerned, people have no option. I wonder whether the hon. member for Langlaagte has ever travelled on a commuter train. Does he ever catch a bus as I have been catching buses? [Interjections.] In Durban, I believe that when one talks about these things one should first find out what the advantages and the disadvantages are. There is no train service that I can use but I have been using the bus service. I believe that we are not doing enough to meet the challenge to the passenger services in South Africa and so we have this approach of increasing the fares and pushing up rates because that is where money is being lost.

The main fine passenger services are increasing.

Well, Sir, this is not reflected by the losses. The losses are getting worse and worse.

The more you support it, the bigger the loss …

I will listen with interest to the hon. the Minister’s reply.

I now want to deal with two specific issues. I make no apology for coming back to a hardy annual, namely the position of the old-scheme pensioners. We have a new Minister, a Minister with a sense of humour and I hope that he will also show a sense of humanity. I am going to ask him to ask the department for a record of the pre-1973 Railway pensioners, to look at the pensions which they are being paid, to relate them to the responsibilities which they had when they helped to build the Railways, when they made their contribution, and to relate these pittances to what they put into the Railways. Then I ask him to look at them in relation to what is received by those who have retired since 1973 and who did the same job as those who retired before 1973. The hon. the Minister should then evaluate what is happening, because year by year the position of these pensioners deteriorates. They got their 10% increases but the inflation rate is much higher. So year by year their standard of living is reduced. They lose out in the struggle against inflation. It seems that there is a total disregard for or a disinterest in what is happening to these people. Even when they get their miserable 10% increase, 2% is deducted from that.

Nonsense.

That hon. member knows it is true. They are given 10% and everybody thinks that they are going to receive 10%, but then the annual 2% increment is deducted from that, and when they had not had an increase in the previous year, 4% was deducted and they ended up with a 6% increase. This is happening, and I am asking the hon. the Minister as a new Minister to take up the issue of this dwindling band of people who have given the best part of their lives to the Railways and who today in their declining years are left to struggle. Everything they gave is forgotten.

There is another group for whom I should like to speak up tonight. I am referring to the people who have been dismissed for one or another reason and who in terms of section 13 of the relevant Pensions Act, if they have had more than 20 years’ service, can at the discretion of the Administration be given a 50% annuity. Since 1965 as a matter of policy the Railway Administration has not approved one single annuity to one single person who for one or other reason has been dismissed from the service. Some of these people have had 30 years’ service. I know that some of them have been dismissed, for instance for alcoholism. However, there is a provision that for illness a person can receive his pension benefits, and alcoholism is today regarded as an illness. Those people should be classified under that provision as physically ill or disabled. But, no, people who have had 20 years’ or 30 years’ service and who strike trouble or problems or who are dismissed for any reason other than dishonesty, fraud or theft—these are excluded—people who are dismissed for any reason beyond their control are simply repaid their contributions. In one case a person was paid back R5 800 but in effect he was fined R14 200, which would have been due to him had he been treated in terms of that provision.

Did he appeal?

There is no appeal against this. He is out of the service; he has been dismissed and the Administration refuses … [Interjections.] I can give the hon. the Minister the names.

Is there only the one case?

No, I can mention more cases.

My time is nearly up, Sir, but I want to make one more point, and that is that I believe that in the planning of the Sentrarand marshalling yard this Government has made a blunder. When they came into power, they were given the plans for a marshalling yard between Midway and Natalspruit which would have been central to the main traffic moving into and out of the PWV area. But they have gone right out to the east and will now have to spend millions to get to the main traffic routes, instead of using the original plan that was there for them. This plan indicated a marshalling yard to the south of Johannesburg but they have moved out to the east instead.

I finally again appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at the old scheme for pensioners and at the cases of those who were dismissed from the service for reasons other than dishonesty.

Mr. Speaker, years ago there was a railway man in Bloemfontein called Wa Lambrecht who could kick a rugby ball slap through the middle of his opponents’ goal posts from his own twenty-five.

Was he a Northern Transvaler?

No, he was a Bloemfonteiner. To this day his example is still being followed in Bloemfontein. That is why the Free State trounced Western Province so convincingly on Saturday. [Interjections.] I am only mentioning this for the sake of the record, Sir.

I should like to refer to the hon. member for Durban Point. He said, inter alia, that no attempt was being made to attract passengers to the train services. I can tell the hon. member that train journeys are very pleas ant. He should go on a train journey to see how pleasant it is.

I did three times, and it was not.

I went on a train journey recently and I can assure hon. members that it is a wonderful experience. The hon. member should leave his motor car at home for a change and travel by train. What are the facts? The fact of the matter is that our people have been spoiled by luxury cars, and this is proof of the high standard of living which this Government has made possible.

Fat cats!

I should now like to refer to the hon. member for Berea, the main Opposition spokesman in this debate. He made a number of wild statements without substantiating them. He said, inter alia: “This is a budget of gloom.” This is not true; this is no sombre budget. If the inflationary conditions under which the Railways has to operate are taken into account it is a good and realistic budget. The hon. member for Berea also complained about the tariff increases announced last year and again during the past appropriation earlier this year. But what the hon. member omitted to mention was that the average increase in tariffs was lower than the inflation rate. For an organization such as the Railways, which is so vulnerable to inflation, it is an achievement to beat the inflation rate. It is proof of great managerial efficiency to increase tariffs by less than the inflation rate.

Hear, hear!

Responsible bodies such as the Afrikaanse Handels-instituut and Assocom welcomed the fact that no general tariff increase had been announced at this stage. This is gratifying news because it was generally expected in business circles that the Railways would have no alternative but to announce drastic tariff increases again.

The hon. member for Berea went on to predict that there was worse news in the pipeline Railway users. He has become a prophet.

A prophet of doom.

What the position is going to be next year is extremely unpredictable. The hon. member knows that the Act prohibits the Railways from being a profitable enterprise. That is why the Railways, unlike private enterprise, is unable to budget for profits in order to make provision for reserves which it can fall back on when necessary. As long as the phenomenon of inflation continues to proliferate, it goes without saying that the Railways will have to adjust its tariffs from time to time, just as the Railways has had to adjust salaries and pensions from time to time to compensate for the rising inflation rate. Added to that there is the unpredictability of fuel prices, which is one of the largest single items pushing up the operating costs of the Railways, and the Airways in particular.

The Railways is the undertaking which has to employ the largest investment portfolio each year to keep pace with developments in the country’s infrastructure. Surely it goes without saying that the Railways will be strongly affected by imported inflation, because the Railways must import a great deal of material and equipment from overseas.

The hon. member for Berea was labouring under an even greater misapprehension when he said: “This budget can only add substantially to the intolerable burden of the ever-increasing cost of living.” I really do not know why the hon. member made such a statement, particularly the words “will add substantially”. Businessmen who commented on the budget were unanimous in their belief that the increase in fares would only have a slight effect on the cost of living. Surely they know more about these matters than the hon. member does.

Hear, hear!

Leaders in the private sector know and accept that there was no alternative but to increase the fares. What else can one do if you know for certain that you are going to have a loss of R628 million on travel services in the 1981-’82 financial year?

The hon. the Minister is a practical economist. He has his finger on the pulse of the private sector, the business community and the economy. This is why the hon. the Minister is constantly holding consultations with bodies like the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Assocom, the Chamber of Industries and the South African Agricultural Union. He is not out of touch with these people. We must give the hon. the Minister full credit for the fact that he consults and enlightens leaders in the private sector. It is particularly important to consult the private sector when the Railways has to take steps which may have a far-reaching effect on the country’s economy.

The hon. the Minister is doing this. He has his finger on the pulse of the business community in this country. The hon. Opposition is quick to criticize. They make one think of Faan in the drama “Faan se Trein”. He had an obsession about having a train, although he did not know how to drive a train. The hon. Opposition is just as unrealistic in its criticism. The day they have a train they will not know what to do with it either. The Railways in South Africa has a wonderful record of service to and sacrifice for South Africa. If the story of the Railways has to be written some day, the main fact will be that it was not an insular organization which became hide-bound and static, but an organization with an enlightened vision which took the lead in opening up this country to progress and development. It cannot be said of the Railways and its Management that they did not do everything in their power to make the Railways one of the most modern transport systems in the world and to create ever greater efficiency and productivity and greater financial and labour discipline in the organization. The Opposition should give the Railways credit for this for a change, because the Railways deserves it. In this debate hon. members painted an attractive picture of the Railways. The fantastic success story of the Railways was told here. The hon. member for Newton Park almost waned lyrical about the excellent role being played by our harbours. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this attractive picture of the Railways cannot be conveyed to the outside world. Can we not see more of this on television so that a greater pride can be cultivated among South Africans for this organization which keeps the wheels of transport rolling? The trouble with us in this country is that we hide too many of our achievements under a bushel.

I now want to come to another subject. Experience throughout the world has shown us that at least 80% of the outputs of most organizations may be attributed to the inputs of a relatively small percentage of the total labour force. Experience has shown that the majority of the workers actually make contribution of only 20%. Herein lies one of the greatest challenges for management, and for the Management of the Railways as well. A way must be found to motivate the laggards and to turn them into superstars. As I know the hon. the Minister he will understand me if I say that these laggards should be motivated into becoming “self-starters” instead of “kick-starters”. We are grateful to be able to say that the Railways has a Minister who is a “self-starter”. It is not necessary to kick-start him, because he is already ticking over and raring to go. In this connection, too, the Railways is aware of the challenge and will not let the grass grow under its feet in motivating the majority of the workers who are “kick-starters”. The Railways has introduced incentives, with participatory management and with the restructuring of tasks. This has all been done with the aim of motivating workers and increasing productivity and efficiency. Clarens Francis, a great American industrialist, once said—

Initiative cannot be bought. It must be cultivated. That is what the Railways has been doing. Good results were achieved in the past, but the Railways was still not satisfied. They then came forward with an imaginative new effort, namely the Management by Objectives Programme. One of the main aims of the programme is to end stagnation in the service and to encourage renewal and change at all levels. The results of this undertaking were not unforthcoming. The pride and the self-motivation which this new managerial approach and managerial climate in the Railways gave rise to is not only producing results in respect of increased production, but a great deal more. The results which have been achieved may be summarized as follows. Workers in the Railways are no longer just numbers, each person has a role to play and a personal contribution to make. This has brought about self-motivation on the part of the Railwayman. Workers are practising more self-control so that the Management has less need to look after them. Workers have become more aware of the responsibilities they bear and the task they must perform. A healthy spirit of competition has evolved among the staff of the Railways. Workers are now more aware of the necessity to improve their output.

With this Management by Objectives Programme many benefits have already been achieved for the Railways. There are cases where the average timeleg of trucks at stations was decreased by 25% as a result of this programme. The marketing campaign of the Railways was intensified to such an extent that in one case the self-imposed target of attracting R400 000’s worth of new transport, was exceeded by R118 000.

The Management by Objectives Programme also produced the following results. As regards the mechanical maintenance of locomotives, there was a considerable improvement in the quality of the work. For example, where an improvement of 10% in the turnaround time of trucks had been planned in a certain section, there was an actual improvement of 17%. So we can continue to cite examples. However, I have already proved what I set out to prove. The Railways leaves no stone unturned to achieve maximum efficiency and to use people to best advantage. In this regard the S.A. Railways is once again doing pioneering work and it is setting the private sector in the country an example well worth following.

I should now like to discuss a final matter. I received the following telegram from one of my esteemed voters in the Bloemfontein North constituency—

It came from Mr. S. S. Viviers. I have a great deal of sympathy with these old pensioners and I know that the hon. the Minister also has a soft spot for them. What the hon. member for Durban Point said, viz. that the Government has “a total disregard” for these people, is not true. The hon. the Minister has proved that he has a soft spot for these people. This is why he made the necessary adjustments to their pensions. We are aware of the fact that Railway pensioners received an increase of 10% in April this year, which, together with the statutory annual increase, gave them an effective increase of 12,2%.

We are also aware that pensioners who retired prior to December 1973 and December 1977, received special concessions with increases, over and above the ordinary increases, in excess of 20%. We are particularly grateful for the fact that Railway pensions increased by at least 122% during the 10 years between 1970 and 1980. It is a fact that Railway pensioners are treated well and that their pensions are in many cases larger than their salaries were when they were still working. For this we have the hon. the Minister to thank.

As I have already said, we know that he has a soft spot for these people. Yet I still wish to advocate that we reconsider the position of old pensioners who have been retired for a long time, as well as that of their widows—the group of people to whom Mr. Viviers referred in his telegram. I ascertained that there are 9 521 Railway officials and 7 801 Railway widows who were receiving a pension of between R200 and R300 a month. What is even more upsetting, however, is that there are 2 037 men and 11 961 widows who only receive a pension of between R101 and R200 a month from the Railways. Those people are hard pressed. Rising prices and inflation are strangling them.

In my constituency there is a family which receives a pension of R25 a month. They still have one son at school, and they must also pay an instalment of R100 a month on their house. The mother told me that they only eat meat on Sundays and that they can no longer afford to buy clothes. Many of these pensioners are very old, but are forced to carry on working. They are worried about what will happen to them when they are no longer able to work. They cannot live on their pension money only.

These are good people. They are wonderful people. They are the salt of the earth. They gave best years of their lives to the Railways. It is not their fault that inflation has caused the value of their pension money to diminish so drastically. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that besides being good people, they are good Nationalists as well. [Interjections.]

Then they must be good people.

Nowadays they only vote for the PFP and the HNP.

There you have just admitted now that the PFP and the HNP are identical.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to order a thorough investigation to be instituted into the position of these people and their plight. This is a matter which requires very urgent attention. Truly, the need of this people is very great. It is true that while they were still working they did not contribute sufficiently to their pension funds to qualify for additional assistance. Nevertheless I want to make this plea on their behalf. Even if money has to be taken from the revenue of the Railways, we must take care of these people. One’s heart really bleeds for them.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak immediately after the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, for the two of us have so much in common. He is my voter and I am his. He is a member of the branch of which I am the chairman and consequently we are very close to one another. It was a great pleasure to be able to listen to his excellent speech.

Furthermore I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for False Bay on his appointment as Railway Commissioner. I think this is a case of merit and I am convinced that in the years ahead, too, he will do an exceptionally good job for us as a member of the Railway Board and as Railway Commissioner. We extend to him our most sincere congratulations.

Then, too, to Mr. de Villiers who is resigning, we convey all our gratitude for what he has done for us and meant to us. We want to wish him, too, a pleasant period of rest.

Over the past few days I have been perusing the S.A. Railways and Harbours annual report. This report was tabled earlier this year, but it is something which I cannot allow to pass. It is an annual report of quality, and the way in which it has been modernized and compiled does indeed make it a masterpiece. It not only attests to top professional acumen, but also contains a wealth of data and statistics relating to almost every facet of the activities and functions of the Railways Administration. The General Manager and his staff deserve only the highest praise and gratitude for this masterpiece which is richly adorned with photographs and illustrations. I think that everyone who has such an annual report must preserve it as a fine documentary item.

A piece of Africana.

It is Africana. In all respects this report reflects the tremendous scope of the activities of the S.A. Railways and the effective way in which it is being managed. Furthermore it reflects the indisputable fact that the S.A. Railways and its officials continues to be one of the greatest assets South Africa has. With a staff of approximately 250 000 people, the Railways Administration provides the greatest number of employment opportunities in virtually every field imaginable. That is why the control and management of this vast service organization deserves only the greatest gratitude and appreciation.

Moreover, the S.A. Railways and Harbours is an industry which never stands still. It is an industry in which employees have to put their shoulder to the wheel year in and year out for 24 hours per day every day, as is the case at present, in order to keep the wheels rolling literally every year, as is the case at present, over a total distance of approximately 350 million km of line, over which 1 million passenger train services convey more than 700 million passengers. In addition to this there is the commendable achievement that out of these approximately 700 million passengers, only four persons were killed and 21 injured in train accidents over the past year. Another remarkable achievement is the fact that 90% of these approximately 1 million passenger train services reached their destination on time.

This brings to mind the man who sits in the cinema day after day. In the film there is a scene where a woman is taking off her clothes. Every time she is almost undressed, a train passes. The man attended the cinema for a week, and when somebody asked him why he watched the same film every day, he said that he knew the Railways, and one of these days that train was going to be late. [Interjections.]

These are achievements about which the Railways has every reason to be happy and proud. These achievements can be ascribed to the fact that the responsible officials have the necessary knowledge and training and are motivated and loyal towards the S.A. Railways. Workers are satisfied and happy if, in the first place, they are assured of a permanent post with promotion possibilities; in the second place, that there are training possibilities; in the third place, that there is a decent wage attached to the post; and in the fourth place, that they and their families can five happily in their own homes. I think that the Railways Administration meets all four of these requirements outstandingly.

I just want to refer briefly to two of these aspects, viz. housing and training. Since the home-ownership scheme came into operation more than a billion rand has been made available, and the following houses have already been built under this scheme: For Whites, 48 075; for Coloureds, 722; for Indians, 188; and for Black people, 93. A further amount of R3,3 million has been made available for Black accommodation. Quite apart from these amounts a considerable amount has also been used for improvements to departmental houses. Nowadays Railway officials live in modern houses of their own choice and in the best suburban residential areas of almost every city or town in our country. The Railway officials now form part of a community and are not, as in the past, grouped in railway neighbourhoods where they were at times regarded as separate communities. I just want to mention here that my birth certificate, which I had to purchase in later years cost me half a crown. That was also the amount of my daily salary. It is mentioned on that birth certificate that I was born in a railway house, No. 7 De Aar. It is true that I grew up in this railway environment. It was often also called the railway camp. In those days they did not speak about the “spoorwegkamp”. It was a hard life, but one filled with adventure. We used to play at the “bridge yard”. It was the place where all the ironware was stored. When the quarry was empty we used to swim in the camp’s large red drinking water tank, and people who travel on the Cape trains can still see it there today. As it goes in a camp, we knew the “ins and outs” of everyone. We knew something about everyone who lived there. As children, we often argued about whose father earned the most money and occupied the most responsible post. My father, for example, earned 14/6 per day. This was more or less what a driver earned. A little way from us lived a man whom we called a “truck buster”. He was the foreman “truck buster”. However, the man of whom we took the most notice was the “fitter and turner”, a “Rooinek”. At that time these posts were reserved for the “Rooinekke”. He earned £1 2s. 6d. per day. Why we liked him was that he bought the shiniest and the smartest 1934 Plymouth. It was a second-hand one, but it was the shiniest ever. Nor did he have a garage for it—railway houses did not have garages—and we helped him to build one in his backyard. For that purpose we used red “sleepers” which were intended for firewood, as well as “rubbertex” and sheets of corrugated iron. Those were interesting days. This “Rooinek” subsequently used his influence to allow me to move to Kimberley, where I followed in his footsteps. I recall that Muntz and Co. and Hoffmann Brothers—those who know De Aar will probably recall them—advertised that Railway people would be given a large discount if they were to buy a Hercules bicycle for £4 17s. 6d. We had neither telephones nor electric stoves. Every week we had to cart red sleepers with wheelbarrows, for this was our firewood, but I do not want to weary hon. members with these details, although it was very interesting. But perhaps I should venture to say: Even the toilet was not in the house, but in the furthest comer of the plot. At 9 o’clock at night, when old Sam Higgins’ “nine down” passed we used to say: “Yes, he is on the job.” It was a black wagon pulled by four mules, and when you heard or saw him, you had to ensure that you were upwind of him.

The salaries were sometimes rather small and the houses uncomfortable, the exterior made of sink and the interior lined with wood panelling. Brick houses were built for the more senior officials. Despite this, the Railway man always performed his specific task with pride and dedication.

I shall never forget. When the trains depart from the De Aar station in the direction of Cape Town, there is a slight rise. The family of the driver or the stoker used to go and stand outside, and wave and watch the white “feather”. At that time we used to speak of the white “feather” waving. This means that the safety valve of the locomotive had opened and then they used to boast about the steam which used to curl out like a white feather. I have wonderful memories of that Railway camp at De Aar, for one calls to mind everyone who used to be there and what subsequently became of them. I do just want to refer to a few persons who were in the camp when I was there. One of them was the station-master. This station-master—to whom I want to pay tribute this evening—was none other than a former MP and the Speaker of this House, Mr. Henning Klopper. There was also a senior engineer who is in the service of the Railways even today, as well as a former Section Manager, in whose company I often got up to mischief. In addition there were two mechanical engineers, three medical doctors, one clergyman, one deputy secretary of a provincial administration, a senior airport officer and, last but not least, even a member of Parliament.

The S.A. Railways sets a praiseworthy example in South Africa today with regard to the provision of housing for its officials. I believe this is an achievement about which we can be proud. It is a pity that one sometimes hears people saying that nothing is done for the Railwayman. One must have experienced the change which the Railways has effected for its people to understand the extent of that change.

In addition, I want to say a few words with regard to training. When training is discussed one necessarily thinks of Esselen Park, that place near Kalklaagte Station. This college is increasingly meeting the pressing need for trained manpower and has to keep abreast at all times of the rapid expansion of transport services and technological developments. This college has branches in Bellville, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, Natal and Koedoespoort. It is an educational institution which provides the Railwaymen with only the best training. Although the college confines itself principally to the training of people who are directly involved in transport, training is provided in other specialized subjects as well, for example, to recruits for the Railway Police, technicians, apprentices and others. In 1980, more than 7 700 employees underwent training at this institution. A visit to this fine college, with all its essential additional facilities, is an educational and impressive experience. It fills one with pride to note what the principal and his staff are achieving in respect of training as well as other essential education. This House wishes to express its gratitude to the principal and staff of this college for the excellent service they are rendering. The operating costs of the college already amount to more than R4 million per annum, and I believe that this is one of the best investments that the S.A. Railways Administration could make.

In the days when there were still “Sappe”, i.e. the good old days, they did do one positive thing. They purchased the land on which the training college was constructed. Louis Esselen, after whom the college was named and who also did part of his school training at Grey College, Bloemfontein, subsequently went to farm in the Transvaal. It is on his farm, De Wildt, where General Hertzog made his famous speech in 1912.

And where I am now farming.

During the Second Anglo-Boer War, Louis Esselen was also a member of General Botha’s staff. Subsequently he was secretary of the old “Sap” party and later of the old United Party. In 1941 he was appointed a member of the Railways Board. Since I mention De Wildt, it was my privilege to accompany the former Minister of Transport, members of the Railways Board, the General Manager and senior officials, and some of our colleagues on a test ride on a test train. We departed from De Wildt station. This train goes slightly faster than 200 m.p.h., and after the ride I asked the Minister whether he did not consider it risky to have exposed the General Manager, Railway Commissioners and senior staff to such an experiment. He replied at once: “No, I do not think it is a risk. I know my people; I know what they are doing and I have confidence in them.” This is probably one of the greatest compliments our Railway officials could be given by a Minister.

Training at the Railway college is of the best, in particular if one bears in mind that training takes place in both official languages and that nowadays even Blacks can receive training in their own language. The decision to construct a training centre at Esselen Park was taken during the Second World War, because it was realized that there was an acute shortage of trained manpower. I can testify to that as well, for it was at that stage that I received my training in Kimberley under the influence of the “rooinek” fitter and turner of De Aar. All training was in English. Not a single Afrikaans word or term was used. Even today I do not know what words like “injectors”, “ejectors”, “gudgeon pins”, “cellar valves”, “check valves” and “clack valves” are in Afrikaans. At that stage we spoke of “white metal” with which certain “Crosshead shoes” were lubricated. I still do not know what that is in Afrikaans. Perhaps the General Manager knows. After I had battled my way through this training and spent some time in Uitenhage, I eventually returned to Kimberley where I was regarded as a “journeyman”. At that stage I was entitled to choose an “arrie”, viz. a White labourer and also a Black helper to assist me. In my search for an “arrie” I walked around the locomotive and encountered a fine young man who was cleaning the locomotive wheels. They used “waste” for this purpose. It is soaked in paraffin and used to clean the locomotive. The fellow I chose was an exceptionally fine young man and it was none other than Nic Wiehahn, better known today as Professor Wiehahn, and I do not think he will take it amiss of me for mentioning his name here this evening. He was indeed a good worker.

Then, too, there was another journeyman in that community by the name of Bennie Buys. Until recently he was clergyman and Railway chaplain in Bloemfontein, and this points up the truth of the old saying: “Once a Railwayman, always a Railwayman.”

I want to take this opportunity to address a few minor requests to the Minister. If he cannot tell me what a “gudgeon pin”, etc. are, then he should rather attend to my other requests. The Railwayman really earns every cent he gets today. When the financial situation permits, can the hon. the Minister not consider including the service bonus paid to Railway officials today—or perhaps a pro rata part of it, in the pension of the Railway official when he retires on pension one day? Could the hon. the Minister also influence the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to consider my next request? I think it would be a very good thing if a series of Railway stamps depicting steam locomotives could be issued. It would be a valuable collection because these locomotives are disappearing, and any collector would grasp such stamps with both hands.

This brings me to my third request. Our beautiful station building in Bloemfontein, one of the historical buildings, is almost hidden behind the 16E locomotive called Ann Smith. This, too, is very precious to us, but could a more appropriate place not be found for Ann Smith so that our people can see our beautiful station again? People who want to see the “Ann Smith” can go and view it at a new location.

In conclusion I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister, members of the Railway Board and the General Manager and his staff for a realistic and generally favourable budget. I have made it my task to consult every possible newspaper which appeared after the hon. the Minister had delivered his Second Reading speech. To me it was an excellent sign that I was unable to detect a single word of venomous criticism in any South African newspaper. The Railways are still on the right track.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen must please excuse me if I do not react directly to his speech. I should like to associate myself with what has been said earlier on in this debate about the cooperation between Southern African States in the sphere of transport, and more specifically rail transport. I have always been tremendously impressed by the way in which this economic diplomacy—and I use that expression with pleasure—is conducted and how the General Manager and other senior officials of the Railways were able to be welcome visitors in surrounding States where a South African diplomat could scarcely set foot under normal circumstances. We must proceed with this form of co-operation today more than ever before and it must also be taken further. Here I must associate myself with the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Walmer and say that one almost has the impression that there is nevertheless a degree of unwillingness, perhaps even sullenness, in the Government with regard to this matter. We have had the assurance of hon. Ministers in this regard, for instance the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and this hon. Minister too, but nevertheless the Government gives us the impression that there should be a form of political concession, even if it is just that the other side should ask nicely. Unfortunately—and it is indeed unfortunate—those countries want to avoid political contact with South Africa. Then if we want to move on from this reality and extend our influence and improve our co-operation and contact with those countries, we must take the initiative in those spheres—the sphere of transport and particularly that of rail transport—with just as much enthusiasm, if not more than usual, and we must strive for co-operation and contact in as aggressive a way as we would do on the diplomatic level or on the level of information, for the very reason that the potential in this sphere is so much better than it is in the diplomatic sphere and in other more politically orientated spheres.

In spite of the negative things that are being said in connection with our neighbouring States, I nevertheless think that there is a greater degree of economic realism to be seen than was the case previously. I feel that we should stimulate it, that we should help to ensure economic stability, and that at all costs we should prevent the Railways Administration and South Africa in general emerging with a sort of sanction image in any way. We must never create the impression that we are trying to use economic measures to get at another country or a neighbouring State. I think that this is an attitude that we have avoided very successfully thus far, except for the impression that a degree of sullenness exists.

This brings me to Walvis Bay. Walvis Bay creates an opportunity in this regard for the Railways Administration to show its confidence in economic growth and co-operation in Southern Africa. Of course, we can be negative, as investors sometimes are, and due to the political uncertainty prevailing with regard to South West Africa, we can say that any large expansion should be put on ice for the moment. On the other hand, we can also say that we believe that economic inter-dependence is such a strong guiding factor that it can successfully resist the influence of political changes in Southern Africa. I am a very strong believer in the latter standpoint, viz. the value of economic inter-dependence as a guiding and stabilizing factor.

In this regard I want to raise the declaration of a free harbour at Walvis Bay. This is a matter that has been raised in the House before, but I want to raise it again. Of course it is a matter which affects a good number of other departments, besides the Railways Administration, such as the Department of Finance, the Department of Foreign Affairs and so on. Declaring a free harbour implies, of course, the establishment of a system by means of which customs and excise concessions and other benefits are used to make the harbour and the surrounding area attractive to international trade, and also to establish acceptable regulations for the import and export of goods to the specific economic hinterland, in this case in South West Africa. This in turn leads to the establishment of manufacturing industries, packaging industries, and so on, which can be of tremendous value to that specific area. Of course, such a step has important consequences for the Railways Administration, in the sense that they would be obliged to make larger investments in harbour and other transport facilities. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to add his weight to this idea of declaring Walvis Bay a free harbour. I also want to ask him not to be shy and to invest in the improvement of the facilities that already exist at Walvis Bay. The hon. the Minister will know how important the harbour and the railways in general are to that town, and what it would mean if there were greater investment and if increased development could take place by means of the stimulation which the Railways Administration could bring about there. In making this request, I am not simply doing so because I am asking a favour for my constituency. I am doing so because I have complete confidence in the fact that the potential of that harbour is such that large scale investment there will be justified on the long term, and even on the short term. I do not have the least doubt about this. The hon. the Minister will probably be aware of the existence of the Floor report, which deals with the developmental potential of Walvis Bay. This report is already four years old, but I believe that what is said in it, is just as applicable today as it was in 1977, in spite of and possibly also as a result of the economic problems that Walvis Bay has been experiencing in the interim. Exciting possibilities are mentioned in this report, even the idea of a Trans-Botswana Railway fine, which could mean that Walvis Bay could operate as an export harbour, even for areas as far away as the coal mining areas of Zambia, Zimbabwe and Northern Botswana. These are realistic possibilities. If one studies the report, one sees that they are not dreams, but interesting, definite possibilities. In this entire sphere of regiqnal development the Railways Administration is in the position to act as a pioneer for economic development, co-operation and stabilization in Southern Africa. I sincerely hope that the Railways Administration will fulfil this role enthusiastically. The idea of a free harbour merits our attention today even more than it did before, for the very reason that once again there are signs that a solution can be found to the whole question of South West Africa and it may possibly be an independent State within a year or two from now. The idea of a free harbour in those circumstances could solve a tremendous number of problems for us. It will also take a great deal of the heat out of the argument which is undoubtedly going to arise as to who should actually have Walvis Bay.

Is that a function of the Railways?

The hon. member must listen now. He knows nothing about this. Legally there is no doubt about the claim which South Africa has to it, but nevertheless an argument will arise about it. If the hon. the Minister adds his weight to that of other Ministers involved here, I think that we could anticipate those problems and avoid a great deal of misery for ourselves in the future.

Now you are getting closer.

The sooner we take this step to declare Walvis Bay a free harbour, the better. It will be clearly viewed as a deed of goodwill. It will be a clear indication that South Africa does not intend applying a stranglehold to an independent South West Africa at any stage in the future. Finally, it will make it very clear that we intend putting the harbour at Walvis Bay and the transport facilities that exist there, fully at the disposal of a new and independent South West Africa. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this. I realize that he and his colleagues will have to put their heads together, but I feel it is a matter that merits his attention once again today, more than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point made a statement to which I should like to react. He reproached the Government with ostensibly creating an impression of sullenness with regard to our relations with neighbouring States in connection with rail traffic. I ask him to leave this matter in the hands of competent adults. He should leave the question of international traffic in our southern country in the hands of the people who are involved in it.

His plea for greater investment in Walvis Bay was more significant.

Do you support his representation with regard to Walvis Bay?

I should like to come to another aspect of the activities of this tremendous enterprise, an aspect for which I personally have a very high regard. I am referring to the training of staff. In his budget speech the hon. the Minister said—

This has a bearing on a paragraph in the annual report where the General Manager writes as follows (page 76)—

To my mind, this is the key to the vigilance which the Railways Administration displays in achieving success as an employer’s organization.

The training of its employees is of tremendous importance to this organization. In this regard I once again quote a single paragraph from the hon. the Minister’s budget speech—

As the largest employer in the country this organization stands out as an example to all other employers who do not poach—if I may put it like this—from other organizations; on the contrary, the opposite occurs. Other organizations poach, in the sense that they lure trained staff away from the Railways. In the first place, the S.A. Railways has seen to the training of its own people. I feel that I can speak frankly on this matter.

In 1969 I was the head of a high school, in the vicinity where the hon. the Minister is still carrying out his farming activities. In order to acquaint myself with the quality and the type of training which the Railways provides, I registered for a course at the Railways College at Esselen Park. Only the head and his deputy heads, Mr. J. Benade and P. J. P. Ackermann—I do not know whether they are still there—were aware of this. I wanted to acquaint myself with the quality of training offered in a course lasting from six to eight weeks and presented to a spectrum of people ranging from candidates with a Std. 2 certificate to a Std. 8 certificate. I wanted to establish what is being done in order to help those people to reach a level which qualifies them for a certain minimum remuneration or a certain level of appointment in order to provide them with a better pension, etc.

I can therefore say frankly—and I say it without mincing matters—that one could well ask our large academic institutions, the great academic leaders at our universities, people to whom the best of our schools’ talents are entrusted, to take a leaf out of the book of the Railways’ training centres. They may do well to look at what the Railways is doing there with the labour forces at its disposal.

If one were to ask on what basis the success of the training of those students depends, one would begin with the basic, elementary concepts, of which the first is the motivation of the person attending the course. I do not want to get bogged down now by details about the rules and regulations that apply to those who attend courses at Esselen Park. However, it is elementary that he should keep his own room tidy and attend classes. He is told emphatically, however, that after completion of the course, should he be successful, his future is guaranteed. Therefore, what we have here is the elementary concept of motivation, which turns the life of each person into a life of striving, into a significant striving. The second component, I would say, is discipline. Many of the students are old fellows already, people of 50 years and older. One can no longer use a cane if such a person does not want to listen.

Fifty is not old. [Interjections.]

Relatively speaking 50 is no longer young either. What surprised me, was that discipline, which affects the students in a spontaneous fashion, as a result of the codes of conduct of the lecturers and instructors too.

Another aspect that I should like to mention, is that of the contact between the instructors and those that attend the course. How many of our students at universities today sit gazing into the middle distance and yawning? They do not absorb anything. They sit there like empty shells.

Speak for yourself.

Mr. Speaker, earlier on, during a debate in a Standing Committee, I spoke about noise. Now there is a noise coming from the benches opposite again. It is pollution. [Interjections.]

You know then.

I am not reproaching now. However, I am looking for contact between student and lecturer, or student and instructor. Only then can there be success. I do not know much about Railway apparatus. I am rather an impractical person. Nevertheless even I could follow the instructions given by those people. The contact between instructor and student made it possible. Another aspect is the skill and the ability to transfer the knowledge to the student. The Administration has provided people from their own ranks for the colleges, people who have gained the most thorough practical experience over the years. In the first instance they have a good practical grounding and they are acquainted with the problem situations. In addition, they have the intelligence and skill to convey this to those attending the courses or the students in the classroom or in the practical situation. The final component is the apparatus that one has available and which has been supplied by the Administration so that the student can be trained in the true work situation. It is not up in the air. He is placed within the work circumstances so that he can undergo the specific test in the specific circumstances, for instance in training our pilots, where they sit in a flight simulator, under the exact same conditions as they would have to face in a real aircraft. Then, is it surprising to read on page 77 of the annual report, in chapter 10, with regard to the training of staff, that a total of 6 317 servants were trained by 153 instructors at the college and at its branches. If one were to express the pass rate as a percentage, it is of course easier to understand. Normally a pass rate of 90% in a matric class at an academic high school is an achievement. However, the pass rate of the students at the Railway College is 99,7%. This is a brilliant achievement.

When I think of the bursary scheme which the Railways makes available to students for studying at tertiary institutions—and I can testify to students that I myself have recommended, who have obtained degrees, poor boys who would not have been able to study otherwise, but who did in fact obtain their degrees—I want to refer to page 78 of the annual report. There we read that 139 Bachelor degrees were obtained. In addition there were 154 post-graduate students. Since then, 51 of these students have obtained honours degrees and 29 have obtained master’s degrees. Surely this is a compliment to the Administration’s interest in the development of its people. After all, this is where the top structure of the Railways organization will be drawn from later on. They are not afraid to invest in the human material that they have at their disposal.

If one looks further at other statistics, statistics in connection with students and what their training costs the Administration—and now I am coming very close to a representation to the hon. the Minister, and I am also pleased to see that the General Manager is also in our midst tonight—we see that the total annual cost of in-service training—including the Railway College and its branches—for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians—and I think the hon. member for Sandton may do well to listen to this, because after all he is always somewhat concerned about this matter—amounted to a sum of R13 million with regard to management training, training aids and salaries for training staff.

I am listening.

The hon. member may do well to listen to this. Functional training for White staff at the Esselen Park Railway College and its branches amounts to 7 700 units. Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, trained at four centres, amount to 3 200 units. External training at universities, technikons and technical colleges—i.e. bursaries for full-and part-time study, and courses for engineering students, draftsmen, health inspectors and apprentices—amount to 2 840 units, at a cost of R1,7 million. The capital value of training materials at departmental training colleges, schools of apprentices and training equipment at the Airways amounts to a sum of approximately R41,3 million. Here we see the evidence of the interest of the Administration in its staff situation and in providing for its own needs.

That is very good.

As a very big employer it must train its people itself within the skill and the developmental mechanism of its own industry. However, it does not simply train them but also makes them proud of their task. I am proud to be able to tell hon. members tonight that the chief engineer of the works at Standerton has been the mayor of Standerton too on various occasions. This railway engineer is the mayor of my town and we are proud of this. Today I should also like to tell the Administration and the hon. the Minister that we are very pleased that they are now moving away from establishing railway houses in one patch in a specific town and that the houses are now being spread throughout the town, because that community enriches the town.

Standerton is not simply any old place.

Of course not, Sir. It is the most important place in the east.

What does the hon. member want from the hon. the Minister?

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member is chewing and busy doing things at the same time. I do not actually know what he wants to say. All he has is a pair of woollen caps between his ears, but for the rest he is bald.

He has lost his cud.

And he has a cloven hoof.

Order!

No, Sir, the hon. member has a split personality.

Order! The hon. member must not allow himself to be diverted.

Thank you, Sir. I just want to state my case. The main railway line from Johannesburg to Durban runs through the Standerton constituency and at the lower section before it passes through Coldstream, Volksrust, one of the beautiful towns in our country is situated. It lies at the foot of the Amajuba mountain. I should like to place on record here that the first bridge conference on our country’s history took place there between Paul Kruger as president of the Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek and the authorities of Natal. The pillars of the bridge at Coldstream are still standing and it was on that bridge that the first bridge conference took place. This was before the First Anglo-Boer War. That bridge has also been declared a national monument.

A large railway community has been established in Volksrust. It is a proud community and they are fine people. They are fine people, people who love one another. The relief staff for our great train services live there. These are my people, Sir. In the first instance I want to say thank you for the fact that the Administration issued a grant for a new residential area there and for dwellings that are going to be built there. It is at Rooibult, one of the finest new residential areas in Volksrust. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Administration to consider establishing a small branch or campus of a college there.

There we have it!

I shall tell you why I am asking this. My requests are not unfounded. I can motivate them.

I want one in Sandton as well.

We cannot concentrate it in a place like that hon. member’s constituency. That town lies along the main railway line between these two great poles. Land is extremely cheap. I am tempted to say that we would have given it to the Administration for nothing if they had not had so much land. The best high school is situated there. Those children are well cared for. Sir, I want to invite you, the hon. the Minister and the management of the Railways to a braaivleis with those people. They have already set it out. We simply have to choose a date. Then everyone can come and see what that community offers. But what is most important of all, is that great development is going to take place in the Eastern Transvaal. Under the surface of those contours of the High Veld—the area does not have much else that is attractive apart from its green rolling hills in the summer—lies coal. It is a developing area. We must decentralize our training units. That area is where the development is going to take place and this is where the people will go. Let us now already take our training facilities there for the people. Then, when the people arrive, the training facilities will be there already.

I have just referred to the amount of R41,3 million. Do hon. members know what percentage of the Railways budget that amount constitutes? It constitutes 1,3% of it. What is this in comparison with the rate of inflation? Do hon. members know what percentage of this year’s Railways budget a R2 million college at Volksrust would constitute? R2 million would constitute 0,06% of the Railways Budget.

Yes, there should be one at Lichtenburg too.

The hon. the Minister can have one at Lichtenburg too.

Is there a station at Lichtenburg? [Interjections.]

I do not want us to deviate from the seriousness of this issue. R2 million would constitute 0,06% of the total Railways budget. I think it is worthwhile to say yes. I see the hon. the Minister is nodding his head. I wonder what our General Manager will say.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a request that I can really make for my people that we should spread those training facilities throughout our country. It brings about a balance. In this way the plattelander who has to travel to the cities, will be kept on the platteland, in his area, in his home, in the service of the Railways.

The Railways Administration is replacing our old steam locomotives, but sometimes the goods trains still run on those stages with steam locomotives. Sometimes when I wake up at night and hear those old wheels which have already been considerably worn, sliding on the tracks, it causes a feeling of nostalgia. The Railways has brought about development in this country for which we are sincerely grateful.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Whip who is on duty tonight, has sent me in at this late hour to keep an eye on matters here. I am doing so with pleasure.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our railwaymen tonight. I think I am in a position to do so since approximately 70% of my voters are either railway workers or dependants of railway workers. One knows those people’s heart-beat. One knows their attachment to their service and to their task. This applies not only in the lower ranks, but from the lowest ranks to the highest ranks in the S.A. Railways. If I could mention an example tonight, I could take the General Manager as an example. On Saturday afternoon he boarded the aircraft in Perth and flew for 29 hours over Sidney, Hong Kong and Johannesburg to Cape Town in order to be able to sit here in the official’s benches tonight. I think the example that he is setting by being at this budget debate tonight, is indicative of the attitude which the ordinary railwayman has towards his work, whether he is a conductor, a shunter or whatever his position may be. That is why it upsets one that this afternoon, in his zeal in pleading the cause of the private sector, the hon. member for Walmer found it necessary to say that the wagon and coach builders of the S.A. Railways, are men who cannot carry out their work properly, whilst the private sector is ready to do this work and that 50% of its capacity is not being utilized at this stage. Is the hon. member suggesting that the Railway workshops like those in Salt River should close down and the people be put out on the street so that the private sector can do this work, when it has just been announced that the S.A. Railways gave approximately 18 million in tenders to various sectors of the private sector in the past week? Those hon. members are the people who pretend to be the champions of the workers of the S.A. Railways in this House. The hon. member asks for differentiated tariffs to be granted to Port Elizabeth because there is unemployment there and such a concession would create more employment opportunities. However, at the same time he asks for steps to be taken to the benefit of the private sector which will mean that thousands of White artisans in the Railway workshops at Salt River will have to be discharged.

No.

We shall convey that message to them. That hon. Whip can now shout as much as he likes about it, and he can look up in Hansard. This is what the hon. member said this afternoon and tonight he does not even take the trouble to be here. Nevertheless he grants himself the right to speak about the productivity of other people. [Interjections.]

He asked to be excused. He is in the Standing Committee.

The Standing Committee has also become a convenient excuse now. The other evening during the discussion of the Police Vote, for instance, a great deal of protest was made because it was maintained that there is an overlapping of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question?

No, I do not want to answer a question by that hon. member. At the same time the hon. members who were sitting in the Standing Committee, did not deign to return to the House. It is a poor excuse that they are making use of. [Interjections.]

The Railway people are true to their service and maintain the highest degree of productivity, and since this is the case, I want to bring another issue to the attention of the hon. the Minister today. At the moment there are approximately 17 150 railway pensioners and widows of pensioners. These are people that, due to their fixed income, have become the victims of the erosion of money. The hon. the Minister has compassion and understanding for this problem and that is why I know that he will look after the interests of these people at all times. From time to time representations are made that the associations of pensioners should be given representation in some body or other where they can have a say on the subject of pensions. One understands that there are practical problems in this regard, and that it is not always possible. However, we know that in consultation with the general management, the hon. the Minister will also look after the interests of these people, because many of them are not very well off.

I should like to refer to the terrible natural disaster that struck South Africa at the beginning of the year. I am referring of course to the terrible disaster which struck the town of Laingsburg. In the process, not only was a community practically wiped out, but on that Sunday almost 40 km of railway line was destroyed too. It was only on the following Wednesday that the Railways could enter Laingsburg by rail, because the railway line had to be repaired, and the repairs could not simply be made on a temporary basis. Whilst the railway line was being repaired, approximately 30 000 tons of material was brought in to complete the work. They had to manufacture overhead masts and erect them in order to be able to carry out the repairs. However, the railwaymen were so active that the railway line was open once again by the following Sunday. The Railways looked after their own people in the process. On the first day they flew over the town by helicopter in order to determine the problems of the railway people. By Tuesday the General Manager himself was there with food, clothing, supplies etc. 60 caravans were put at the disposal of the railway people, and I think they are still in use. We can say with pride that all the railway people have already been accommodated again there. Some people are in pre-fabricated houses, but, however, everyone has been accommodated again.

However, there is another matter related to this, to which I should like to refer. In the Cape Peninsula, particularly during the winter season, we have experienced tremendous problems with the supply of coal from time to time. I think it is one of the greatest achievements of the Railways that, in spite of this disaster which struck the Railways too, it has been so successful in repairing lines of communication that the Railways has been able to deliver enough coal to the Peninsula in one of the worst winters which the Cape Peninsula has ever experienced. I think that this disaster has been a lesson to us. It served as a warning to us that in the sphere of supplying coal to the Cape metropolitan area, we should try to reach a stage in which our reserves will have been built up so that we will not be plunged into a crisis situation if a breakdown in lines of communication should ever occur.

We should like to pay tribute to the Railways tonight, to every railway worker who has made this special achievement possible, in fact to such an extent that the hon. the Minister, who really is a good Minister, was able to introduce such a good budget here.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I want to say to the hon. member for Tygervallei that the hon. member for Walmer asked me whether he could be absent this evening. However, I forgot to mention that. I shall deal with the contribution by the hon. member for Walmer tomorrow. He said that we should transfer to the private sector, workshops such as those in Salt River and Bloemfontein where thousands of our people work. My experience is that we have people there who work with dedication. We already give 66% of the construction work on coaches to private initiative. We only do approximately 33% ourselves. I should like to say to the hon. member for Tygervallei that he need not be concerned about the workshops in his constituency. We have no intention of dismantling anything at Salt River.

The hon. member for Tygervallei, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, the hon. member for Durban Point and various other hon. members referred to the pensioners prior to 1973. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North quoted a sum and referred to people who received pensions of between R101 and R200 per month. However, we must see the matter in perspective, because such a person perhaps had only three, four or five years of service. We have built up a fund in which everyone has to share. But I have received so many representations in this regard! There has even been a request that we should institute an investigation. Of course, we can have an investigation carried out by way of the Joint Committee on Pension Matters, on which the staff associations are represented, as is the management. In this way we can investigate this problem in depth. I shall go so far as to say that if we can do it without disrupting the fund, or those who contributed after 1973 or for an even longer period, and we can squeeze something out of the next budget in April, then we can grant additional aid. I have been getting representations along these lines for a very long time now, and I should like to do something about it. However, we should also consider our staff associations and our funds as a whole. In such a large organization, if we are perhaps to add R1 million or R3 million extra for those heartbreak cases, then I am in favour of it, and I shall ask the management to begin the investigation immediately.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti made me feel bad.

†The hon. member said that I misjudged his intelligence by saying in reply to a question of his that the information was not readily available with regard to containers. The hon. member’s question resulted in telexes and hours of work. Parts of the reply were so lengthy that it was impossible to give the reply in the way in which he asked the question. It is not a matter of us not knowing the answer. All the information is on a computer. The hon. member should have ’phoned me to find out what the matter was, or I should have said to him that he must change his question.

”However, the hon. member is a member of the Opposition, and I do not always want the Opposition to have things their way!

†But I admit we could have handled this whole matter differently. We have the information, but the hon. member should have changed his question. It was practically impossible to reply to it as it stood. I should like to quote the question—

1. (1) What (a) are the actual figures in respect of, (b) were the original projections of, and (c) was the maximum designed capacity of, the (i) annual total, (ii) weekly average and peak numbers and (iii) daily average and peak numbers of containers passing (aa) into and (bb) out of Durban and City Deep container depots since the inception of the container service;
2. (2) what is the anticipated effect of the Far East trade on the above figures once the container service is introduced in that area?

The right answer is “ja-nee”.

It is a silly question.

No, I will not say it is a silly question.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that when hon. members submit questions to the Secretary of the House, the questions are normally put in so-called parliamentary terms and that it is the department that rephrases questions in these terms?

If not, why not?

If I got a question like the one which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked about a Boeing hitting the Koeberg nuclear power station, I would not have replied to it.

*I want to reply to certain hon. members, for example the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen. He spoke about his young days at De Aar and mentioned how he swam in the water tank. While he was speaking so enthusiastically about his youth as the son of a Railway worker, I began to feel more and more pleased that we have reached the stage in this organization when we no longer, as he said, speak about the railway camps. Nowadays the Railways is a business organization. We are no longer living in the time of the depression when people were provided with temporary employment. I wish to mention with all respect that his father worked for 14/6d. per day. In those days that was a good wage. At the time, a section of our people were accommodated in some of those little red brick houses. They were railway camps. Our ideal at present is to distribute the houses of the railway people throughout the residential areas—and we are making rapid progress in this regard. At that time there was a stigma—and I say this with all respect—attached to the man who worked on the Railways. The hon. member for Standerton waxed lyrical when speaking of the enthusiasm with which these people work. I take trouble—I mean this—to visit the workshops to make contact with these people. On Friday evening I had to attend one hang of a function in my constituency, but a staff association asked me whether my wife and I could not be their guests at a meal. They did not know what I sacrificed in order to eat with them. However, in that way one makes contact with these people. Someone there told me: “Really, you come and eat with us. You mix with us. We are proud to be part of such a fine organization.” I want to say that it is gratifying that this boy, who came from such a place, is one of us. The railwayman—and I say this with respect—has always kept us in power. These are the people who are strongly Nationalist at heart.

Watch out!

I really do not know of any railwayman in his right mind who votes Prog. [Interjections.]

The hon. members for Amanzimtoti and Berea put certain questions to me. Containerization is a relatively new development. Congestion did occur at City Deep. Hon. members themselves have admitted that there has been a growth of 40% in containerization over three years. That was never foreseen. There was congestion at one stage but it has already been brought down to a minimum. However, what is our difficulty? There are thousands of containers in South Africa which do not return to their country of origin. They are not the responsibility of the Railways. If one travels to Acacia Park from here, one sees them standing around in the yards of businesses. We can export coal, iron, iron ore and maize in bulk, but our imported goods come in containers. However, we do not have the processed material to export in containers. These, too, are teething problems.

Give them to the squatters.

That is our difficulty. As I said before, the countries of origin tell us that we must not send the containers to African states, because then they do not return. The people there simply roll the containers off the trucks and sleep in them. Now one is saddled with all these difficulties. Development does not occur overnight. I want to place on record that the person who shipped the container to South Africa has the responsibility to get it out of the country again. This does not cost the Railways a cent. The demurrage and the penalties that this may involve must be paid by the businessman and do not form part of the responsibility of the Railways.

I now wish to turn to the hon. member for Berea. I have before me reports from the Financial Mail and innumerable other journals, and I can say to him that not a single newspaper had any criticism of the rail tariff increases. All the others said that this was a good budget.

It is just that too much money was put away.

But where did I learn my bad habits? I learnt them from the bankers of this country.

You put money away. The increases were unnecessary.

The hon. member must tell me whether this is unreasonable. Let him show me one country in the world or rather in Africa where a man can be conveyed over 20 km for 10 cents. Is there anywhere in Africa a country which conveys a Black man over a distance of 20 km for 10 cents? And that man, when he reaches his destination, goes and buys a bottle of Coke for 70 cents. Now the hon. member is angry with me.

Whose fault is it that a bottle of Coke costs 70 cents?

I do not control the price of Coke. He could have bought a litre of milk for 50 cents, but he wants Coke, sugar water. However, I do not wish to discuss agriculture now. [Interjections.] Where else can one find a country with a railway system which loses R680 million per annum because its passenger fares are 0,5 cents per kilometre?

reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 17.—“Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation”, had agreed to the Vote.