Clause 1 provides for the definitions relevant to this Bill and I wish to refer particularly to the definition of “identity number”, which is defined as meaning an identity number referred to in section 3. If one looks at section 3 (2), it says that the identity number shall be compiled in the prescribed manner out of figures and shall, in addition to a serial number and a control number, consist of a reproduction, in figure codes, of the prescribed particulars, and no other particulars whatsoever, of the person to whom it has been assigned. In other words, the Bill as it is before us is completely non-committal as to what should be contained in the identity number and what should be coded. I have two difficulties. One is this. Perhaps I am wrong and the hon. the Minister can assist me, but I find no power in this Bill for regulations to prescribe the contents of an identity number. Clause 10 of the Bill refers to the power to make regulations as to the form and composition of identity documents, but I see no reference anywhere in this Bill to the right to prescribe the particulars to be contained within the identity number. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether I am correct in that regard.

Now, the hon. the Minister did indicate in the course of discussion of this Bill in the Second Reading that one of the particulars which could be included in the coded identification number was the population group. If I understood him correctly that group would be determined according to the normal practice which is now applied in South-West Africa to determine the groups without referring to the Race Classification Act. In other words, the rigidity of race classification which is necessary to comply with the law in the Republic is now not to be applicable there, but there will be a population grouping. I do not know whether the Minister could, because of the fact that the definition leaves all this to be prescribed by regulation, perhaps elaborate on his explanation as to how it is intended that the identity number will be compiled and where the power is in the Bill to do so, because as I say, I have not been able to find it myself. Secondly, will he tell us whether I am correct in saying that the determination of the population group will be left to the normal procedure which now applies in South-West Africa for this determination for purposes such as the voters’ roll?

The hon. member is quite correct in his deduction that the practice in South-West Africa will serve to determine the population group. It is not necessary for me to say now how it is done there, because it is known. But that is the pattern which will be followed here, and it will be included in the identity number.

The concern in connection with the provision of the power to make regulations is thoroughly covered by clause 3 (2), which reads as follows in Afrikaans—

The expression “op die voorgeskrewe wyse” means that it can be done by regulation. It is sufficient to cover those powers

I do not want to extend this debate as to whether that is so, but I do not think the hon. the Minister is quite correct. Perhaps the matter could be considered by the legal advisers, but if an Act provides that something shall be done in a prescribed manner, then there must be contained in that Act who is to prescribe that matter; and in so far as the composition of the document is concerned that is clearly dealt with in clause 10 of the Bill, but there is no legal power vested in the State President in this Bill to prescribe the contents of the identity number. But I leave it at that. I think the Minister would be well advised to go into this point.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we welcome the assurance he has given us that as far as he and the Government are concerned the identification of the population of South-West Africa into population groups can be done according to the customs of South-West Africa without this rigid, hard, fixed race classification law that the Government considers necessary for South Africa. I want to say that we welcome this approach and we trust that that will be the whole approach of the Minister and the Government in future when dealing with this very difficult and personal problem of the inhabitants of South-West Africa under this Bill.

May I just put a question to the hon. the Minister, i.e. whether he is satisfied that the pattern which is applied in South-West Africa is good enough for the smooth operation of this Bill?

Yes, for the operation of this Bill it is satisfactory, although I have already indicated that the changes in the question of population determination may be discussed in the future. At this stage, however, the present form of identification according to custom is regarded as satisfactory for the operation of this measure.

We made it clear in the Second Reading of this Bill, as also in the similar Bill dealing with the Republic of South Africa, that we have no objection to and consider it necessary that the members of the population of South-West Africa, as also the citizens of South Africa, should have an individual means of identification. We have no objection, as we had no objection in the other Bill, to the establishment of a central register of the personal details. But we still have the same objection to this Bill that we had to the other Bill, and that is that the identification document contemplated is cumbersome and contains unnecessary details, particularly when it comes to South-West Africa. The hon. the Minister and hon. members, as well as you, Sir, are aware of the composition of the population of South-West Africa, of the vast number of Ovambos and the other non-White peoples like the Hereros, the Basters, etc. If this Bill is to be meaningful at all, the information contained in clause 2 for inclusion in the identity documents must be extracted from the total population of South-West, and surely that is an impossible and an unnecessary task so far as those people are concerned. Therefore I wish to move, in order to be realistic in our approach to identity documents, the following amendment—

In other words, I want to provide that the identity document to be issued to the perma-nent residents of South-West Africa will contain an identity number, the date of issue of the identity document, the full name of the individual, an indication as to whether or not he is a South African citizen and a recent photograph of himself if he has attained the age of 16 years—a simple form of identification which is practicable. I should like to ask hon. members opposite, who are more conversant with and represent South-West Africa, to indicate to this Committee whether they believe that the contents of paragraphs (e) to (m) can be obtained and can be applied in so far as the population of South-West Africa is concerned. It is recent history that because of the difficulties of control, etc., there was the red line across South-West Africa. We have advanced beyond that stage, but to suggest that for every citizen of South-West Africa these details can be obtained and can be placed in an identity document is, I think, expecting the impossible. The Minister will tell me what this clause says, i.e. that these details may be included. But why legislate for permissive powers in an attempt to produce an identity document when that attempt will be a waste of time, of energy and of manpower in view of the complex nature of the population of South-West Africa?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR: The hon. member’s amendment is aimed at depriving the register of very valuable data. For example, it is essential that information about immunization should be indicated in the register and in the identity document. In what other way can these matters be regulated? The hon. member describes the proposed identity document as cumbersome, but it will indeed be cumbersome to have only certain information in the document, which would mean having to write to each and every person in order to obtain the missing information, while all this information can be shown on the document to the benefit of the public itself. In the circumstances I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

There is one point which I had hoped I had made clear but which I want to restate. We have accepted that documents can be centralized in a central register. To that we have no objection. Our amendment deals only with the identity document to be issued to the individual. The question of the register we have settled, already under the Bill relating to the Republic. My amendment refers only to the elimination of all this additional information from this identity document, a document which we believe should only be a simple means of identification. We have no objection, as I have said, to all the different documents and licences normally issued to an individual to be recorded in a central register.

The hon. member’s object is to reduce the value of this identity document. It should not only be a piece of paper on which your name and your photograph appear. After all, any person in any part of the world can take any piece of paper and put his photograph on it, but it will mean nothing to him; it will have no status and serve no useful purpose. We do not want a mere identification. On the contrary, we want a document of this nature to be useful in other respects as well. The hon. the Minister has already referred to the question of immunization. Let us look at the value this document may have as far as one’s driver’s licence is concerned. To me it will have very little value if particulars of my driver’s licence are recorded in a register in Pretoria. It can only be of value to me if I have it with me, and not just in a loose form, but combined with other documents in a booklet. Then, if I had to show my driver’s licence, I would have it at my disposal. As such this can be of use to me. If, for example, I have been immunized against polio, it would after all not be of great use to me if I did not have proof of my immunization with me, but at my home or in an office in Pretoria. The same applies to proof that I am allergic to certain injecttions. The use of this proposed identity document is in fact that all these certificates and proofs are combined in one document. Then I would not have four, five or six different documents which I would have to keep together continually so as to be able to produce them when these things are required. To have everything combined in one booklet will above all be of use to the individual himself. A register may be of benefit to the State, but when It comes to the individual, the system becomes useful only when all his documents are combined in one and the same booklet. The hon. member for Green Point’s object is to make it useful to the State, but not to the individual. It would water down this legislation to such an extent that we could not accept it.

Mr. Chairman, our objection to this clause is that it extends the responsibility for the notification of any change of his address beyond the individual himself. We have outlined our objection to this more extensively during the debate on the Bill which applies this system to the Republic. For those same reasons we are also against this provision.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The registration of a person’s marital status, and, if he is married, the particulars of his marriage, are inseparable from a system of population registration. Similarly, the identification of a person in regard to his marital status or the particulars of his marriage are as important as the identification of his birth and other personal data. As an essential subdivision of the broad system of population registration and identification which has already been accepted in principle by this House, the registration of marriages is also being reviewed. At the same time, the solemnization of marriages and related matters are also being examined in order to eliminate hitches and to adjust to present conditions and tendencies.

The most important amendments which are being proposed are the following

1. (a) The abolition of the publication of banns of marriage, the publication of a notice of intention to marry, and a special marriage licence as statutory prerequisites for a marriage. This is covered in clauses 5 and 6.
2. (b) That no girl under the age of 15 years, instead of 16 years as the Act stipulates at present, shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage, except with the permission of the Minister. This is contained in clause 9.
3. (c) The application of the Marriage Act in South-West Africa and the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. This is covered by clause 13.
4. (d) Provision that the administration of the Marriage Act in respect of Bantu in the Republic and the Native nations in

the Territory of South-West Africa be assigned to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. This relates to the definition of “Minister” in clause 1.

The purpose of banns of marriage and notice of intention to marry is to give publicity to a proposed marriage in order to afford interested parties an opportunity of objecting to it and in this way to prevent undesirable marriages. A marriage is invalid if one of the following three factors is present—

1. (a) one or both of the parties concerned are already married;
2. (b) one of the parties is a White and the other a non-White person; and/or
3. (c) the parties concerned are related to each other within the prohibited degree of blood relationship.

A marriage is voidable if one or both of the parties are still under age and the necessary permission, whether from the parents or the Minister, in the case of a boy or girl under a certain age, has not been obtained.

As far as can be established, the publication of banns was introduced by church decree in the year 1215 A.D., and incorporated in the “Echt Regelment” of 1580. In this way it became part of our marriage law and was incorporated in our marriage legislation. As I have said, the purpose of banns is apparently to give publicity to a proposed marriage in order to afford interested persons an opportunity of raising legitimate objections to the marriage. The publication of banns undoubtedly served a purpose in times when congregations were small and established and when everybody knew one another, but in modern society, where congregations are large and large numbers of the population constantly change their places of residence, it has, apart from its traditional value, no significance. The publication of a notice of intention to marry which is pasted up in magistrates’ offices is a later development of the system of the publication of banns in churches. As in the case of banns, its purpose is publicity, but whether it serves this purpose is extremely doubtful. No case of a proposed marriage which did not take place because its undesirability came to light as a result of the publication of banns, has come to notice in the past ten years.

Another departure from the system of banns is the procurement of a special marriage licence, i.e. without the publication of banns or of a notice of intention to marry. For purposes of information it may be mentioned that more than 36 per cent of all marriages between Whites already take place by means of special marriage licences.

Another factor, perhaps the most important, is that the defective publication of banns or of intention to marry results in invalid marriages being contracted. Each of the parties to a marriage must either have banns published in the congregation to which he or she belongs, or cause a notice to be published in the magistrate’s office of the district in which he or she lives. Banns must be published on three consecutive Sundays before the marriage, or the notice must be displayed for an uninterrupted period of 15 days before the marriage. Unless these provisions are strictly complied with, the banns or notice is invalid and any marriage which is solemnized in terms of such banns or notice is invalid. Quite a number of such marriages which would otherwise have been quite valid occur and result in embarrassment and grief for the parties concerned. The proposal for the abolition of these prerequisites to a marriage was discussed on 23rd April, 1969, with 23 of the largest church denominations and certain interested parties. Only one denomination objected to the abolition. Some denominations, although they supported the proposal, expressed the view that they wished to retain the publication of banns as a domestic arrangement in their churches. There is no objection or prohibition against this, and every church is free to make such domestic arrangements, but they will have no legal significance. All interested departments are in favour of the proposal, and it may be mentioned that it will save magistrate’s offices a considerable amount of time. The law advisers were also consulted and they are of the opinion that the abolition of this prerequisite to a marriage involves no risk that marriages solemnized in the Republic will not be recognized in other countries.

In order to adjust the registration of marriages to the new system of population registration or identification, it is proposed that a party to a marriage will be required to produce his or her identity document to the marriage officer or, if he or she is not in possession of an identity document, to furnish a prescribed affidavit to the marriage officer. It is proposed that the marriage officer will attach a marriage certificate to the identity document of each of the parties after the solemnization of a marriage.

In connection with permission for minors to marry, the present position is that a boy under the age of 18 years and a girl under the age of 16 years must, in addition to the permission of their parents, obtain the permission of the Minister of the Interior in order to contract a valid marriage. It is proposed that in respect of girls the age be amended to 15 years. Sir, in this connection I should like to mention that the vast majority of applications referred to the Minister are from girls in their sixteenth year, and are accompanied by written permission for the proposed marriage from the parents on both sides. Only a small percentage of these applications submitted to the Minister are refused, and it may be mentioned that in such cases the couples marry in any case when the girl reaches the age of 16 years.

All applications for ministerial permission for child marriages are referred to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in the first instance. Trained officers of the said Department visit the parties concerned as well as their parents in loco, and after a thorough investigation of all the aspects of the matter, comprehensive reports are submitted to the Department of the Interior and its Minister. It is obvious that such investigations necessarily take up much time, entail considerable expense and require a good deal of manpower. Hon. members will also appreciate that delay is therefore unavoidable and that the fact that applications cannot be decided upon immediately, causes dissatisfaction on the part of, and often great inconvenience for, the parents of couples who wish to marry.

Sir, it is rather important to examine the historical background of child marriages. I want to refer to it briefly. Until 1935 there was no legislation in the Transvaal, the Cape Province and Natal in connection with the age at which young people may marry. The common law, i.e. Roman-Dutch Law, applied, and this provided that the marriage age was the same as the age of puberty, namely 12 years for girls and 14 years for boys. Young people, of course, still needed the permission of their parents in order to marry if they had not yet reached the age of 21 and attained majority. In the Republic of the Orange Free State there were in fact statutory provisions which laid down the marriage age for young people at 16 years for girls and 18 years for boys. In the other three provinces, with far and away the largest populations, the respective ages were 12 and 14. This is how our grandparents and ancestors lived for many years and produced healthy families. In 1935 this Parliament thought fit to raise the marriage age to 16 years for girls and 18 years for boys, as was already the case in the Free State. But as far as the age for girls is concerned, the then Minister was not so convinced himself whether the age should be laid down at 16 years or at 15 years. Strong consideration was given to 15 years, especially in view of the fact that in our warm climate our children grow up faster and develop sooner. However, 16 years was decided upon, but it was realized that provision had to be made for exceptional cases, hence the provision that exceptions can be made in suitable cases with the permission of the Minister of the Interior. The cases they had in mind were especially those of premarital pregnancy. This is the way in which this Act has been administered since 1935.

It also appears from publications of the UN that a minimum marriage age of 15 years for girls is advocated and that this minimum age applies in most countries. The parental authority still applies, as I have said, and in the case of minors the parents will still have to give their permission for the marriage. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions supports the amendment, but I want to add that some of the officers of that department hold other views on this. All the indications are therefore that girls above the age of 15 years should be allowed to marry without the permission of the Minister, provided, of course, that they comply with all the statutory requirements, but if the present provisions do not keep pace with the times in which we are living, have little or no practical value and are simply a nuisance, they must be changed.

This matter is, however, not a political one. It is a practical matter and hon. members must not feel obliged to reject or to accept the proposed amendment, and I am prepared to leave this specific clause, i.e. clause 9, to be decided by a free vote of this House.

Provision is made in clause 13 for the Marriage Act to apply in South-West Africa and the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. Because the Population Registration Act, in which the various races in the Republic are defined, does not apply in those territories, the word “race”, which relates to classification, is substituted in sections 2 and 3 (clauses 2 and 3) by the words “population group” and the latter expression is used wherever necessary in the amending Bill.

In terms of the definition of “Minister” in section 1 of the Act, the administration of marriage affairs in respect of all population groups rests with the Minister of the Interior. The departmental implementation of the provisions of the Act in respect of Bantus is, however, carried out by officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, who are authorized to do so by the Minister of the Interior. In respect of the largest section of the population, the Act is therefore administered on behalf of the Minister of the Interior by officials of another department. It is therefore proposed that the administration of the Marriage Act in respect of Bantu in the Republic and the Native nations in South-West Africa be assigned to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. (Clause 1—definition of “Minister”.) It is also desirable that provision be made for regulations to be drawn up for the particular requirements of marriage affairs as far as the Bantu and the Native nations are concerned. (Clause 11 (1) (b).)

It is regarded as essential that the marriage formula as prescribed by section 30 should be applicable to all marriage officers, but nothing is being done which will detract from the “ceremonial solemnity” of a marriage which is solemnized by a clerical marriage officer.

Marriage officers are appointed by the State and all marriage officers, including ministers of religion and others who are connected with church denominations, act as State officials when they solemnize marriages. A marriage contract is probably the most important contract between two persons, and it is essential to have uniformity, at least in respect of the minimum requirements and basic procedure, in the solemnization of a marriage. The questions and statement at present contained in section 30 (clause 10) are already incorporated in the formulas of most clerical marriage officers. It is proposed to authorize the relevant Minister to issue regulations. At the moment this authority is vested in the State President. (Clauses 11 (1) (a).)

The other amendments which are being proposed (clauses 1 (b), 4, 7, 8, 11 (2) and 12) are merely consequential amendments, and it is not considered necessary to discuss them.

In conclusion I wish to point out that, in order to fit in with the proposed system of population registration and identification, the Bill will come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation.

Mr. Speaker, the House is indebted to the hon. the Minister for the full explanation he has given regarding this Bill. But I think that a matter which is of concern is the basic approach which is linked up with the mechanization or computerization of our lives. In the process of reaching administrative efficiency it becomes necessary in this legislation to deal with a very basic concept which is sacred in all religions of the world and that is the ceremony of marriage. Sir, it has concerned us in looking at this measure as to whether sufficient and proper thought has been given to the effect which it will have on the traditional and basic approach to marriage which is that it is a religious ceremony. Through the passage of time there has been coupled with that religious ceremony certain civil responsibilities and reciprocal duties.

I want to come immediately to the clause which I believe has not had sufficient consideration and in regard to which there has not been sufficient consultation with the churches and that is the clause dealing with the marriage formula. Sir, you will know that the various denominations—the Jewish and Christian churches—have through the years and through their customs adopted a formula of marriage which has been recognized and which until to-day is still recognized according to our law because of the provisions which now exist in section 30 of the principal Act, a section which the Minister now wishes to do away with. The position up to the present time has been that where a marriage was solemnized by a minister of religion, he was free to follow the rites usually observed in his own particular church or religious denomination but the marriage officer who is the minister was not bound to use any specific words in the solemnization of the vows and in the declaration that there is no reason why the marriage should not be entered into. Under this Bill it will now be incumbent upon every religious denomination to use the ipsissima verba, the exact words, which appear in this Act. If they do not do so. then the marriage could be challenged as being invalid.

The hon. the Minister says that there is general approval of these terms but I have taken the trouble to investigate the position with ministers of religion of various churches, and one finds that over the years all churches have adopted certain words which express the same intention as is contained in this section. For instance, looking at the Methodist marriage service, I find that the minister is instructed to say to the parties—

In the Presbyterian service we find that the words are very similar—

Different wording but words of similar intent are adopted in the Anglican Church, in the Jewish faith and in the Dutch Reformed Church as well. These words differ vastly, not in intent but in language, from the words which will now become compulsory in terms of this particular clause of the Bill. You, Sir, will be aware of the wording used in the Dutch Reformed Church. May I quote just one portion of it—

The marriage formula is not being changed.

I do not think it was the intention. But if the hon. member will look at clause 10 he will find that section 30 of the principal Act used to read—

The words “if he is a minister of religion or a person holding a responsible position in a religious denomination or organization, may follow the rites usually observed by his religious denomination or organization, but if he is any other marriage officer he” are now proposed to be omitted. Then in the proposed new subsection (2) it is provided that—

The words “subject to the provisions of subsection (1) ” are now proposed to be inserted, so the power which they have had up to this very moment to deal with this question of declaration as to whether or not one is aware of any reason why the marriage should not take place, is now removed. Sir, I am sure that this is not the intention, but this is the sort of difficulty that one comes across—and I speak as a lawyer—when one tries to oversimplify in codifying the law and to provide for the programming of a computer.

The hon. the Minister says that this has had the approval of the various churches. Let me assure him, Sir, that that is not what the churches believe. It is true that the Bill was published for general information about two or three weeks ago. I have a letter here from a senior minister of one of the churches in which he says that he was pleased to have his attention drawn to this, and the position which he holds in his church is such that if there had been consultation he would have known about it. I think it has been rather left to the churches to become aware of the contents of the Bill without specifically drawing their attention to these aspects.

That, Sir, deals with clause 10. I think it is something which needs further consideration. I think more time should toe given for it to be considered on the proper occasion. I would not like to see this House adopting the second reading of a Bill which embodies the provisions of that particular clause. I believe that if this is something to be corrected, it should not be a matter of a correction in the committee stage but that the correction should be made before we take this stage of the Bill. I will therefore move an appropriate amendment a little later, but before I do that I want to deal with one or two other aspects of the variations which will now become part of our law.

I want to say again that some of the provisions which are being introduced here must be very carefully examined. I want to refer, for instance, to the clause which requires the production of certain documents to a marriage officer. We are doing away with another tradition or at least we are doing away with the legal necessity of it, and that is the publication of banns. It is true that the churches may, in carrying out their normal procedures, continue to publish banns. I trust that that procedure will be adopted by the various denominations. I believe that the publication of banns creates a family within the “gemeente” or congregation. It is unfortunate that we legislators must now legislate and say that the publication of banns is no longer necessary for us. But again it is a question of mecchanization; it is a question of details to be inserted in this document which we will now have to carry to identify ourselves. But it is unfortunate that it is again affecting tradition and affecting an important part of life. But we appreciate that if we are to become mechanized, we shall find these things happening to us.

Then, Sir, I want to come to the question of production of documents. This Bill will now provide that a couple wishing to marry must produce the identity documents issued under the provisions of the Population Registration Act of 1950 or the identity documents under the South-West Africa Act of 1970 or an affidavit. Sir, what is the purpose of the identity document other than to identify the individual? Sir, race classification into a population group has nothing to do with the marriage laws of South Africa. Sir, I would like to remind you again that it is only under the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act which was passed in 1949 that the question of race or population group becomes material. But that is not a prohibition on people of different races marrying, that is between Whites and any other race or Coloureds and any other race, or Bantu and any other race. There is no prohibition of marriages between Coloured and Bantu, although of course the Coloureds may feel it desirable that there should be some move in that direction. But the point I am trying to get at is that under Act 55 of 1949 the only marriage which shall not be solemnized is one between a European and a non-European, and that does not appear from an identity document. It may be a conclusion which can be drawn from certain race classifications. If one goes further into the definition of what a European is, completely different tests are applied than those which lead to the classification on your identity document, because section 1 (a) (ii) reads that the only question is whether any party to such marriage professing to be a European or a non-European, as the case may be, is in appearance obviously what he professes to be and is able to show, in the case of a party professing to be a European, that he habitually consorts with Europeans as a European, or in the case of a party professing to be a non-European, that he habitually consorts with non-Europeans as a non-European. That is the only question of race which arises, but now there is to be the production of a race classification document. Sir, the hon. the Minister knows that in the application of the race classification laws as they are now, with the determination of the race of an individual by his ancestry without regard to his appearance and without regard to his acceptance and without regard to the quantum of Coloured blood that he might have in him, because he has one ancestor who is Coloured he is classified as Coloured. Yet under this law there will not be a single marriage officer who would refuse to marry that man as a European. Why must we have this now? Why must these people now be forced, when there is no law against their marriage, to produce population registration documents to a marriage officer? Sir, this has been anticipated in this country and it has caused to my knowledge heartache to people who, otherwise than having this position to face up to, would be able to marry and to carry on their lives as they have lived them with the people by whom they have been accepted and with whom they have associated. If this law is to be applied, then let the Minister come into this House and amend the Mixed Marriages Act and say how far he is now going to go in attempting to regiment the lives of citizens in terms of their race classification under the race classification laws, because that is what is now being done under this Bill. It is unnecessary. The Minister and hon. members know that the procedure adopted at present is a perfectly satisfactory one and complies with the laws of to-day, namely the production of a birth certificate or an affidavit and to leave it to the ministers of religion concerned, who probably know the people concerned intimately as members of their congregation, to decide whether or not to perform the marriage ceremony.

What about marriages before the magistrate?

The magistrate must then apply the law. If a person chooses to go to the magistrate’s court to be married in a civil ceremony without religious rites, the magistrate must apply the law as he applies it in any other sphere and decide whether they are European or not European by appearance and by acceptance. That is his task, and not to find out whether they have an ancestor with Coloured blood which makes them now in the year 1970 compelled of necessity to be classified as Coloured under the race classification laws.

What will happen to their children after they are married?

The hon. member has this bogy which we have had in this House over and over again. I believe, as everybody else in this country believes, that marriages across the colour line are undesirable because of the visitation upon the children under the laws of this land. But let me say to the hon. member, that there are many families and many children in this country who have been born of what he would regard as mixed ancestry under the rigid race classification laws but who are good citizens and are accepted as White citizens.

Sir, this law is going to be applied to South-West Africa. Is the White population of South-West Africa standing in jeopardy of being destroyed because there is no race classification law in South-West Africa? But, Sir, I must not get away from the Bill. The point I am trying to stress is that the introduction of race classification by the production of a population registration identity card into the marriage laws of South Africa is a further intrusion into the liberties of our people at the present moment when they can marry provided they are both Europeans through acceptance by the people with whom they consort. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Potchefstroom knows that the production of an identification document means that a person, because he is classified as Coloured purely by ancestry, irrespective of his appearance, must be regarded as a non-European, whereas without the production of an identity card and on the application of the law as it stands, he would be accepted as a European.

Is the hon. member not by implication now pleading for mixed marriages?

I have said quite clearly that the law at the moment is that there shall not be a marriage between a European and a non-European. But what is now implied by the introduction of the identity document is that a marriage shall not take place between a person who is classified as a Coloured person under the Population Registration Act and a White person. As against that a person at the present time under our marriage laws is not judged by his ancestry, but by what we have always advocated in this House, namely looking at their birth certificates and not those of previous generation. He is judged and it is determined whether he is a European simply by his appearance and his acceptance, a test which the hon. members opposite have said should be removed from this test of classification in South Africa. I am not pleading for mixed marriages, but I am pleading that where there is a humane means, of determining the difference between a European and a non-European in a practical and realistic way. that test should not be replaced by the rigidity of race classification.

There are other clauses in this Bill which I feel should be further considered. I do not propose to deal with the question of the age limit, because that will be done by other hon. members on this side. But in view of what I have indicated, so far as concerns the extent to which this Bill now affects the existing laws in regard to mixed marriages, it may itself require either an amendment of the Bill before us or an amendment of the Mixed Marriages Act; and also, as I have tried to indicate by reading from the prayer-books of the various religious denominations, there is a real danger in the fact that they must now use in their marriage services the insissima verba of this Act. Apart from the inconve nience and cost necessitated by reprinting their prayer-books or their marriage ceremony, I believe it also unnecessarily interferes with the traditional services and customs and usages of the various denominations in South Africa.

That is a gross exaggeration.

I would be very happy to allow the hon. member for Piket-berg to read the prayer-books which I have here and let him compare those with the words which are now in the Act, and then I wan! to ask him if he really believes that in the middle of a religious service of the nature indicated there should now be a prosiac form of undertaking. I accordingly wish to move—

It struck me at the beginning that the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, had the same respect for marriage which we in South Africa probably have traditionally for this momentous step in the life of every person. For that reason it is so much the more a pity that he once again read into this Bill too, sinister things which do not exist, and that he came forward with statements which were merely intended to cloud issues which we can discuss soberly, as well as expressions such as “computerizing of our lives” and other things which he mentioned towards the end of his speech in order to sow suspicion against legislation which in actual fact, as was said by one of the hon. members by way of interjection, need not at all have been presented as dramatically as it was done. I want to reply briefly to a few of the matters to which the hon. member referred.

In the first place, we have his observations in regard to clause 10 of the Bill, which, as he indicated, deals with the words to be used when a marriage officer declares a marriage solemnized. I was glad to notice that the hon. member had respect for the church traditions as they developed over the years, respect which I, and each of us on this side of the House, share with him. But I want to differ with him when he says that with this clause in the legislation the respect we have and ought to have will dissappear from the lives of people. There is one thing I can tell him, i.e. that as far as the Nederduitse Hervormde Kerk van Afrika is concerned, we have a marriage formula which corresponds to a large extent to those of the other sister churches, but even in those marriage formulas there are in a few places, in the words being used, minor differences which have by no means detracted from the marriage ceremony. I do not know whether this is the case with the English churches. But I want to tell you, Sir, that except for the promise which is made by the couple that is getting married, and which is made jointly by them, the Afrikaner sister churches also require a separate declaration be made by each of the parties agreeing to the marriage. I doubt whether the same procedure is followed in all of our English church denominations. Through the addition of this declaration that has to be made, no change has been effected to, and nothing has been done to detract from, the dignity of the marriage ceremony. Apart from the declaration made jointly by the couple, it happened on countless occasions that I caused the two parties to make the following declarations: Do you declare here before God and His holy congregation that you have taken and are now taking so and so here present as your lawful wife; do you promise to keep her faithfully as a pious and loyal husband is obliged to keep his lawful wife in accordance with the pronouncements of the Holy Gospel, etc. This was done on countless occasions. Actually, this merely formed an addition to the original marriage formula and. as far as I am concerned, it did not detract from the marriage formula; rather than detracting from it, it added an additional kind of responsibility that was being required from the parties to the marriage. Sir, nothing contained in this Bill, as I read it, prohibits in any way the continued and full use of that formula. In fact, as a clergyman I say that I would find a pity if any clergyman, no matter what church he represents, were to hide behind such a clause in order to detract from our fine old church formulas. I trust that those formulas will still be used, and I do not doubt for a moment that this will be done. When marriages were solemnized in the past, there were also statutory requirements which were complied with by many church denominations, although, I fear, not by all of them. One of these requirements was that, after the couple had replied to the questions put to them and before they replied separately, the marriage officer announced in the church that no lawful impediment to the solemnization of that marriage had been found. This declaration does not have anything to do with the formula, but it gave effect to statutory requirements. Now I foresee that if this clause is agreed to, it will still in some way or other be possible, even if it is not mentioned in the church books as such, to include this in the ceremony so that this question may still be put to a couple that wants to get married. Before and after asking that question the requirements laid down in the church book may still be complied with as usual. There is no necessity for a church book having to be rewritten in order to comply with these requirements. There have already been instances where clergyman of one and the same church have disagreed amongst themselves in regard to the manner in which a marriage is to be solemnized. I have on occasion attended marriage ceremonies during which the clergyman first read the marriage formula subsequent to which he held up to the couple and to the congregation a meditation taken from the Word of God. And then again, on another occasion in the same church, this was done the other way round—first a meditation and then the marriage formula. Nothing is being detracted from the church ceremony, and I do not think that there are any grounds for argument in what the hon. member—in good faith, I assume—did in fact describe as detracting from this ceremony.

I want to come to the second objection, i.e. the objection to clause 5, which deals with the publication of banns. Let me also say in this regard that, what I feel in respect of the marriage formula and the use thereof, I also feel in regard to banns of marriage. I cannot visualize at awl that the proposed amendment in clause 5 will dispense with the publication of banns of marriage in a church. In fact, the position as stated by the various church denominations is that this traditional institution will be proceeded with as a church institution, although there will be no need for the State to control it administratively. I was a clergyman for almost 20 years, and as such I solemnized many marriages. Now I want to mention to the hon. member a few of the difficulties that may arise in regard to the publication of banns. In the first place, it is being required that a couple are to have their banns published in the congregation to which each of them belong. Now, they do not always belong to one and the same congregation; one may belong to one congregation whereas the other may belong to another congregation or even to another church. As marriage officers we were unable to solemnize any marriage before the banns of both parties had been shown to us. What is the marriage officer to do when he arrives at the church, where all the relatives are present, to solemnize a marriage and the bridegroom informs him that he did not bring with him his banns of marriage from Pretoria? Such incidents have occurred; in fact, they occur every now and then. What happens in a case where a congregation is vacant and where banns cannot be published for three consecutive Sundays? In such a case it was always necessary to seek ways and means, and banns were perhaps displayed on the church door or published in a Sunday school. However, there had to be compliance with the legal requirement. As far as I am concerned, the publication of banns of marriage in a church is one of those fine traditions which help to impress people who wish to get married with the gravity of the step they are about to take —that marriage is an institution which, as it is described in the formula, has to please God and was instituted by Him. For that reason I believe that the fact that it is now being provided here that banns will no longer be necessary, will not bring about any change as regards all those people who love the church— in fact, it may rather lead to an enrichment of the lives of people in that now it is no longer necessary for them to comply with a statutory requirement, but exclusively with a dictate of the heart. I am convinced that churches will succeed in encouraging couples to have their banns published so that the congregations concerned may also take cognisance of what is happening within the circle of the family of the faith. In that way it may lead to a further enrichment and intensification of the lives of people involved in that important day.

In the third place, and here we had the old story once again, the hon. member referred to the “hardship” and “heartache” which this measure could bring about in view of the fact that the identity document would now have to be produced. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg says we are laughing at it; this is not the case. In fact, it is a source of sadness to me that people can take it upon themselves, apparently the hon. member for Wynberg as well, to hink of members sitting on this side of the House as persons who have no feeling for their fellow-man, or who do not know about “heartache” and about people being hurt. To have sympathy, is not the exclusive right of members of the Opposition; they are not the only people who are thinking about it. We do too, of course. In fact, it is for the very purpose of alleviating that “heartache” that we are introducing this legislation. Because we created for 300 years circumstances which have brought about “heartache” in the lives of people, does it mean that we must carry on in that vein? People are so quick to refer to the legislation of the past 20 years, but they should rather refer to the period of 280 years and more when there was no legislation and when circumstances were created which we have here in the Western Cape and in the Republic to-day, circumstances which have caused “heartache”—because there were no guiding lines for people. On what grounds are hon. members saying that we are not taking into account the grief experienced by other people? The hon. member for Parow wanted to know whether there ought not to be any sympathy for the descendants of people born of a marriage which had been wrongly concluded. It stands to reason that these matters have caused sleepless nights to Ministers and the officials dealing with race classification. But we must think of the interests of the population groups in general, of one’s own future as well as the future of the other peoples in one’s country. In such cases it is necessary at times to bear the responsibilities for steps taken so as to avoid further heartache.

This legislation is perfectly straightforward and is not as complicated as the hon. member wanted to make it out to be. When a marriage is solmenized there are, by and large, three groups of persons who have to be taken into consideration and for whom things must be made to run smoothly. In the first place, there are those who are most concerned in this matter—the couple that is getting married. This measure lays down what is expected of them so that their married life may remain as pleasant as their wedding day. There will always have to be statutory requirements; there will always have to be control on the part of the State—hence these requirements with which a couple has to comply. They cannot simply go to a marriage officer one fine day and say that he has to marry them. They must make sure in advance that their documents are in order and that they know what the contents is of the declaration they are to make. I trust that this measure will contribute to more and more marriages being solemnized in church. To me it was rather an unpleasant surprise to hear that 36 per cent of the marriages solemnized in our country to-day, are solemnized by special licence.

It can still be done before a clergyman.

Yes, fortunately many of those marriages by special licence are still being solemnized by clergyman. I trust that this measure will have a beneficial effect on the solemnization of marriages in church, and that solemnization in church will in the future continue to play that role in congregations and in the people of congregations which it traditionally played in the lives of both language groups in the past.

The second group concerned in a marriage, is the parents, the congregation and the circle of friends of the couple concerned. Here I want to say a few words about the question of raising objections to a proposed marriage. This measure provides that any objection to a marriage is to be lodged in writing. I trust that it will be made possible for people who are in a position to raise legitimate objections, to be afforded an opportunity of doing so, and that in the regulations ways and means will be found which will not make it impossible for them to do so. The hon. the Minister stated that over the past ten years no matrimonial tie had been annulled because of objections raised against it, and therefore I believe that these statutory provisions are more than adequate to guard against marriages which should not be solemnized.

The third group concerned in a marriage, is the marriage officers. I have with me here statements made by church members representative of the vast majority of church organizations in our country. Their views on this legislation were secured in writing. Apart from the United Hebrew Congregation, all the other church denominations have come out in favour of this legislation.

Is it this Bill?

In favour of this particular provision which deals with banns of marriage.

Through the Government Gazette interested parties were therefore afforded the opportunity of stating their views on this measure, and for that reason, and in conclusion, I just want to support this measure wholeheartedly and express the hope that it will be used in conjunction with the Population Registration Act, not to regiment our lives, as hon. members opposite are suggesting, but to arrange it properly. I trust that this measure will also be instrumental in adding to, rather than detracting from, the value of one of the finest and most important days in a person’s life.

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of great pride and privilege to me to have the opportunity of addressing this House as a member after a short absence. I have sufficient love for the traditions of Parliament to deeply appreciate the opportunity of being back amongst members in this House.

And amongst friends.

And, I am sure, amongst friends, as I have been so well reminded.

I should like to deal with the views expressed by the hon. member who has just sat down. I should like to say that it is quite obvious that he is sufficiently disturbed at the contents of this Bill to have said what he did. He got very emotional about the matters dealt with in this Bill. He was particularly roused by what the hon. member for Green Point had said and, in fact, almost departed from the very sound and useful injunction of the hon. the Minister in respect of this Bill, namely to avoid making this matter a political issue at all, because this is a matter which affects the life of a community. It affects the family life of the community which is a very important aspect of our people, particularly in a country like the Republic of South Africa.

The motion moved by the hon. member for Green Point that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee follows the precedent that was established in 1960 when the principal Act was dealt with in this House. I think it might be of interest to hon. members to know that the Minister who presented the Bill went so far as to state that before the Bill was introduced in the House, it had been submitted for comment and advice to 59 Judges, including Judges of appeal, 12 of the chief magistrates of the Republic, the law societies, most of the religious denominations and organizations, the South African National Council for Marriage Guidance and Family Life and all interested Government Departments. After the matter was debated, it then went to a Select Committee. One can well appreciate why this is done. It is because of the very level to which the hon. member for Green Point raised the discussion of this Bill in reply to the hon. the Minister when he dealt with it as a matter which affects the social, religious and family life of the community. Therefore I think the hon. member for Witbank really mistranslated in words what he felt in his heart because no criticism has deliberately been levelled on the question of banns, it is a change of procedure to which the hon. member for Green Point did not refer. I should like to point out to him the fact that marriage evolved basically as part of the religious life of the God-fearing peoples of the world. It became the basis of the entire social structure of our communities as we know them. It in fact has become the cornerstone of our whole ordered social structure. We pay great attention to family life. Therefore when we deal with the question of the religious service, it is not a question for argument that there might be one or two differences in the wording which has now been submitted. The point is that by the employment of the imperative word “shall” with regard to the formula that has to be applied in asking what impediment exists and, secondly, in confirming the fact that the two people have been joined as husband and wife, it virtually reduces it to purely a recording and a civil purpose merely to comply with specific requirements of the law. It takes away from it entirely the august religious atmosphere which it should enjoy. That is the purpose of the criticism.

The criticism is that in terms of this clause the religious service is something which has been permitted as an adjunct to what is required by the law. That part of section 30 that is taken out by clause 10 of the Bill reads as follows—

The new section 30 (1) will read as follows:

30. (1) In solemnizing any marriage the marriage officer …

Then follows the part which is to be taken out.

… shall put the following questions …

Then the law requires a formula because he is not a person who is in any way associated with the religious life of the community. In other words, there has to be some civil provision in order to regularize and record marriages. By removing these words in question you have virtually, and I think you can interpret this almost as I put it to the House now, removed the whole of the religious purpose of marriage from the law.

But it does not prohibit it, surely?

I never said that it was done deliberately. I said that that was how it could be interpreted. As far as the legislation is concerned, it makes marriage purely a civil matter to be recorded properly and in which certain words have to be stated.

That is not true.

Hon. members may protest. I am not raising this issue to be critical of any deliberate act on the part of the Minister. The hon. the Minister has presented to us a clause which I as a member of this House have to interpret as people outside will interpret it. It is perfectly clear that the emphasis of the religious side for which the hon. member for Witbank pleaded with so much emotion and in such depth, has been removed. That is an important aspect in a country such as ours. That is my point of view. It has no motive or malice. I, as a deeply religious person, have this point of view as a result of my interpretation of this clause.

I want to deal particularly with the question of the change in the minimum age at which a girl can be permitted to marry with the consent of her parents and without the consent of the hon. the Minister. I personally cannot understand why this change is being made. The hon. the Minister correctly dealt with a certain amount of history which was dealt with in extenso in 1935 by the then Minister of the Interior when he presented the original provision which is now contained in the Act of 1961 which we are seeking to amend. He went into the whole matter in great detail. As the hon. the Minister correctly said, at that time only the common law applied and the age of puberty was the minimum age, namely 14 for boys and 12 for girls. At that time they had also canvassed through the League of Nations to find out what was the position among those nations who were members of the League of Nations. It was found that the majority had accepted the age of 16. In fact, it is of interest to know that only the Orange Free State, as was correctly said, differed from the rest of our country because that was the only province which did not take the common law as the basis of the minimum age.

It had in fact passed a law which made provision for an age of 18 for boys and 15, not 16, for girls. Despite the fact that the Orange Free State had made the age for girls 15, the law was amended to provide for a minimum age of 16. I want to point out that this question of ensuring that girls and boys who were too young do not marry formed virtually the entire basis of discussion on this Bill. It was described at that time as “the evil of child marriages”. Figures were quoted, showing that over a period of 21 years, namely from 1914 to 1935, there were 1,102 cases where girls under 16 had contracted marriages. In the early years of that period, from 1914 to 1917 for example the average number per annum was 26. Thereafter the figures rose to 75 per annum. The Minister said that the numbers, in relation to the total population, were not very high, but that it was nevertheless an evil which, from a social and economic point of view, was of importance, and had to be eradicated.

The 1961 Bill was sent to a Select Committee, and even then a tremendous array of knowledgable persons such as Judges, councils for marriage guidance, etc., did not find it necessary to change the minimum age. They accepted it and it is in fact of interest to know that it actually formed part of the discussion. That is the interesting thing. It was not merely bypassed as something that should be left in the law and something that did not merit consideration or criticism. It was actually dealt with. In this connection I should like to quote from Hansard (Vol. 104, Col. 5091) —

Those were the words of the then Minister of the Interior, and he went on to deal with that particular issue. What I am trying to emphasize, Sir, is the fact that in 1961, when the entire Act, which had been passed 25 years earlier, could have been revised, this was not done. After all, many things had happened in the world during that time. A war had taken place. The whole structure of society had changed. The conservative strength of family life had also undergone considerable changes. There was a certain amount of creaking in the foundations of this life, and splitting as well. There therefore was an opportunity in 1961 for this Select Committee to revise the whole Act. They were, of course, supported by all the luminaries to whom I have referred. In the discussions in Parliament specific reference was made to this particular clause. It was therefore not merely bypassed.

Therefore one wonders why the Minister now presents this change to the House, without even, as was correctly pointed out, having called for comments from the numerous bodies which have been established to consider such matters, bodies which are to-day dealing with a society which is sick. These bodies are dealing with a society of teenagers who are looking for guidance and who cannot find their feet in this fast changing jet age in which we live. We have numerous problems facing teenagers. Indeed, there are so many that one wonders why an additional problem should have been introduced. Quite frankly, Sir, when I read this particular change, I was nonplussed. I am sure that many people in our country are nonplussed. I am sure that many mothers will be very concerned when they hear more about this particular clause. How many families are going to be deeply disturbed? The hon. member for Witbank, who is not in the House at the moment, refrained from dealing with this clause. I do not know why he did so. His Minister enjoined him to deal with this matter on a non-political basis. He became very wound up about a number of factors concerning banns, which no one has overemphasized during the course of this discussion. [Interjection.] I am very sincere in this regard. I am making no particular point, except to wonder why a man who has such a deeply religious outlook, and who has obviously played a part in his community, has missed this particular aspect.

I say to the hon. the Minister from my heart that this aspect should either be withdrawn, or otherwise, in terms of the amendment, the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee so that we can obtain the views of experts. I say that it is not sufficient to tell the House that the grounds of time, personnel, money and the numerous applications with which his Department and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has to deal, should be the grounds upon which this extraordinary change in our law should be made. I ask the Minister to give us figures in regard to the Western world to-day, where child marriages have been avoided over the years by legislation, which may show that the majority have changed to the age of 15. I should like to have those figures produced to the House to satisfy the country that it is so.

I am also not satisfied that we, the people of South Africa, should necessarily follow slavishly that particular point of view. I am not satisfied that the preponderance of thinking amongst Western peoples supports this measure. One must remember that UNO includes a number of Asiatic and African countries. Other countries of the world, too, are members, and we know the developments which have taken place in marriage laws in those countries. In fact, it might not even be surprising to find that there is a preponderance of thinking which supports this move, but not on the part of the Western countries, with whose form of culture and civilization we have a very strong and intimate affinity. I therefore say that the reasons which the hon. the Minister has given are not sound at all.

Let me go further and quote a rather interesting passage from a case which took place in 1961 in our Cape law courts. This was a case which dealt with the validity of a marriage in which a girl under 16 had got married. Certain other issues, which flowed from the marriage, arose, and the matter was taken to court. The court held that, whatever the circumstances relating to the time of marriage, the consent of the parents, etc., the very fact that the Minister had not granted his permission. made that marriage an invalid one. The marriage was therefore null and void. I should like to quote what the learned Judge said. He drew attention to certain other cases both in England and here, and went on to say—

Here the Judge interpolates: “(As was the position in Roman Dutch Law) ”. He goes on to quote—

Then he goes on to say—

Sir, my appeal to the hon. the Minister is a very simple one. I say that one may make changes in technical provisions with regard to the orderly life of a community. One may differ on the question whether they are wise or otherwise; one may differ as to the method of change, or one may oppose them entirely; one may be over-conservative but, Sir, when you deal with the basic structure of family life which, after all, is the basis of our Western civilization, then it merits very much more consideration than just the cold facts of a considerable number of applications, of shortage of personnel, of money that has to be spent, and that there is a lot of work to be done by various departments. I say that you cannot reduce this vital factor in our lives to that level. Sir, I am sure that the hon. the Minister did not do this with any sense of deliberation; I know him too well and I know that he pays high regard to the factors that I have mentioned here, but it is possible—and it very often occurs—that the Department may become a little over-active in these various matters. We are living, as I have said earlier, in a strangely permissive society where teenagers have tremendous problems, and probably the Minister does not fully appreciate the effect of this change upon family life. In supporting the hon. member for Green Point, I therefore appeal to him on a completely non-political, unbiased basis, to take this Bill back to a Select Committee so that we can get the viewpoints of the public, of the organizations which exist for dealing with these matters and of the churches, so that we can all come back to this House and deal with this Bill with our conscience clear, our souls cleansed and our hearts at one in making a change which in my opinion must have a very severe and a very profound effect upon the life of our community.

The hon. member for Jeppes made mention of the fact that he was back after a short absence, but having listened to him and also having watched the Opposition’s display during the past two weeks, it would appear to me as if the hon. member merely interrupted his short absence in order to come and fetch his other colleagues to join him in his future absence, after the next election.

The chief argument of the hon. member, who accused the hon. member for Witbank of being very emotional, while he himself was just as emotional as the hon. member for Wit-bank, if not more so, was that this measure was no depriving marriage of its religious character. But, Sir, the truth is, in fact, to the contrary. The pleas of newspapers, sociologists and all those people are specifically to the effect that the Bill is justified and that the authorities should not interfere too much in marriages. I should like to refer you briefly to what Dr. C. J. Alant, a senior lecturer in sociology at the University of South Africa said, according to Dagbreek of 26th July (translation) —

Sir, even the churchmen are not clear on this matter. They have not yet adopted a very strong standpoint, as the Opposition claims they have. It is stated as follows in the Argus of 25th July—

Sir, hon. members on that side were altogether right in saying that this Bill touched upon measures and upon matters of an intimate nature. If one thinks of this Bill one’s first impression is that one is here moving in the innermost domestic and family circles. The privacy of the subject of this Bill is immediately felt when one reads its provisions, and in addition the marriage tie is probably one of the most important cornerstones of our society, of a nation and of the people of that country. It defines one’s future to a very large extent, if not the largest extent; it tells one where one’s future status is to lie; where one is going to feel at home; it defines the continuation of one’s people; it defines one’s status in the community in which one moves, and for that reason the marriage tie is probably one of the most important ties existing to-day. The major portion of our laws of marriage we find, of course, in common law. The common law has, for a very long time, left it to the people and the church to define the laws of marriage. The legislators themselves never interfered much with marriages and the laws relating to it. The legislators only had an interest in the results of the marriage, the results of the children and the results in respect of property. This was the legislator’s chief interest in marriages. Sir, one of our most important writers to-day on marriages and the relationships between husband and wife, Professor H. A. Hahlo, the author of the book “South African Law of Husband and Wife”, presents the history of marriage in the third edition as follows. He says that up to approximately the eleventh century marriage and everything relating to it were left to the private individual; the people themselves made arrangements among themselves; it was a domestic matter and was to be arranged and handled accordingly. From the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries, he says, everything in connection with marriage was left to the church. The church had its own ordinances; it put its own stamp on marriage and defined how the members of its congregations and the people should handle a marriage and how they should live in the marital state. After the sixteenth century the legislature intervened and took marriage under its wing, but only in most of the countries where the reformational religions predominated. Professor Hahlo maintains that it is difficult to predict the direction which marriage and the laws in connection with marriage will take in the future. According to him it is not impossible—he describes it as a very great possibility—that marriage is once more going to swing towards the individual, and that the authorities are going to take an increasingly smaller part in the laws of marriage. Sir, it is also interesting to examine the works of a few of our old writers in connection with marriage, and to read their definitions of marriage. We thus find the definition of Hugo de Groot, probably one of the greatest writers on Roman-Dutch Law; he states (translation) —

With this definition in mind, one asks oneself: What is the position in common law and how has society accepted and interpreted this? According to Roman Law, and also according to Roman-Dutch Law, which is our law and from which we drew our entire legal system, the puberty ages for children were determined at 14 years for boys and 12 years for girls. The age of 14 years for boys was also, of course, the age at which boys could take up arms, could obtain the vote and could engage in war. This was the age of puberty, and this age was, according to Roman-Dutch Law, also subsequently adopted by the majority of Western countries. They also regarded it as the earliest age at which a couple could enter into marriage—14 years for boys and 12 years for girls. The Marriage Act, No. 8 of 1935, brought about a change by setting the age for boys at 18 years and that for girls at 16 years. But, Sir, when a marriage must be contracted, the most important question is who desires it. The desire to contract a marriage rests with the mature man and woman themselves and with no one else, but if the couple are still minors, it is in the first place compulsory for both the parents of that couple, or if there are no parents, then their guardians, to get permission for the contracting of that marriage. When there is only one parent, that parent’s permission is sufficient, and if there are no longer any parents at all, then application can be made to the Supreme Court for permission for that couple to get married. If the parents were perhaps to refuse to give their permission, then application could be made to a Judge, who could then give permission. One asks oneself: What are the provisions of section 26 of the Marriage Act of 1961? This Act provides that the Minister’s permission is necessary when minors under the age of 18 years, in the case of boys, and 16 years, in the case of girls (according to the present Act), want to enter into marriage. But if the Judge or the courts have given permission—and this must be very clearly borne in mind—the Minister’s permission is no longer necessary. A Judge or the courts, of course, only give permission when there are no longer any parents or guardians, and the Judge or the courts can give permission even though the children are under the ages of 18 and 16 years. In bearing all these arguments in mind —and I now more specifically want to dwell on the question of girls under the age of 15 who may now get married—in thinking of the history of the laws of marriage, as I have sketched them here briefly, and in thinking of the private nature of the whole matter, one asks oneself: Who is best able and best equipped to give permission for a boy under the age of 18 years, and a girl under the age of 15 years (16 years under the present Act) to be able to get married? Are the parents who know those children, or perhaps a Judge, or the courts, or the Minister in the best position to give that permission? In analysing the position under the present Act, we find that very few girls under the age of 16 applied for the necessary permission, as the hon. the Minister also said in his Second Reading speech. There are very few, and one may now accept that the applications from girls under 15 years of age that are going to be submitted will be even fewer than the applications thus-far received. Added to that is the fact that the overall majority of these requests come from girls who have landed in trouble, who are perhaps pregnant and must now embark upon marriage. And one can hardly imagine that permission being denied these girls. One should perhaps encourage them to get married for very good and obvious reasons. Disregarding this number as well, there remain very few cases where the Minister will in any case have to give his permission in the long run. In most of these cases the girls would shortly reach the age of 16 years and could then get married anyway, and one should not lose sight of that aspect either. Where the parents grant their permission, the Minister would not easily refuse his either, since the Minister would prefer girls to get married under those circumstances. There I believe the Minister would give his permission. Several court cases have also decided that the choice should be left to the parents. I am thinking, for example, of a case such as Paton v. Paton, a 1929 Transvaal case, where the Judge made it very clear that the courts would not very easily interfere in the desires of the parents when they apply for such permission. But suppose the girl is under 16 years of age and the parents refuse permission, an application could surely be made to the courts or to a Judge for permission for the girl to get married. There would thus in the long run be very few cases which would be laid before the Minister, and very few cases which he would eventually dismiss and where he would refuse them the right to get married.

But I said there were also other good reasons why a person should give the necessary permission to these girls. In the first place I am thinking, for example, of the disgrace to that family in which a girl is perhaps pregnant, under the age of 15 or 16 years and wanting to get married, but permission is refused. I am thinking of the shame that is going to cling to her and her child for the rest of their lives. Very few people realize the remorse of those young girls, their inner struggle and the injury done to their characters by that occurrence. When I was practising as an attorney I had a few of these cases where people approached me to apply for the necessary permission on their behalf. In one case, which I still remember very well, the couple obtained the necessary permission and got married. A few years afterwards I again heard of them by chance, and then things were still going very well for them. How things are to-day I do not know, but at that stage things were still going well. In another case which I remember, the Minister gave his permission, but then something else happened and they never got married. I suppose that hon. members of the Opposition, and many other gentlemen, would be able to come forward with cases they know of where things turned out well, and perhaps also where things did not turn out as well. But to claim that prospective permission would give rise to a greater number of divorces is not correct. I do not believe that we can depend on that assertion, for the simple reason that the number of cases of permission being granted would be very few in relation to the number of marriages taking place. Whether it would in any way disturb the balance of divorces is highly doubtful. One also bears in mind that the divorce figure in South Africa to-day is already alarmingly high. Approximately one out of every three marriages contracted in the Republic to-day ends in the divorce court in the long run. I simply cannot see that the granting of this prospective permission could in any way disturb this balance. On the contrary, the good results obtained with the granting of this permission could compensate to a much better extent for the disadvantages which would result from this permission being withheld.

But one also thinks of another good reason. One thinks, for example, of that child who is not born of a lawful marriage, and of the fact that he must eventually go to meet the future with a blot on his name, that he in fact has no name. One would like to make that child’s future easier for him, so that he may enter those future years in the knowledge that he was born of a lawful marriage and so that no stigma will attach to him in the future. We are all probably in favour of the moral standards of our people being kept high. It is also highly doubtful whether this permission, which is now to be granted at the age of 15 years, is in any way going to be detrimental to those moral standards we should like to maintain.

There were also other arguments against the marriage of a girl of 15 years, i.e. that such a girl would not be in a position to bring her child up properly. To a certain extent one would concede that such a girl, with her motherly instinct, could perhaps bring that child up properly, but the question is always whether that girl could give the child the necessary education. These girls of 15 and 16 years of age are more receptive to help and to sensible advice from parents, friends and people who know more than they do, and they would be more inclined to take advice from those people so that they could more easily bridge those few years when they are still inexperienced. There was also an argument about these marriages at 15 years of age could perhaps promote larger families. This is, of course, to be welcomed, and one does not see any disadvantage in that. One sees the encouragement for larger white families in the Republic as a good thing. It is not that one wants to encourage girls of 15 to go and get married now; on the contrary, one would certainly continue to discourage these girls as far as possible. But I also believe that 15-year-olds would probably not like to get married, but most of them unfortunately find themselves in a position where they must get married. Then one also thinks of what the hon. the Minister said about the Department’s investigations when an application is received from a 16-year-old girl. It takes about three months before that investigation is completed, and a great deal of expense and manpower is involved. If this could be eliminated to a certain extent it would be of great help.

As far as this aspect is concerned, I want to conclude by emphasizing once more that it is, in the first place, certainly the parents’ responsibility to give permission for their children to get married or not, and that this should not be left to the Minister or to the courts. The parents are certainly the people who must carry the greatest responsibility in this respect. Marriage is and remains a private matter; it is a family matter, a domestic matter. There are even some of the Opposition newspapers which say that it should perhaps be left to parental choice. I quote from the Cape Times of Monday, 27th July—

Bill will, it is to be hoped, make it quite clear that the Government does not mean to encourage earlier marriages.

Then the Cape Times, as well as the Argus goes on to say that it should be left to the parents themselves to decide. Others adopt a wait-and-see attitude as far as this Bill is concerned, but they do add in conclusion that they think that it nevertheless remains the parents’ responsibility, and that the authorities should not interfere too much as far as the contracting of marriages is concerned.

I want to conclude by saying that this Bill is certainly in the spirit of the times, and a reflection of circumstances. The time has come, as the Minister also said, for us to make the necessary adjustments as far as our laws of marriage are concerned, and for us to revise this question of 15-year-olds and, as the hon. member for Witbank said, the question of banns.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus has dealt with this Bill mainly from the legal point of view and has also disclosed certain consequences which he thinks might arise from the passing of this legislation, but he did not indicate any argument against the amendment moved by this side of the House that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee before second reading for further investigation. I think that, if anything, the hon. member indicated the need for this measure to have far greater investigation than merely discussing it in this House, and that a Select Committee of this House should have the opportunity of hearing evidence from various persons and responsible organizations who are directly affected by the consequences of this Bill now before this House. I think of the sociologists, some of whom have indicated concern that the passing of this Bill is not in the interests of our young people. In judging any legislation like this, the criterion should always be whether it is in the interest of the child. At this stage of the debate we have not yet had any indication from hon. members opposite, and certainly not from the hon. the Minister, that this particular Bill is in the interest of the child. I refer now to clause 9 of the Bill. I think this is of paramount importance and that a Select Committee of this House should have the opportunity of hearing evidence from sociologists and from child welfare organizations. I am quite sure that the National Council for Child Welfare has not yet had an opportunity of fully discussing the implications of this Bill as it affects their particular field of work. There are also the various church denominations. There are many churches who have expressed concern about the provisions of clause 9. as well as doubting the wisdom of no longer making it mandatory for the churches to insist on the calling of banns, etc. In addition, there are the marriage guidance counsellors who are facing an enormous problem in South Africa at present with the tremendous increase in the divorce rate, particularly amongst the Whites.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus mentioned the question of divorce, but seemed to pass it over as being a matter of no great consequence, because he said the numbers are not really so great after all compared with the number of marriages contracted. I should, however, like to remind the hon. member that this Government has appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate this very real problem in regard to the high divorce rate. Here, too, I believe the marriage counsellors would be able to give invaluable evidence to a Select Committee considering a Bill of this nature.

The aspects concerning the calling of banns, etc., have been dealt with by the hon. member for Green Point, as well as a number of other matters. I intend confining myself mainly to the principle involved in clause 9 of the Bill. which alters the age of the girl only where permission is required from the Minister.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch I was dealing with clause 9 of the Bill which aims at reducing the age of girls who shall be capable of marriage without the consent of the Minister to 15 years. I think in considering the matter and taking into account what the hon. the Minister has said, it seems extremely difficult to find justification for bringing about this proposed amendment. The hon. the Minister referred to the question of administration difficulties and of costs. This appeared to be the main yardstick why he had decided to amend this particular section. If it is to be judged merely on account of the amount of administrative work and costs involved, surely, at a later stage if there is a large number of applications for permission to marry in respect of girls under the age of 15, then the hon. the Minister, applying the same argument, will have to come back to this House to ask for a further reduction in the age to, say, 14 years. I feel that this is not a justifiable argument to bring about a change of this nature. The hon. the Minister also mentioned the question of climatic conditions in South Africa and the earlier physical maturity amongst young people. But it seems apparent that in terms of this amendment, only the girls have made that physical improvement, that is to say, earlier maturity, as the age for boys is being left unaltered at 18.

I believe that many people outside who are particularly interested in this amending legislation will be looking to the Minister to give greater justification than the justification that he has given when he introduced this particular measure. As I said earlier, the yardstick must surely be based on what is in the best interests of the community as a whole including the child. In terms of other legislation passed by this House various ages have been determined whereby a child requires protection. I refer particularly to the Children’s Act of 1960 which was an amended Act based on the 1937 Act. This Act is regarded not only in South Africa, but in other parts of the world as a children’s charter. In terms of that Act 18 years is determined as the age where a child is deemed to be a child and requires protection in terms of legislation. However, our legislation in the past has provided that girls of under 16 had to obtain the consent of the Minister of the Interior to marry, whereas that of boys was 18 years. This coincides with the Children’s Act. In looking for reasons as to why this should not be proceeded with, I believe that there are many sociologists, child welfare workers and marriage guidance councillors who are opposed to this measure in principle. Many of them have not yet had an opportunity of submitting representations to the hon. the Minister although the Bill was published in the Government Gazette some two or three weeks ago. It is for this reason that we on this side of the House believe that a Select Committee would be able to take valuable evidence from these people who are intimately associated with this particular problem and aspect of the Marriage Act.

Now, Sir, when we look at existing legislation, we find that the Children’s Act provides for protection to those under the age of 18. We also find that in terms of various ordinances the compulsory school-leaving age is fixed at 16 years unless a child has passed Std. 8 or has special permission to leave school.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has consulted with the Minister of National Education in this regard because as there is a compulsory school-leaving age, surely it is going to create extreme difficulties if permission to marry is granted to 15-year-olds. Hon. members opposite might wonder why this is an important point, but I have just mentioned that the Children’s Act provides protection for children. It is interesting to note that in terms of this Act a child can be declared to be in need of care if that child is a habitual truant. Unless this married woman of 15 has permission to leave school, in terms of the Children’s Act she can be subject to an investigation as a habitual truant if she is not attending school. I am trying to indicate that at the present time certain protection is afforded to these young people by legislation. One aspect of this protection is that of school-going age. Having discussed this matter with educationists and people who are interested in education I have found that many have the view that a girl of 16 in Std. IX is often far more mature than a girl of 15 in St. VII or Std. VIII. There is therefore the question of the effect of this legislation on existing legislation already passed by this House or by a Provincial Council.

Furthermore the welfare of the person concerned is of prime importance. Here I refer to child welfare organizations and child welfare agencies who deal with this problem in many instances and of course carry out investigations where such matters require investigation. Such matters are often referred to them by the Department of Social Welfare. Here the view of many social workers is that there are a number of cases in respect of which it is necessary for them to obtain permission. The young girl is pregnant and it has become necessary for her to marry. It is, however, also the view of many social workers at the present time that it is not always necessarily the right course to adopt to encourage a person to marry if that is not going to be a satisfactory marriage. In other words, pregnancy is no longer regarded as a valid reason for a young person to be forced into marriage. The matter must be dealt with after thorough investigation and decided upon by those persons who are qualified to make certain recommendations in respect of this particular aspect of the work. This has been the case in the past as far as girls who have attained the age of 16 years are concerned. In terms of this legislation the age is to be reduced to 15 years. I fail to see any valid reason why the age should be reduced by one year. There are many persons falling into this category who could benefit by such an investigation being carried out on a professional basis. This measure will limit this particular group by lowering the age by one year.

This also has an effect on other legislation in terms of which young persons are protected. I refer to legislation which was passed by this House only last year, namely the Immorality Amendment Act, Act No. 57 of 1969. Section 1 of that Act made it an offence for any sexual act to be committed with a girl under the age of 16. This has been embodied in legislation passed by this House as recently as 1969. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has taken into consideration the various effects that this Bill has in this connection. Girls under the age of 16 are at present protected in terms of that legislation and it is indeed an offence for a sexual act to be committed with a girl under 16 years of age.

I come now to the question of the welfare of the child. This is indeed of paramount importance in dealing with legislation of this nature. One must be guided by the experience of persons connected with child welfare. If one looks at reports one is depressed to see the large number of young marriages that end in failure. The legislation before us will reduce the age at which a girl can marry and this could mean a larger number of girls marrying at that younger age.

The hon. the Minister is undoubtedly aware of the consequences of many of these young marriages. If not, he could certainly get a report from the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions which would indicate to him the seriousness of this matter. These welfare agencies are continually up against difficulties concerning the break up of marriages, separation and desertion. In discussing this with a child welfare worker only a few days ago, he said to me that a large number of these broken marriages stem from marriages which have been contracted at a very young age. After a short while it is found that these persons are emotionally and financially unable to cope with the responsibilities of marriage and in many cases parenthood. Under these circumstances, one or the other of-the partners desert and then the matter is referred to the welfare agencies to deal with, if there are children involved. Many of these cases do involve children.

I believe that our present position where the age when a person can get married without the permission of the Minister of the Interior, is restricted to 16 years, is a deterrent to many of these young people who have been anticipating marriage at a very young age. Although the Government says that it is not necessarily encouraging the younger marriages, they would certainly open the door to these young marriages by means of this legislation. Many of these marriages as I have said end in disaster.

It is unfortunate that we in South Africa today have this particularly high divorce rate. A commission has been appointed by the hon. the Minister for Social Welfare and Pensions and they are investigating this very problem. Surely, there would be very good reason for the hon. the Minister of the Interior not to proceed with this particular legislation without having had the benefit of studying that report which should be forthcoming in the not too distant future. Surely, there is no haste in placing this legislation on the Statute Book without any further consideration and deliberation. If we look at this question of divorce, we can see it is one which brought about a rather serious situation in South Africa. The latest available figures, the figures for 1969, show that 7,373 divorces took place among the Whites only in this period. Compared with previous figures, namely those of 1968, we see that the figures was 6,251. In 1967 the figure was 6,112. This represents a more than 20 per cent increase in the number of divorces which took place among the White group during the past two years. At this moment the Commission is considering this question of divorce, which has had a disastrous effect on the family life of many of the White inhabitants of the Republic. Indeed, where we have had the benefit of a report, known as the Piek Commission which reported to this House some years ago, we see that it indicated the high divorce rate amongst the Whites and the number of children who are in need of care and placed in institutions because of this specific reason.

I refer to this Piek Commission report, because I believe it does assist us in gauging whether this particular legislation which is before us is necessary and whether it should not be dealt with by a select committee which can investigate further various aspects. In the Piek Commission report it is shown that children who are committed to institutions as far as the Whites are concerned, exceed 5,000 in number. Of the 5,000 children, 82 per cent have parents and many of these cases are the results of divorce, separation or parents living in discord. I believe that this legislation which is before us, could adversely affect the situation since girls will now be able to marry at a younger age, a year younger, without having to get the permission of the Minister of the Interior. I believe that no case has been made to justify this amendment without consideration of all the agencies and all the persons involved who will be able to give an unbiased report and evidence to a select committee, so that the committee can decide whether the principle should be adopted or not.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that as far as his side is concerned there should be a free vote when this matter comes up in the Committee Stage. I do hope that hon. members opposite will take advantage of such a free vote to speak in the interests of the young people of South Africa so as to see that legislation is passed which is not merely judged by the yardstick of the administration, the cost involved and the time involved, but by the main criterion, whether it is in the interests of the young people and in the interests of the community as a whole to proceed with this legislation. We on this side of the House believe that it is necessary to have further in vestigation and deliberation, and that is why I have pleasure in supporting the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Green Point.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the school of thought of the hon. members of the Opposition, it is striking that the people who are always very anxious when the Minister of a particular department has to obtain a decisive say in a matter, because it is very dangerous, are pleading to-day for the Minister to retain his powers. I am surprised that they are not anxious that he would perhaps misuse his powers. I want to say that hon. friends, and the hon. member for Umbilo who has just resumed his seat, place the emphasis on the wrong spot. If the emphasis was on the protection of our children and minors, then I would have fully agreed with him, but if he argues that the lowering of the age at which the Minister must give permission from 16 to 15 means in practice the exposure of a certain number of our young people to the hard facts of life and the wolves, I think he is exaggerating altogether.

Various speakers emphasized the fact that marriage in our society is a predominantly religious ceremony, that this lends a particular dignity to the ceremony and that it is universally regarded by our people as an important occasion in any person’s life. I should like to underline this, but I should not like to elaborate further, because I do not consider it necessary. I want to make use of the occasion to point out that although marriage is treated by us, and respected, as a religious institution with a strong religious element, we should also remember that marriage is also a legal institution. There is almost no social contract which is put to the test to such an extent as is the marriage contract, because it can affect one’s person, one’s property and one’s descendants far into the future. I therefore differ from those people who think that the marriage ceremony should go back to the arbitrary control of private individuals or bodies. Specifically in the light of this important fact, it is surely necessary for the State, which is concerned with the interests of its citizens, to give the closest supervision to the legality of marriage. We simply cannot ignore this. As a result of the increased complexity of our society, it has become necessary for the State to give strict supervision to the marriage contract, the marriage, its consequences and its legality. This is particularly necessary because, as a result of present-day circumstances, that contract is put to the test from time to time more than any other. I should like to emphasize this point very strongly.

I now want to come to a point which was underlined by the hon. member for Green Point, i.e. the necessity for identity documents. He has a very serious objection to that. He said that there were certain marriages which could have been contracted, but which would now be prevented. He says that we are thereby now interfering in the private lives of people, etc. When we come to the marriage contract we simply cannot ignore certain facts; least of all in our country, where we have such a heterogeneous population, and where we have particular laws regulating human relationships and group relationships. In that connection our identity card, or the future identity document, is a very important document, which also has an important role in the legality of a particular marriage. Therefore, while under present circumstances it is possible for a marriage to be concluded without an identity card being produced, as could happen in certain cases, it is wrong to argue to-day that we are interfering in the private lives or choices of certain individuals. Take the example of someone classified as white and someone classified as Coloured. This would, in fact, mean that the children born of that marriage would be classified as Coloured, as a result of that person’s classification; here we have then concluded a contract, allowed a marriage to take place, in the knowledge that we have sent a whole progeny along the road to classification as Coloureds. I say that it is then better for us to ask the relevant persons to produce their identity documents, for us to make sure that that marriage will in consequence be legal, and that that marriage, and the offspring born of it, will not suffer as a result of other laws and regulations of society. I cannot see how the hon. member for Green Point can now continue with that argument and say, “Let us overlook these matters”, and then we come along to-morrow or the day after with other laws and other provisions which would affect those people most deeply and most painfully. I cannot but decide that the hon. friend is opposed in principle to population grouping and race classification. Therefore he now actually wants to attack that Act here from another angle and try to cancel it out. I think we must be consistent. There are facts we must accept, i.e. that in South Africa we have certain population relationships, population classifications and race groups, and that we must lead our population along those lanes, otherwise there are many provisions which would affect them detrimentally at a later stage, and the peaceful and ordered composition of our society would be threatened.

I now come to another point, which was also advanced by the hon. member for Umbilo, in connection with the lowering of the age at which ministerial approval is necessary. He tried to make out that we wanted to introduce here a total lowering of the marriage age. That is not what it means. It actually means that on the basis of 35 years of experience and the statistics collected, there are cases from time to time (about 200 per year) in the 15 to 16 year age group where ministerial permission for a marriage must be obtained as a result of the girl being under the age of 16. In almost all those cases the parents give their permission for that marriage, and the Minister is expected to investigate the matter, one might almost say to waste his manpower resources on an investigation which would, in the majority of cases, eventually lead to permission for that marriage. Life is complicated, circumstances are very complicated, and it is very difficult, where people have disposed themselves towards concluding a marriage and where parents are in favour of this, to draw a line through this from the ministerial side.

Therefore I want hon. members just to give attention for a moment to the figures which we do, in fact, have at our disposal for the years 1962 to 1969. The applications received for girls under 16 years of age total 1,325 for the eight year period. Of those cases, 1,038 were between the ages of 15 and 16, 261 between 14 and 15, 27 between 13 and 14, and two between 12 and 13. The number of cases between 15 and 16 years which were refused was a mere 133 (12.8 per cent), between 14 and 15, 58 (22 per cent), between 13 and 14, 24 (37 per cent), and one out of the two cases between 12 and 13. This indicates to us that in that particular group the overall majority of cases lies within the 15 to 16 year age group. Permission is granted in the majority of cases, and it is found that circumstances are such that the Minister can give his permission. This entails such a lot of work for the Department, particularly in a period when there is such a manpower shortage, that it is necessary for us now, after 35 years, since the change was made from 14 and 12, to review the matter once more. Circumstances are clear to us. We now have 35 years’ experience and statistics, and we see that here there is a group between 15 and 16 years of age in respect of which it is not necessary for the Minister to investigate all the cases. The girls are mature. They want to get married and their parents have given their permission. They are mature people. Therefore ministerial permission can be eliminated here. We are not saying that children should now get married a year earlier. Parental supervision will continue. From the way the hon. member for Wynberg is scribbling, I can see that she is still going to speak. I want to tell her that we are not taking away parental supervision. At times they are sticklers for parental choice. She knows it. The parents will still give advice and guidance. We wish they would give more guidance and stronger guidance. That is actually our problem. I say it will continue. In other words, our society is not abolishing an existing provision; not at all. Society will still lend a guiding hand, exercise censure and apply sanctions. The parents will play a very important role. We are merely implying, and that is what the hon. the Minister and his Department ask that in the light of 35 years’ experience it is clear to us that in South Africa in general the overall majority of girls between the ages of 15 and 16. who are contemplating marriage, can get that permission. From the answers obtained and the decisions taken in the past, it is clear that the younger they are the less desirable it is that they should marry. We know that years ago our people married at a young age. That was legal. I remember such families in the neighbourhood where I grew up: honest, good people. It was always said that Aunt May was just 13 years older than Aunt Fay. There was nothing wrong with that. It was a fine family. Those people live right here in our midst. In other words, there are circumstances under which, even at that age, a marriage could run its normal course without anyone having anything to say about it. As far as the 15 and 16 year olds are concerned, we are dealing, in the majority of cases, with girls who have reached maturity, who can hold their own and who can enter into marriage on the basis of parental permission, because this is still always required. I should like to emphasize that we are not lowering the marital age. In the case of 15 year old girls we are merely arranging that it shall no longer be necessary for the hon. the Minister to order an entire investigation by his Department in order to give permission. The parents will still have to give permission and they will still retain supervision before that marriage can be legalized.

There was also an objection to the inclusion of a prescribed formula as laid down here in clause 10. It is clear, from what the hon. member for Green Point quoted, that there are great similarities between the Protestant and Reformed Church marriage formulae in respect of their essential content. I want to come back to the point I made at the beginning, i.e. that we must take into account that in marriage we are dealing with a momentous contract, for which the State must eventually take responsibility, and which it cannot merely wash its hands of in innocence and say that it has no part in that. Added to this we still have the fact that there is a continual increase in denominations claiming their right to perform marriages. We do not begrudge them that, but they are not all old-established churches such as The Church of the Province, the Dutch Reformed Church, etc. These churches have fixed customs extending over centuries. However, it does happen that a church establishes itself to-day and then wants to solemnize marriages next Saturday, or even to-morrow. They frequently want to do so in a very high-handed way, at their own direction and as they think fit. Frequently it is also done by untrained and unqualified people. I say this without wanting to cast reflection on their religious authenticity. They are frequently people who are not really equal to the task of handling such a matter and of supervising the marriage contract, which is such a very important contract. That is why it is so important for the hon. the Minister to insert that specific formula into this Bill, and why marriage officers, who have the freedom to draw up a fine religious formula, shall at least ensure that this is contained in it. People will then not be able to come along afterwards and say “Yes, but I gave no answer to that. That was not a part of my marriage contract.” This is a very important aspect and I want to ask the hon. member for Wynberg to give specific attention to this when she speaks about this matter. What does she want us and the hon. the Minister to do if he finds particular churches drawing up a formula which does not have a legal basis and which does not ensure that those contractual obligations can be carried out properly in terms of the Act?

I therefore want to make it very clear that here the State or the hon. the Minister and his Department are really calling for a minimal requirement. The various churches are now only being asked to draw up their marriage formula in such a way that it shall also contain the provisions of this Bill; they may further draw it up as they see fit. There is thus still full scope for the religious element. The hon. member for Jeppes gave a very distorted impression of it here. I am certain that the religious character of the marriage ceremony will in no way be lost because of the inclusion of this particular formula. We do not now, in the marriage ceremony, merely have a repetition of a particular legal regulation of the hon. the Minister and his Department. On the contrary, I want to give the assurance that there will be few churches who will find it necessary to re-write their marriage formula. I foresee that where a formula is a little different, a marriage officer will simply include that small part. Whether he will do so as a subsection of three questions (a), (b) and (c), it being the (c) section, or however he may do it, is a question of taste. It will, however, entail no breakdown or disruption of the marriage formula or the marriage ceremony. I should like to ask hon. members not to be carried away by certain considerations, as though we are now to introduce an irresponsible lowering of the marital age. This is not so. Neither is a fragmentation of the strong religious element of marriage and its consummation taking place. The hon. the Minister and his Department are only ensuring that marriage will be properly arranged and legalized, in the light of modern circumstances and the demands of the times, with our complicated society, and specifically in the light of the fact that so many divorces take place.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Piketberg said that whatever happens, I should not fail to deal with the question of the form of marriage which is set out in this Bill. I would like to tell the hon. member that, whereas he is an ex-parson and my father was a parson, if the form of marriage set out in this Bill is satisfactory to the leaders of the different churches, I am not concerned to deal with it here. I am happy to leave it to the parsons. The hon. member made the point that marriage is the biggest test of stability in our social lives and on that basis he justified the State’s intrusion into these matters in order to help maintain that stability. But how much stability can we expect from children of 15 years in the first place and 18 years in the second, I would like to know. The hon. member for Piketberg played down the figures and he said that in the last eight years there were 1,325 of these cases of people asking the hon. the Minister permission to marry under the age of 18. If there were so few cases in the last eight years, why alter the law at all?

It seems to me highly suitable that I should be the last speaker in this debate. It has been most interesting listening to it. It seems to me that apart from some of the hon. members on this side who have been largely academic in their approach, hon. members opposite had an awful job trying to justify clause 9 and have not succeeded very well. We have heard all about marriage customs in the Middle Ages going right back to the eleventh century and also of child marriage customs in Asia and Africa. Of course these were not real marriages at all. The hon. the Minister also attempted to justify clause 9 by quoting what he considers to be the small number of cases involved. All this Bill is doing by reducing the age to 15 years is to avoid the complications of a serious sociological problem by condoning the outcome.

The hon. the Minister, and also the hon. member for Piketberg, laid much stress on the fact that written permission from the parents is always requested and, in fact, always obtained. He then went on to talk about the social welfare investigations into these matters and said that it takes much time and that everybody becomes very impatient because it can take up to three months as a rule to investigate these cases. Can you believe that the hon. the Minister and other hon. members here can seriously argue that it saves money, manpower and time to reduce the marriage age to 15 years when you are dealing with a very deep-seated sociological problem here in South Africa? This is such a typically male institution. The saving of money, manpower or time should not in any way be allowed to affect the way in which we deal with this problem. The hon. the Minister even went so far, and I do not know of an occasion where it has ever been done with approval before, to quote that the United Nations has said that they approve of the age of 15 years as being sufficient when marrying. He also said that this provision was contained in the 1935 Act as well. Do we have to follow the lead of the United Nations in dealing with our own problems in this field? I have listened very hard and have heard no valid arguments in support of this clause from the other side of the House. The hon. the Minister says that we will have a free vote on this clause. The very fact that he has decided that means that a good many objections have already been put before him on this clause. The hon. the Minister said as much in his Second Reading speech.

If we take marriage seriously, and heaven knows we have to, because it is a sort of life sentence for many of us, it seems a little hard to encourage people to start that kind of sentence at the age of 15 or at the age of 18.

I do not believe, and I have had just as much experience in my own way as hon. members in this matter, that any girl is sufficiently mature at the age of 16, let alone at 15, to take on the responsibilities of marriage and motherhood in the serious sense of the word. Since as a rule men mature much later than women—of course, sometimes they never mature at all; we see it in this House!—it is also quite absurd, on the face of it, that a boy of 18 should be considered fit for the responsibilities of marriage.

We do not encourage it.

I know that, but it is happening in society to-day and it is a fact we must face. Social welfare workers are very much concerned about this change. I too have had talks with some of them. Women’s organizations in South Africa too are very concerned about this. What does the written permission of the Minister ultimately mean? In the normal course of events, all documents relating to a case are placed before him together, I suppose, with some kind of departmental recommendation on the strength of the investigations made by the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister does not have the necessary time to go into all the details of a case. But why do these cases come to him in the first place? Let us get down to first causes—why does it come about that the Minister has to decide on 2,000 odd marriages for girls of 16 years? These cases are without exception cases where the young people concerned find themselves in a compromising situation. The hard fact is that more single adolescent girls find themselves in the family way to-day than ever before. As such it is becoming an increasingly difficult social problem. Is it the Minister’s idea, by introducing this provision, to encourage young people to legitimize the child by placing the seal of marriage on its birth? Presumably, that is one of the ideas behind this provision. To my mind that is a very shortsighted way indeed of dealing with this growing social problem. If he does not know, the Minister’s social welfare advisers can tell him that the chances are that 99 per cent of this type of marriage do not last. Invariably a divorce comes after a few years. Then the last fate of the child is much worse than the first, because a broken marriage is very often more damaging to the psyche of a growing child than the consistent care of one parent, even if the situation happens to be difficult. An hon. member got up and said that a girl of 15 could not look after a child by herself but apparently she could quite happily do that if she was married to a male of 18. The implication is that if the boy of 18 was there, all would be well. This is absolute rubbish where we are dealing with a problem of this kind because it is unlikely that any youth of 18, or a girl of 15, would take a solemn decision, unless under a crisis, to enter into a contract of marriage. As I have said, in most of these cases they are forced into it by circumstances. These are very delicate and complex human situations and therefore our welfare organizations and others directly concerned with this should, as pointed out by the hon. member for Umbilo, be given an opportunity to express their views before any legislation is rushed through this House. We still have a commission investigating the high divorce rate in the country; it has not reported yet. Have members of this Commission been consulted about this legislation? If not, why not? In any event, why this hurry? Why cannot we wait until the Commission has reported because then we shall know what percentage of divorces in South Africa fall within the age group 15 to 25 years. I think the Minister would find those figures very revealing. If that percentage is high, what type of answer does this Bill present?

The Minister, as well as other hon. members, referred quite happily to the old Free State Republic and to various other legislative bodies and said that in those days girls married at 14 and boys at 15 without anybody seeming to think there was anything wrong with that. Well, I just want to say that the youthful age at which girls were permitted to marry 70, 80, 90 years ago simply meant that the men at the time wanted to marry them at that age—it is as simple as that. All these laws have been made by men, Sir, and thought up by them. Early marriages in those days had nothing to do with the maturity of the girl concerned. Nobody in those days cared whether she was mature or not—she just became an obedient little follower of her husband and had precious little option of being anything else. Well, the situation is quite different to-day. Hon. members have made the point that this measure aims at adapting the position to modern conditions. Well, if that is so, then you cannot use legislation of the Orange Free State Republic and other old bits of legislation as justification for what we are doing here. The two things simply cannot be reconciled. The Minister’s claims that a girl of 15 is to-day very much more developed than her forbears, is open to doubt. The entire social scene has changed entirely and the diverse influences on our young people are much greater than 70 years ago. Young people have much more freedom and are vulnerable to greater dangers and temptations. It seems to me that there is very little valid comparison between early marriages years ago and early marriages to-day, contracted as they often are at gunpoint because the couple goes to the Minister for permission with their parents standing behind them hoping that they will get permission because circumstances force them to get married. As we know, divorce has been legalized and is now only too easy to obtain. In a sense illegitimacy has also been legalized to the extent that the mother of an illegitimate child has to-day the same legal rights as a married mother. Hon. members know that. In terms of our law however neither girls of 15 nor boys of 18 are majors for ordinary legal purposes. And if they are not considered to be majors for purposes of signing a contract or doing anything of that nature, why should we hurry over this business of reducing the marriage age? I cannot emphasize too much what other hon. members have said, i.e. that notwithstanding a free vote, this matter should not be dealt with in a hurry. If this debate has made one thing clear it is that neither hon. members on this side nor hon. members on the other side possess the total answer to this problem. That being the case, surely the wisest thing to do is to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point and refer the matter to a Select Committee where people closely concerned with these social problems can give evidence. On the basis of the wisdom thus obtained we can then decide what to do.

At the outset I want to express my appreciation towards and convey my congratulations to the three members on my side who participated in this debate, i.e. the hon. members for Wit-bank, Potgietersrust and Piketberg. They dealt with this delicate matter with excellent insight. They made excellent contributions here in a manner which testified to knowledge and sympathy, knowledge and sympathy which in their case had its origin in their past; it is worthy of note that the hon. member for Witbank and the hon. member for Piketberg were both ministers in the Church to which I also belong; the hon. member for Potgietersrust is an attorney. They approached this matter which we are discussing here to-day from a humanitarian point of view, not from a computerized point of view. These three hon. members had so much to do with these cases that they were able to rise to their feet to-day and make contributions here which testified to objectivity and sympathy born out of their knowledge.

But, Sir, what did we get from the Opposition in this debate? Did we get their customary pleas for the recognition of parental choice? After all, that is one of their favourite modes of attack on the Government. Did we hear their customary pleas for the recognition of human rights? Did we hear them? Did we hear a repetition of the old attacks of a Minister wanting to appropriate too many powers for himself here by way of legislation; did we hear that? No, Sir, we heard something quite different in this debate to-day. We heard something to-day which we are not accustomed to hearing from the United Party, and that is that they become emotional about such matters of national concern as Church and marriage. We are not accustomed to them becoming emotional about these matters, but to-day we have in fact heard them becoming emotional about them. Sir, you should have heard the speech by the hon. member for Jeppes. You should have heard how the hon. member for Green Point spoke about the Church aspect.

The hon. member for Green Point was concerned about the wording of clause 6, the questions which must be put by marriage officers. The hon. member regarded it as an invasion of the rights of the Church. Sir, what a far-fetched conclusion and interpretation! As the hon. member for Witbank, who for 20 years has been a minister, was quite right in saying, this provision in no way interferes with the right of the Church to use its own marriage formula. In fact, this is confirmed by this very provision. It is emphatically stated in clause 10 that the Churches retain the right to use their own formula, while including what is prescribed in the clause. We respect that right of the Churches; they will therefore continue to use their own formula.

All that we are doing in this clause therefore, in regard to which the United Party and specifically the hon. member for Green Point has kicked up such a fuss, is that we are prescribing that a uniform question shall be put over and above any formula which the Churches may have. The hon. member for Green Point must take into account the fact that marriage officers act as representatives of the State in this regard. In this respect they are officials of the State. In this specific task which they are performing, they are officials of the State. They are fully entitled, as clause 10 (2) reads, to have their own formula, but as far as that portion of the work is concerned which they are doing on behalf of the State, it is necessary in a well-run State that the question should be put in a uniform way and that is why, as the hon. members for Witbank and Piketberg both testified as ex-ministers, it will by no means be necessary for the Churches to amend their formula in terms of it. Cur Department will send out a circular to the marriage officers who are in the service of the Church, in which this procedure will be made very clear to them, and they will then be at liberty to extract that question and to use it according to their own judgment. But. Sir. what did we hear now from the Opposition? We had the customary opposition technique which is the proposal that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Actually they would like to refer every measure which comes before this House to a Select Committee. Is it necessary now to refer this measure to a Select Committee?

This measure contains three fundamental points. The first deals with this formula in connection with which the State does in fact have a responsibility because these are its representatives. I made it absolutely clear here that that formula must be carried out according to our pattern without in the least detracting from the right of the Church to comply with their own formula and ceremonial duties. The second fundamental point concerns the abolition of the banns in this respect, as I said in my Second Reading speech, we consulted the various Churches. Here I have a long memorandum consisting of extracts from the memoranda of some of the 23 Churches which, with the exception of the one Church to which reference was made here—these are all the major Churches in the country—all gave this matter their full support. Now, what else must a Select Committee find out in regard to this matter? Must they cause these Church representatives to meet again to give the same testimony they have already given here? Sir, surely this is unnecessary.

The third point in this connection is the question of the alteration of the age from 16 to 15 years. Surely it is a total illusion to think that a Select Committee will come forward with a unanimous decision in regard to this matter. You can appoint ten Select Committees on this matter and they will have divergent opinions in regard to it. It is for that reason that I said here that hon. members, both on that and on this side, can form an opinion in regard to this matter according to their own views; and who is better able to judge such a social matter with proper insight than we, the representatives of the people, in fact are?

What about the experts?

We are also experts.

Does the hon. member think that we are inexpert people? We are people who draw on expert opinions. Here are the reports of the experts. We here are the people who have contact with the various strata of the population; we are all people who belong to Churches, regardless of what Churches they may be. All, or most of us at least, are churchgoing people who are in contact with clerical opinion in the country. We are the proper people to decide on a social matter such as this. This is not a political matter; what is at issue here is not a question of party policy, Government policy or Opposition policy; what is at issue is simply a social matter in regard to which there may be a difference of opinion, even in a disciplined party, and the right of hon. members to exercise that right, is acknowledged. These are then the three fundamental points in this matter which hon. members of the Opposition want to refer to a Select Committee which will throw no light whatsoever for us on this matter. In this connection. Sir, this House must also accept responsibility. Just as it is necessary for the parents to accept responsibility in regard to their children, so it is also the task of hon. members and mine to accent responsibility in regard to a social matter such as this.

I come now to the question of 15-year-olds. Fundamentally. Sir, this question of the 15-year-old must be viewed from its human aspect. As far as we are concerned, it is the human aspect which counts in this connection. and in this respect I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Potgietersrust on his brilliant speech, in which he not only stated the historical and legal background to this matter, but also his experience as attorney. He recounted to the House how he had had to deal with these cases of 15-and 16-year-olds who wanted to marry and all the human suffering which that gave rise to. That is why, Sir, this measure has been introduced, and not principally to bring about a saving of manpower for us.

That is what you said.

That is so; it is an important consideration, but it is not the heart of the matter. What counts, are the humanitarian considerations, and when I speak of humanitarian considerations, Sir, I just want to refer you to the figure which the hon. member for Piketberg also quoted. If one considers that over a period of eight years, 1,038 applications were received from young girls between the ages of 15 and 16 years who wanted to get married, and that only 133 were refused, then you will be able to deduce at once what embarrassment this must have caused to those 1,038 cases. Let us rather restrict it to the 900 who did in fact receive permission to marry. You can understand what embarrassment, grief and suffering it must have caused them and their various parents. Can hon. members of the Opposition who are so concerned about human rights, not imagine what embarrassment this must have caused the parents of those 900 young girls as well as the young men, for they are in future also bound up and involved with those young girls? Now the hon. member for Umbilo comes forward here and his contribution is to say that it seems to him that only the young girls have become maturer because we are not lowering the age of the young men. Sir, that is a rather ridiculous argument. It is in the first place the expectant young girls whose sufferings are being taken into consideration in this connection. It is they in the first instance and, secondly, if a marriage must take place, then it is those young men who must be breadwinners and who must be able to support their young wives. Does the hon. member think that a young man who has not yet attained the age of 18 will be able, with our standard of living to-day, to run a home properly? It is those considerations which count; it has nothing to do with maturity. It is a question of the need to support a family properly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform hon. members what the actual effect of this measure would be if it should be passed. If this measure were to be passed by the House and were to become law and the age were to be changed from 16 to 15, do hon. members know what numbers of persons are actually going to be affected annually, according to our particulars? Annually there will only be ten cases where the Minister could have withheld his consent, who will then be able to marry in South Africa; that is what is at issue. But another matter of importance is that the tendency in our country is not in the direction of more child marriages. There is no indication according to our statistics that there is an increased tendency to child marriages, whether between the age of 15 and 16 or below the age of 15. I have the figures here, but do not deem it necessary to furnish them to the House.

The hon. member for Umbilo came forward here with the theoretical argument that if the age was lowered to 15 years, then it may as well be lowered to 14 years. Sir, these things are after all determined by public opinion, as it is going to be done in this House. Public opinion as reflected in this Parliament will decide on this question of 16 or 15 years.

Who asked that the age be lowered?

There are numerous social workers who deem it necessary. There are numerous people dealing with the youth, who deem it necessary. The hon. member mentioned a few who were opposed to it, but in the same way there are many who are in favour of it. [Interjections.] We are aware of their opinion and that hon. member is here to reflect their opinion and not to flee from his responsibility in this regard.

What happened in 1960?

We have a task and a responsibility which the United Party wants to shift onto a select committee. This House has a responsibility to the country and to the people in the social and every other sphere, and that is the responsibility which we are asking hon. members to meet here.

In conclusion, the hon. member raised the question of whether I had discussed this matter with the Minister of National Education in order to determine what the effect would be on the children. Yes, when legislation of this nature is before this House it is given proper consideration not only by the Department and the Minister, but is also given proper consideration by the Cabinet, where every Minister has the opportunity to express his opinion or his reservations. I can therefore give you the assurance that the Minister of National Education has in fact been thoroughly consulted in this regard.

During the Second Reading the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question I put to him in regard to one of the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission being from South-West Africa, said it was not necessary to do so because the whole of the Commission would now give attention to the affairs of South-West Africa as well. But I would like to point out that with the Act as it stands now, South-West Africa is represented by the Administrator of that Territory. Admittedly he may not have attended the meetings of the Commission, but provision was made for him to be there ex officio as somebody representing that area. Now, I submit that the position in South-West Africa differs materially from that in South Africa and I want to ask the Minister again whether he does not think it advisable to make provision for at least one of the members of the Commission to be appointed because of his knowledge of South-West Africa in view of the fact that the Commission has to deal with South-West Africa as well.

As I explained yesterday, this Act is now being made applicable to the population of South-West Africa as well, and the principle that the Bantu Affairs Commission for the Republic is not composed on a territorial basis has always applied in the past. Therefore we would have to introduce a new principle if we wanted to give South-West Africa representation on the Commission in that way. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if it proves to be necessary in the execution of the duties of the Bantu Affairs Commission, if it appears that there is a deficiency, we shall most certainly be prepared to consider that deficiency and try to supplement it to the best of our ability. We think that in practice it will become clear that there is no such deficiency, owing to the structure of the Commission and because of the close liaison existing among our Department and the Commission and the native peoples of South-West Africa in general. Therefore we do not regard it as necessary at this stage, but, as I said, if it becomes clear that there is an urgent need, we shall certainly be prepared to consider the matter thoroughly and to supplement any such deficiency to the best of our ability in order to meet that need.

The Minister is now increasing the number of the members of the Commission by one. Admittedly the Administrator is no longer a member of the Commission. As I read the Bill the first time, I envisaged that the additional member was being put on to represent South-West Africa because the Administrator was now being removed. Who is this additional member supposed to represent, and why is it necessary to add an additional member if it is not to represent the people of South-West Africa, and, furthermore, was the Administrator of South-West Africa consulted on this and was he satisfied that there should be no representation for his area?

The Administrator of South-West Africa has been consulted and he is satisfied. That is my reply to the first point raised. In regard to the second part of the hon. member’s question, I want to point out that the total number of commissioners has now diminished by one and not increased by one, so in effect there is really no extra member.

Because he did not actually take part in the working of the Commission.

In the past the Commission could have consisted of seven members, whereas now it will consist only of six members. So there is one fewer. And as was pointed out yesterday, in terms of the regulations we have in mind augmenting this Commission by persons with special knowledge, not only of a particular region but also in the fields of economics, agriculture, etc. For that reason we felt that it was not necessary now to make specific provision for a member to represent South-West Africa or for the appointment of a member because of his special knowledge of South-West Africa. But I repeat that if the need is felt, we will look at it seriously.

Surely it is not correct to say that a new principle is being introduced here, because the present principle is that the Administrator of South-West Africa must serve on it. Therefore we are not asking for a new principle; we are only asking for the same principle to be retained, but that it need not necessarily be the Administrator, but a person who has special knowledge of the affairs of South-West Africa.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Yesterday in the Second Reading I said that we were supporting this Bill mainly because of this provision in clause 8, where it is now proposed to delete the selected members from the urban Bantu councils. I then referred the Deputy Minister to a speech made by the present Minister, who was the Deputy Minister when this Act was passed, in which he said that the selected members were essential to keep the link between the chiefs in the reserves and their people in the urban areas. I want to know why the Government has now found it necessary to abolish this type of representation. I want to make it quite clear that we support it, because we were against the selected members to begin with. But the Minister then said in reply to me that this had become necessary because the urban Bantu councils were working so efficiently. I want to know what he means by that. Because they are working so efficiently, because the present system of councils is working so efficiently, he has to do away with some of the members. Or is he finding that these representatives of the chiefs are in fact a hindrance to the workings of the councils? Why is it necessary specially to do away with them?

Mr. Chairman, I want to state most emphatically that the removal of the selected members on the urban Bantu councils, i.e. the representatives of the chiefs, must please not be interpreted as meaning that those chiefs or their representatives did not carry out their duties properly. I want to emphasize this most strongly. That is not the case. The fact of the matter is simply, as I said yesterday, that in the ten years since the formulation of the Act in terms of which the representatives of the chiefs have been nominated as selected members on the urban Bantu councils, the position has developed to such an extent that we now find ourselves in circumstances where we can have ethnic representative councils in the white areas. These councils are, in our opinion, far better able to fulfil the important function of maintaining liaison between the homeland government and its compatriots in the white areas than is the case with the liaison put into operation in 1960, when the representative of the chiefs on the urban Bantu councils carried out the necessary liaison. That is the main reason. There is also a secondary reason. At present there are 14 urban Bantu councils in the Republic of South Africa. In practice we have certain problems in certain areas which hamper the establishment of urban Bantu councils, in the sense that it is sometimes difficult as a result of the fact that there are many chiefs in an area who have to be represented. It is sometimes extremely difficult to give representation to all of those chiefs. This results in delays in the establishment of urban Bantu councils.

These two factors have forced us to effect this amendment in order to be able to develop the ethnic representative councils better than was the case in the past. Lastly, I just want to point out, too, that it must be clearly understood that this does not mean that the representative of a chief will not be able to serve on an urban Bantu council in future. A representative of a chief can still serve on an urban Bantu council. The difference is that he can no longer do so as a selected member, but can in fact do so as an elected member.

Mr. Chairman, the first part of the explanation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister does not amount to anything at all. He is merely trying to justify the attitude of the Government at the time. The hon. the Deputy Minister now says that developments have been such that they find that a council consisting of elected members can represent the Bantu and the chiefs as well as one with selected members. But, Sir, that is no reason for abolishing the chiefs as members. The real reason is the one the hon. the Minister gave as his second reason, namely the difficulty of application. There are so many chiefs represented in different urban areas that they cannot possibly have them all represented. We pointed that out at the time, namely, that it was an impracticable proposition. If the hon. the Deupty Minister had told us straightaway—I do not know whether I could use the word “honest”—but if he had been frank with us and said that they found it difficult to apply their policy, we would have appreciated it much more than the way he has in fact tried to do it. They find it difficult in applying their policy in regard to the councils. We do appreciate that. As I have said before, we are not opposed to it. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that a chief can be on the council by being elected to the council. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister was here when this Act was passed. I should like to remind him that we then pointed out that if these chiefs were wanted as representatives in an area, they could be elected. The chiefs could be represented in that manner. I am glad to get the frank admission from the hon. the Deputy Minister that they found their policy impossible and difficult to apply.

Oh no.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In my opinion the best way of dealing with this Bill will be to deal with the various clauses separately:

Clause 1, paragraph (a):

As you may perhaps recall, the definition of “reasonable rent” was expanded last year by the provision that a lessee shall be responsible for the payment for electrical power, gas or fuel supplied by means of a submeter regardless of whether a rent determination has made provision therefor. During the introduction of that Bill I elaborated at length on the need for the provision, and there is probably no need for me to repeat it here. Unfortunately as paragraph (j) of the definition in question now reads, it appears that payment shall only be made for electrical power which is supplied by a submeter. Yet is was clearly the intention that electrical power, gas or fuel should be paid for, and consequently the position is now being rectified.

Clause 1, paragraphs (b;, (c) and (d):

In a recent Supreme Court case the Judge found that the “value” of a property should be determined according to the definition of “value” in the Act. On the basis of that value the Rent Board must then determine the reasonable rent in terms of the following formula: (a) a return of 8 per cent per annum on the value of the building, (b) a return of 6 per cent per annum on the value of the land, plus amounts in respect of taxes, insurance, etc. A determined percentage return is therefore prescribed in the Act. It has been found, however, that the first proviso to the definition of “reasonable rent” creates a problem. This proviso lays down that in the determination of such rent, the Rent Board shall take into proper consideration the rent which is being charged in the neighbourhood for premises of a similar class, nature or situation. This affords the Rent Board a further discretion in regard to the determination of the return. This proviso, apparently retained from the time when Rent Boards still had a discretion in respect of the 8 and 6 per cent, has however lost all its value in respect of the provision of a reasonable rent now that a fixed percentage return has been written into the Act. Consequently it is being proposed that this be deleted. In the determination of the value of a property a Rent Board must take one or more of the following into consideration: (a) the actual building costs, (b) any municipal or divisional council valuation, (c) any sworn or building society valuation, (d) the purpose for which the property is being utilized.

It is therefore proper that the rent value of controlled premises of a similar class, nature or situation in the neighbourhood should be taken into account in the determination of “value” and consequently it is being proposed that the definition of “value” be expanded accordingly.

Clause 2:

In terms of paragraph (c) of the definition of “reasonable rent” a Rent Board must allow the lessor the amount of the actual rates and taxes on the property. When such taxes are increased, a lessor may, after proper notification. increase the rent of the dwelling as a result of the increase in taxes. In terms of section 3 (1) (b) the increase in taxes may, with the written approval of the chairman of the Rent Board in question, be added to the rent. There has, however, been representations from the public that in a case where taxes are for example levied for a calendar year, tax increases are not published before the end of January or during February. Suppose the lessor received notice during February that the taxes on his property had been increased. He can, with the approval of the chairman of the Rent Board add the increase to the rent but not before he has given the lessee one month’s notice thereof. The lessor can therefore only give the necessary notice with effect from 1st March, the result of which is that he can only recover the increase with effect from 1st April. The lessor therefore has to pay the increased taxes out of his own pocket for three months, which was of course never the intention of the Act. It is after all the object of the Act that the full rates and taxes be added to the rent and consequently this amendment is being deemed necessary. Hon. members will note that it is being ensured that the lessee must be given notice of the increase as soon as possible in order to prevent his having to pay a large arrears amount in respect of such increase.

I come now to clause 3. Lessees of controlled dwellings enjoy wide protection against ejectment in terms of the Rent Act. A court order is required for ejectment, and no court order is issued if the lessee pays his rent and complies with the conditions of the lease, except on six different grounds mentioned in section 21 (1). One of the six grounds mentioned here is when the premises are reasonably required for the purpose of a reconstruction or rebuilding scheme. In such a case the lessee must be given six months prior notice to vacate, etc. In addition the court must previously have stated that such a reconstruction or rebuilding scheme is in the public interest, and a copy of such court order must be attached to the notice given. Instead of complying with these regulations when reconstruction or rebuilding schemes have to be carried out, particularly in respect of flats, lessors are at present having recourse to all kinds of means to cause lessees to vacate of their own accord. Annoyance is caused by means of building activities. At times lift facilities are put out of action, and refuse removal services are cancelled, etc. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) is fully conversant with one of the cases which occurred in his constituency.

I think you are reading my letter at this moment.

Well, then the hon. member has at least done something useful during the past year. By means of this intimidatory behaviour a war of nerves is waged against the lessees and their resistance is eventually broken down. In most cases the lessees then vacate in order to rid themselves of unpleasantness, which allows the lessor to have his own way. This circumvention of the Act cannot be allowed, and consequently it is being deemed desirable that deliberate intimidation of lessees with the purpose of causing them to vacate of their own accord, should be made an offence, as is being envisaged with this clause. I am quite willing to admit to the House that this step has been taken at the specific request of the hon. member for Durban (Point) because he found this to be the case in his own constituency. He must not vote against it, though.

I come now to clause 4. The Rents Act of 1950 provided, before it was amended last year by Act No. 64/69, that in respect of unfurnished dwellings a deposit may be demanded which does not exceed one month’s rental, and only in respect of lights, gas, water or sewerage where these are not included in the rental. It has always been the view that the acceptance of deposits for damages and the loss of keys in respect of unfurnished dwellings is illegal. With the amendment of section 25 by Act No. 64/69, promulgated on 28th May, 1969, it was authorized that in respect of all dwellings, furnished and unfurnished, a deposit of not more than a month’s rental may be accepted for lights, gas, water or sewerage where such services are not included in the rent, and also in respect of damages to such a dwelling or any loss of keys. The portion of the deposit demanded for damages and any loss of keys must be specified in the receipt, the deposit must be invested with a building society and must on vacation by the lessee be repaid together with interest minus the costs of damage and the costs of replacing any keys. If the lessor and lessee cannot reach an agreement on the amount of damages and the cost of replacing keys, this must be determined by the Rent Board. In Supreme Court case in Bloemfontein, however, the Judge recently ruled that it was quite lawful for the lessor to demand a deposit in respect of an unfurnished dwelling for possible damage to the property. According to this ruling, therefore, all deposits demanded by lessors for damages before the amendment of the Act are therefore quite lawful. There is some doubt now as to whether deposits which were accepted by lessors in respect of damages and the loss of keys before the amendment the Act, should now in terms of the amended section 25 be invested with building societies, the deposit repaid with interest to the lessee on vacation, and in the case of a dispute whether the Rent Board can determine the amount of damages and the cost of replacing keys. The opinion is that the existing section 25 is not with retrospective effect and that those provisions do not therefore apply in respect of deposits accepted before the amendment. As a result of this doubt there is also some uncertainty now as to whether Rent Boards can act as prescribed in the existing section 25 when a lessor and lessee cannot agree on the amount of the damages and the cost of replacing keys where the deposit was accepted before the date of commencement of the amendment, i.e. 28th May, 1969.

What is being proposed here is simply for the purpose of removing all doubt in this respect. In terms of the existing Act, section 26, a lessor may not refuse to let a dwelling if a child is to reside in that dwelling, declare by way of notice or otherwise that he is not prepared to let a dwelling to any person with a child, or inquire from a prospective lessee whether he intends to permit a child to reside in the dwelling. Any person contravening this provision, is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding R100. This provision is however only applicable to dwellings which fall under rent control. Generally speaking it is not applicable to dwellings which were occupied for the first time subsequent to 1st June, 1966. It appears, however, that it happens only too often that owners of buildings, particularly blocks of flats which do not fawl under the rent control, that is to say dwellings to which the provisions of the Act are not applicable, discriminate against children when letting accommodation. It is of course possible to take steps against them by placing the building under rent control, but it very often appears unnecessary to make all the implications of the Act applicable to such a building if the lessor is “offending” only in respect of children. However, steps must be taken against this malpractice, i.e. the exclusion of children from flats and other dwellings, and consequently it is being proposed in paragraph (a) of this clause that section 26 be made applicable to all dwellings and not only to dwellings constructed prior to 1st June, 1966. As far as paragraph (b) is concerned, I simply mention for the sake of information that in terms of section 33 (1) (h) the provisions of the Act are not applicable to old dwellings, the owner of which has satisfied the Minister:

1. (a) that the age thereof is at least 100 years;
2. (b) that he has on the restoration thereof spent an amount in excess of the purchase price or market value, and
3. (c) that the dwelling has been restored faithfully according to tradition.

Problems have arisen however in regard to the latter provision i.e. that the dwelling has been restored faithfully according to tradition. It is usually necessary, in order to make such a hundred-year-old dwelling suitable for modern occupation, to provide modern conveniences such as ablutional and cooking facilities, as well as other alterations both to the interior as well as the enterior so that the dwelling can be adapted to the present-day way of life. As a result of such necessary adjustments it can, however, be argued that such a restored dwelling has not been restored “faithfully according to tradition”. In order to make it possible to apply the relevant section under the presently prevailing circumstances as well, the amendment as contained in paragraph (b) has consequently been deemed necessary. I may just mention that the restoration of these old houses is to-day providing an important source of housing for the middle and higher income groups, and that it is of tremendous assistance to us in coping with the housing problem.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support this Bill at the Second Reading. It is essentially a Committee Stage Bill. Legislation comes forward from time to time dealing with the Rents Act and the application of the Rents Act. The hon. the Minister has indicated in introducing the Bill that he finds, as we all find, that the Rents Act does not in application meet all circumstances and certainly does not satisfy neither all tenants nor all landlords. It is one of the problems of a control measure that that is bound to happen. Our problem here, since the necessity for control has been established, is to see that the Act is applied in an equitable way in so far as landlords and tenants are concerned. One of the problems arising in the application of the Act is in relation to the determination of a reasonable rent and of value for the purposes of certain percentage allowances in the determination of a reasonable rent. It is for that reason and in order to meet one of those difficulties that the hon. the Minister has brought forward certain amendments to the definition of “reasonable rent” and to the definition of “value”. This definition has been amended some four or five times in the last few years and I think that probably the majority of court cases have turned on this question of what is a reasonable rent and on the interpretation of this legislation. I think one of the great problems that we are faced with is that whatever is done in our legislation to determine what is a reasonable rent within the prescribed percentages and allowances, this House cannot legislate to control the human factor in the Rent Board’s application of those considerations in determining rent. Unfortunately one finds that there are certain areas in which Rent Board decisions appear to be reasonably satisfactory to both landlord and tenant whereas in others there seems to be an imbalance which gives rise to a lot of difficulty. This human factor in the application of rent control is one, of course, which, as I have said, one cannot control by legislation. One has the position that it is necessary in times of shortage of housing, in times when the demand for housing exceeds the supply of dwellings, to protect tenants against exploitation. At the same time one has to realize that the landlord or the property developer or the would-be property developer has no legal or moral obligation to supply housing other than on a basis profitable to himself. One has to realize that that is so, and the danger in exercising too much control in the determination of a reasonable rental is the fact that one may cause private investment in this sector to dry up, investment which is so necessary if we are to have adequate housing facilities. Sir, I do not want to enlarge upon that at this stage. We will have an opportunity of discussing this in a friendly and frank manner with the hon. the Minister when we deal under his Vote with the question of housing and the availability of housing, and its effects on the market.

Do you promise to be friendly on that occasion?

So far as we can be friendly with the hon. the Minister, we shall endeavour to be friendly. We notice that after the election he has come back a very much quieter and more subdued man than he was before the election when he was giving us his prophecies as to what was likely to happen.

He has come back a poorer man too.

Sir, various amendments are being brought about in this Bill. I have already mentioned the amendment to the definition of “reasonable rental” which we can discuss in more detail in the Committee Stage. I do not propose to deal with clause 3, which the hon. the Minister has correctly referred to as one dealing with a matter raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point), who has had particular problems which apply in Durban and perhaps to a lesser degree in other areas because of the extent of the letting of property along the sea front in Durban with its holiday attractions. This problem does not occur to the same extent in other centres such as Cape Town or Johannesburg.

Sir, then I come to the question of the renovation of old buildings. We are faced here with a situation which has arisen because we have lost the opportunity of providing housing at a low and reasonable cost to people in the middle income group. With the application of the Group Areas Act, particularly here in the Cape Peninsula, considerable numbers of properties have had to be evacuated and these properties have fallen into the hands of what I will term the private profiteer. Some of these properties are very old. They have been renovated, and the benefit flowing from the demand for accommodation is now falling into the hands of the profiteer and not into the hands neither of the original owner, who was removed as a result of the declaration of a group area, nor into the hands of the State. I hope that the hon. the Minister will perhaps later in the course of the session indicate to us where he has seen fit to grant exemption from the provisions of the Act in the case of these so-called renovated houses. One finds that there is a considerable demand for these properties because they are attractive, and if they are exempted from rent control one finds that people have to pay an exorbitant rental because of their inability to find other accommodation. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that it is necessary to keep a very careful check to see that these properties are not let at an excessive rental when they have merely been treated to a splash of white-wash and a bit of replastering. I do know that numbers of owners of these properties have in fact been before the Rent Board. Not having obtained the exemption which the Minister is able to grant, they have been brought before the Rent Board which found that excessive rentals were being charged for these so-called Chelsea type of property by a private developer. Then, Sir, there is the other side of the coin. There are areas in the Western Cape particularly—Stellenbosch for example—where there is the most valuable restoration of historic buildings, which are being adapted at the same time to provide accommodation. The inside of the building is adapted in such a way that it can accommodate two or three families whereas in its original form it was a one-family dwelling. We have no objection to that, Sir, if the exterior of the property is preserved. Some of these properties are being restored on a basis which is profitable in that they can be let, not at an excessive rental but to two or three families, each occupying a separate flat.

Sir, as I indicated when I commenced my speech, we will support this measure at the Second Reading. We will however have certain comments to make in the Committee Stage. In fact, I hope that we will be able to put forward to the hon. the Minister certain amendments and adaptations of the law as it stands to meet a number of the problems which are faced not only by the tenant but also by the landlord.

Sir, this is going to be one of the rare occasions on which the hon. the Minister of Community Development and I are not going to throw anything at each other except perhaps an odd compliment. I appreciate the remarks which the hon. the Minister made.

You are beginning to get sense.

On an issue like this I agree with the hon. member who has just interjected that even the Minister sees a little light and shows a little sense. Sir, this is a serious and a very complicated problem. Like the hon. member for Green Point, I think all of us who represent urban constituencies, and particularly those of us who represent flatland constituencies, realize the vicious circle in which we are caught up. The more you apply restrictions under the Rents Act, the less people are prepared to invest, the less housing you get, the greater the shortage and the greater the number of people who tend to exploit it, and so the circle goes round and round until the stage has been reached, particularly in areas like my own constituencies where there is a demand for holiday accommodation at high prices, where there is virtually a crisis. Over 20 large buildings in my constituency alone which used to be available for letting, have been withdrawn over the last five or six years. A few—very few—have been demolished and others have been converted into holiday flats or into hotels, with the result that hundreds upon hundreds of people have lost their homes. This measure is designed to meet some of the problems that arise in this process. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that we will have to look at this much more closely under the Minister’s Vote, because I believe that as things stand we cannot expect the landlord to subsidize rentals. It is unfair and unreasonable to expect a landlord, as the result of legislation, to have to subsidize tenants, to carry losses or to invest at a very low return simply in order to provide accommodation. We believe that there are some practical ways in which this problem should be tackled. That is an aspect that we cannot deal with under this Bill, but it is necessary to get the correct perspective so that the impression is not created that we are simply trying to impose more and more restrictions. We cannot put forward positive suggestions on the landlord’s side in the debate on this Bill, but it is necessary to keep a balance between the landlord’s right to a fair return on his investment, in the same way as any other business man who invests money is entitled to a fair return, and the tenant’s right to realistic protection.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with the Bill as separate clauses and I think that is perhaps the best way to approach it.

When we look at the definitions we find that there are amendments to the definition of “value” and a change in regard to “interest”. But one definition which is missing and which I believe requires attention is a definition covering a “lessor”. A lessor should be defined to eliminate the problems which we have to-day, firstly with the sale of blocks of shares which carry occupancy rights. Then there is the new system which has been used recently to avoid the provisions of the Rents Act, the system of registration of undivided title where the existing owner retains the residual ownership and as a flat is “sold”, it is registered in undivided title. Here I refer to the Stella Green case. With the Sectional Titles Bill, which is coming up this Session but which has now been referred to a Select Committee, a third group will be brought into the picture which will make a mockery of the whole of the Rents Act as it now stands unless some definition is inserted which will give protection to existing tenants and eliminate the use of either share ownership, undivided title or sectional title as an excuse or as a back door through which tenants can be got rid of by a landlord who wants to evict them. This is a matter to which I hope the hon. the Minister will give serious attention, because unless we have that definition or some protection or some clarification of the position, I foresee even more trouble than we have at the moment and, as everyone knows, that is more than enough.

The other definition which is not amended but which I think we must look at is that of “services”. At the moment there are certain buildings which give a so-called Continental breakfast, a dry bun and a cup of coffee which they call breakfast and then they put up the rent by R10 or R15 a month because they are now supplying bed and breakfast. There are others which use a nearby café and give people tickets to go and get some fish and chips or something. That is called full board and they can increase the rent as much as they like, out of all relationship to the value of the food. In many cases that food is not supplied in premises within the building itself. The definition in the present Act says “provided there is a room set aside for this purpose” but it does not say that the room must be set aside in the building itself.

The hon. the Minister has amended the definition of “value”. I do not know whether this will really solve the problem; it is more of a technical amendment, but this question of comparable rentals which is now being added as a fifth yardstick by which values must be established is one which always leads to argument. What is a comparable building? Is it comparable in regard to the number of flats it has, or the quality of the building, or the finish of it, or in its locality, because it is on the sea front or in a back lane? All of these are matters for argument and I do not think that this will solve the problem. Nor does it solve the problem of leasehold property, where value is established by boards based on its equivalent value if it were sold. But it is not sold; it is under leasehold, the owner simply paying a premium for so many years, a basic premium plus a rental of so much per year as leasehold. There again, I feel the matter has to be looked at with a view to finding some proper basis where the amount which the owner has paid in premium and the annual lease payments, can be amortized over the period of his lease. A rental simply based on comparable values is not the same. The other question of value which is not clarified by this amendment is the problem of old and often small buildings on very valuable ground, where you have an extremely valuable piece of ground with a building on it which cannot possibly justify the rental which would be required to cover the true value of the ground and the buildings. These are problems which I feel require further attention and which we may be able to look into during the Committee Stage.

The next definition which is amended is that of “interest”. A change is made here and I would again ask the Minister to consider going further. There have been cases where an owner with a bond-free property raises a bond and uses that money to invest in some quite different enterprise, even to lend it out at high interest or to invest it in a business. He is then entitled to claim the rate of interest which he is paying on it because it is a bond on the property. I believe that if a person borrows money against the property he should only be entitled to interest on the percentage of that money actually applied to the property, either for its purchase or for its improvement, or for the benefit of the inhabitants of the building. But to borrow money against the building, to claim the full interest at 9½ per cent or 10 per cent from the tenants of the building and then to take that money, which is then free money, because it is being paid for by the tenants, and to invest it in something else where he makes a profit is also something which we should look into during the Committee Stage.

The second clause deals with rates. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this clause as now worded is going to cover the position where a landlord sends a notice out to the tenants saying that according to Press reports the rates this year are likely to increase by 15 per cent and therefore their share will be so much.

The increase can only come when the rates are actually increased.

That is as I read it, but now you have some municipalities where the rates are levied from 1st March to 28th February, but in fact the budget is only introduced about August. Those who pay annually pay in the middle of the year and the others pay month by month. So round about February landlords then warn tenants that the rates are likely to be increased and this increase will be retrospective. I realize that it is a problem, but it is not covered by this amendment because the announcement of the increase has not been made. But if it is not covered, if the landlord must wait until the actual increase is announced and that increase is made retrospective by the local authorities …

That is not correct. It cannot happen.

It does happen. I can mention a case in Durban at the moment. I have at least three letters here, one dealing with King’s Mansions, where it was announced that the rates would be increased.

It is announced in the annual budget.

Yes, but the annual budget does not come until about October and the financial year runs to February. I do not want to hold up the debate, but I have a number of notices here where notice is now being given at this stage, long before the increases are actually brought into effect. If that is not going to be permitted, then either the owner must carry the loss or there will be arrears to be paid by the tenants.

He may then have to pay a large sum of money.

Yes, I think this question where announcements are made retrospective is one which we will have to examine in the Committee Stage.

If that is the position, I can tell you now that I will be quite willing to accept an amendment to that effect, because the whole purpose is that the tenant must pay the actual increased rates within a reasonable time.

I am grateful for that acknowledgement; I think it is something we will have to look at.

Now we come to the heart of this Bill, which is the intimidation clause. The hon. the Minister has given some examples of what happens. This is a clause which is likely to be controversial and I would like to go a little further than the Minister has gone. He mentioned one or two of the things that can be done, but I have listed the actual things which have happened in one building alone in Durban, and I am going to name the building. This was in Kangelani, a block of flats which was bought by a firm called Lipman Properties. One of the first things done was to remove the light from the room in which the tenants’ letter-boxes were placed so that they could not see to collect their post. They just took the globe out. They then removed the induna and the night-watchman so that there was no control at night and vagrants could walk in and out of the building. They then stopped all service and reduced the rent accordingly, but they gave no service whatsoever. Even in the public areas of the building, cleanliness was almost non-existent, because as a person moved out of the building they started to demolish his flat. All day and every day you had jack-hammers going flat out and shaking the whole building, and one knows what a jack-hammer sounds like in a confined space.

Is that not covered by the new section 21 (4) (b), which refers to being guilty of an activity which constitutes a nuisance to the lessee?

No, because he used the back door of the right to renovate; he claimed that these were renovations. I have had discussion after discussion with the department, and he said he was simply renovating the flats. But I have not finished yet, Sir, because then they started carting out the rubble which they had removed from the broken-down flats and they used the only two passenger lifts continuously all day to cart down rubble and bring up cement and plaster in wheelbarrows, so that some tenants often had to walk 15 floors to get to their own flats. They then stopped removing rubbish and said the tenants had to remove their own rubbish from their flats and take it downstairs to an area set aside where it would be collected by the municipal rubbish-vans. Tenants, many of them old people, had to take their own rubbish-bins downstairs, with the lifts being used for concrete, cement and plaster. They then started looking out for anyone doing personal laundry.

Is that one of your voters?

No, fortunately it is not one of my voters; he comes from Johannesburg. Then we started to find the water suddenly not running by accident, and then the lights would be cut off by accident, because somebody had stuck a pick through a wire. Then the hot water did not work because they were putting in new boilers. So it went on and on. Then they started knocking down the front flats, which I believe is an offence but for which they have not been prosecuted. The front flats were destroyed and turned into an entrance foyer. Long before that they had taken off the names from the notice-board because they said that all the tenants would have to get out. I have here a letter to the tenants received on 19th June, just a month or so ago, saying that all private telephones installed in the building are being changed to a switchboard system, and will the tenants please notify the Telephone Department of their new number so that they can take the telephones out. Sir, I immediately took this up with the Post Office and this has been stopped, because the landlord has no right to order the telephone of a private tenant to be removed, but the wording of this letter could have led people, if they had not come to inquire, into acting in terms of the request to notify the Telephone Department to remove their telephones.

Then he will remove the exchange.

Yes, I have heard that has been done, too; the exchange has been cancelled. I have another case. On 15th April this year a lady went overseas for three months, so she sent her rent for the three months. After she had left it was returned with a letter saying: “Dear Madam, enclosed please find your money order for So-and-So as we cannot accept more than one month’s rent in advance”. When she got back after three months there was an eviction order posted on her door. [Interjections.] Now they have issued a beautiful brochure for this building and they have changed its name. It is now called Golden Sands, and they have told the tenants that they can buy their flats. And in this advertisement they say the following—

They undertake to do the sub-letting. They go on, and in referring to a new company that was formed, say—

Then I have other information which is not printed but which is written on the back of the brochure by the salesman at the time when he is trying to sell the flats. This is that a small flat can be let for R60 to R70 per week and a large flat at R120 per week. These are rent-controlled flats. There may be landlords who may query the necessity for a clause of this nature but this is the sort of thing that makes it necessary. This is the sort of exploitation and activity which justifies the department and the Government, fully supported by me, taking action to act against people who do this sort of thing. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, as soon as this Bill is passed, to act in terms of clause 3 against people who do this sort of thing.

I think we can.

I hope so. I have here at least four or five letters written to tenants in the building. This is not a letter in which tenants are being given notice. It reads—

Here I have another letter. It starts off by saying: “… We intend commencing renovations …”. It is also an intention of giving notice.

You will lose your seat next time if it continues like that.

I will have no buildings left in my constituency if this goes on. I list these things and ask the hon. the Minister whether perhaps even now we have gone far enough.

There are of course other things going on. I have a letter here offering to sell other flats at R6,000 with no capital deposit whatsoever, and no shares being sold. It simply says that they will sell the flat to the tenant for R6,000 and asks them to sign an agreement to pay R54 per month. I then got one of the tenants to write to the owners and to ask them what would happen if they left before they had paid the R6.000 and how much of the R54 was in respect of capital, interest, etc. They were also asked what would happen if tenants did not want to buy the flats but wanted to stay there and whether shares would be sold. I received an answer only a day or two ago. It reads—

In other words, not a cent is paid towards capital redemption. That person therefore will never own that flat.

But surely that is illegal.

Mr. Chairman, this has been taken to the Department of Community Development. I reported it myself.

But we are not a court of law, you know.

No. Who can prosecute other than the Government in a case like this? This is an offer to sell. I though it was illegal but I am told that it is not. What do we do in cases like this?

Ask Sonny Emdin!

This is going on all the time. My time is running out … [Interjections.]

It’s you chaps in Johannesburg.

You have got a queer sense of humour.

Mr. Chairman, it is not everybody who can buy 100-year old houses and renovate them. To them it might be a joke, but to the people who have to live under these conditions it is not a joke at all.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we may even have to go further. I do not think we have completely covered some of the problems which arise here. I mention them now so that the hon. the Minister can consider them. I refer now to clause 5, which applies section 26, namely the children’s clause, to uncontrolled flats. But as always happens, as soon as you close one loophole, somebody finds another. Section 26 only forbids a person from letting a flat because the intended tenant has children. What is happening now is that one estate agency in Durban, one of the major ones, has now in five cases that I know of given notice to persons who have had children since they have been residents of the flat. The lease allows occupancy by two persons. A young couple gets married and they have a child. There are now three people in the flat, so they are given notice. It is only one estate agency which is doing it at the moment, but it is something which could spread. In one case it was a family which took over a child from their brother or brother-in-law when both parents were killed in an accident and the child became an orphan. The brother and sister-in-law took the child in and they have now been notified that they are breaking their contract because there are now more than the number of persons allowed to live in the flat. They were told to find other accommodation. I have the cases here. I can give them to the hon. the Minister. I do not wish to use personal cases over the floor of the House. I will give the names to the hon. the Minister and he can have them investigated.

I have another one here which involves personal details which I would not like to give. This is a case where a wife was on her own at a time when her husband was away for a while. She was given a batchelor flat. When her husband returned she asked for a bigger fiat but they refused and told her that she had to leave, because with her husband back they were too many for a batchelor flat. I have four specific cases here which I can give to the hon. the Minister. I believe that when extending section 26 we will have to go further and cover the case of people who are already in a flat and who have children. We should allow them a certain, reasonable period while those infants are growing up during which they will not be counted as persons for purposes of occupancy in terms of a lease. Those were the main points I wished to make.

How will you cover a situation where a woman is in a bachelor flat when the husband returns?

No, in this case the woman and her husband were in a double flat. When the husband went away, they gave her temporarily a single flat and said she could go back to the double flat when her husband returned. However, when the husband did return they had in the meantime changed the purpose for which the building was to be used and said that although there was a flat available she could not move back to it and that she had to leave because she was breaching the lease. These are difficult problems.

Surely this is a case where that couple should have looked after their own interest? If they had the right under their contract to go back to the double flat, surely it could not have been refused to them.

Yes, the hon. the Minister is right, but people do not think of these things. They take them at their face value. I do not have a solution for that sort of case and I do not suggest there is a solution. I only mentioned it as one of the practical problems and because it also involved children being counted as persons and increasing the number of persons entitled to occupy a flat. However, the simple case of a young couple having a baby is a different matter. In one case of which I know a couple were given advance notice before the baby was born. The wife came to me a month before she expected the baby and said that she had been told that when this baby was born they would be breaching their lease and would have to move out. These are matters which I believe we must look at more carefully. I welcome the steps that have been taken towards meeting the problem, and I look forward to being able to discuss them in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for supporting the second reading of this Bill. I should also like to deal immediately with the question of, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) calls it, the intimidation clause. He mentioned a large number of specific instances which he thinks are not covered by this clause. However, I think the last case he mentioned could not be covered by any clause at all. It was a mistake on the part of the lessees.

I accept it.

I think the provisions of this clause go pretty far. We can discuss it further in the Committee Stage. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I am not averse at all to any amendment which he thinks can improve this clause. However, let me draw his attention to the contents of the proposed section 21 (4). It reads as follows—

I want to stress the words “peaceful enjoyment of occupation”. I think that even if the globe above the letter-box is taken out, it is interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of occupation. Therefore I think that this provision is very far-reaching. I am not a legal man: therefore I could not say. Paragraph (a) reads as follows—

This, too, is very far-reaching. I am quite certain that we will get objections from landlords saying that this clause is going far too far. I agree with the hon. member that it does not go too far. This is, of course, a matter which must be settled by the courts and fortunately not by the rent boards.

Par. (b) reads as follows—

I think anything that is done in a block of flats which is ordinarily not really done in a properly run block of flats will be covered by this clause. Paragraph (c) reads as follows—

Anything that does not comply with these provisions is a breach of the law and is subject to a fine not exceeding R200. I listened very carefully to what the hon. member had to say about the question of rent control, especially as far as flats are concerned, because about 98 per cent of his constituency consists of flats. He perhaps knows more about these difficulties than anybody else. I am therefore quite willing to listen to him. We can argue these matters out in the Committee Stage and also under my Vote because I fully realize how difficult it is to meet all these problems.

While I am dealing with that hon. member, I should like to discuss the question of the Golden Mile. The hon. member has approached me very often about people living in that particular area whose rents are being put up and so on. To-day he referred to the person who has a small building there on a valuable piece of land. At times I am at my wits end when these people ask me whether they can demolish their buildings and build a bigger block of flats because the land is so valuable that you can hardly refuse such a request. But by doing that a number of people will be without accommodation and we must then find other accommodation for them. I want to put a suggestion to the hon. member which we can discuss at some other time. I am seriously considering whether in places like the Golden Mile in Durban and the Sea Point sea front in Cape Town we should not try to remove all the people who cannot afford living in those areas and making provision for them elsewhere. I say this because as soon as you apply rent control to the Golden Mile or the flats on the Sea Point beach front, you discourage any investment there because the land is so expensive and it is really useless to try to apply rent control in those areas. My Department is working on the question of the Golden Mile, Sea Point and several other places in the country and I shall let the hon. member know what we intend doing as soon as I have more facts before me. I agree with the hon. member that in the application of rent control it is very difficult always to reach the right decision.

The hon. member for Green Point made the point that as long as you have rent control you discourage investment in houses and flats. That is true but is there anybody in this House who will say to-day that we must abolish rent control? We cannot abolish rent control. It is absolutely impossible. I must be very open with the House and say that we find it very difficult to find the right people to appoint to the Rent Board. We want people with legal knowledge and people with knowledge of land and buildings. It is not so easy to find this type of person to appoint to the Rent Control Board. We are really limited to ex-magistrates and other legal people as far as appointing people to these rent control boards is concerned. The rent control boards have two jobs and I frankly admit that some of these boards do not realize that they have two jobs. One is to protect the tenant and the other is to see that the landlord gets a reasonable return on his money. I received a complaint to-day from the hon. member for Benoni to the effect that the accusation against that rent board is that they only look after the interests of the landlord and put up all the rents when they are asked to do so.

That is not true.

I do not say that it is true. The hon. member promised to bring me details of these cases and I will then go into them. There is nevertheless a tendency, and I think hon. members will agree that it is quite human, that either your sympathy lies with the tenant or your sympathy lies with the landlord. I agree that provision cannot be made for this in legislation and that it is very difficult to get a reasonable solution. During the recess I called together all the rent boards from all over the country as well as the Rent Control Board. I am now referring to all the full-time rent boards and not the part-time rent boards. We had discussions which lasted a whole day and I tried to impress upon them that they have two jobs, that they must not only look after the tenant or the landlord but that they must try to find a balance between the two. I am the first one to admit that that is not very easy.

I disagree with the view of the hon. member for Durban (Point) about the Sectional Titles Bill. It may in the first stages have another loophole as regards making it difficult for certain tenants. But from all the reports I received and from all the reports I received from overseas, it has been found that as soon as people are allowed to buy flats and register them in their names in terms of a law on sectional titles, it becomes one of the main ways of easing the housing problem. All the other ways of buying flats are really illegal and are really ways of circumventing the present law. In Germany, France and especially England this was one of the main methods that assisted in easing the housing problem because people are then very keen to invest in flats knowing that they can get back their money in a very short time. I have pleaded with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to do everything in his power to ensure that that Bill is passed during this Session.

What will happen to the tenants of a flat somebody wants to buy?

They can be protected. This Bill can be drafted in such a way that the people who are the tenants of a flat cannot be put out as a result of this Bill. I know that it will be difficult but I think it can be done.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I need go any further at this stage. I think that we will have a fairly full discussion of the matter in the Committee Stage and of the whole question of housing under my Vote.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has become traditional to think of South Africa in terms of a large country of vast expanses with more than enough land. This view was realistic, correct and justified during the country’s pioneering stage—an era which still is within the field of memory of the country’s oldest inhabitants. As occupation occurred, so the subdivision of farms increased, and important factors which contributed, and still do. to injudicious subdivision in the traditional system of testation, the inherent urge of the Afrikaner to own land, land speculation, the high capital requirements of modern farming, especially high land values, the lack of expert advice on land values, poor knowledge on the part of many purchasers of land of the agricultural potential of a farm and the lack of adequate legislation for prohibiting the injudicious and uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land.

The problem of the injudicious subdivision of agricultural land has been receiving attention for many years. From time to time leaders in the field of agriculture and others have expressed their deep concern about this matter. In addition it has been dealt with repeatedly in publications concerning the problems of the agricultural industry, in which the utilization of the soil and the occupation thereof have been raised. Part 1 of the report of the Carnegie Commission on Rural Impoverishment and Rural Exodus of 1932, the report of the Reconstruction Committee of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry of 1943 and the report of the Commission of Enquiry into European Occupancy of the Rural Areas of 1959, are of the more important publications in this connection. Specific attention was drawn to this matter when it was debated in this House on 2nd February, 1962. This led to the appointment of an inter-departmental study group on the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land, which reported in 1963. Draft legislation in this connection was considered by a select committee of Parliament in 1964.

In view of the fact that this inevitably is legislation of a far-reaching nature in respect of which considerable differences of opinion may exist for obvious reasons, as they, in fact do as is evident from the report of the Select Committee on the Bill, it was thought proper to give the agricultural leaders a further opportunity of discussing the measure. Consequently the Agricultural Advisory Board held full discussions on the matter a year or two ago. This Board was unanimous in its recommendation, i.e. that it has become imperative to control the subdivision of agricultural land by law as soon as possible. The South African Agricultural Union also adopted a unanimous resolution in 1968 in which the Government was urgently requested to take active steps forthwith in order to restrict the fragmentation of agricultural land. Therefore it is clear that the farming community that is most affected by the measure, is urging the necessity of statutory control over the subdivision of agricultural land.

In May, 1968, we appointed an interdepartmental study committee, on which Prof.

J. H. Moolman of the University of South Africa also served, under the chairmanship of Prof. F. R. Tomlinson, to enquire into the entire matter of the utilization of agricultural land. This study committee reported as early as in December of the same year. The Tomlinson study group, like earlier commissions and committees which I have mentioned, also stressed the seriousness of the problem which the subdivision of agricultural land into uneconomic farming units created for the agricultural industry in particular and for the country in general, and urgently recommended the earliest possible passing of suitable legislation in this regard. For the information of hon. members, I may mention here that the other recommendations of the Committee on the Control and the Utilization of Agricultural Land were not accepted as those recommendations involved many other government departments, provincial administrations and other bodies. The Department of Planning, which was established to co-ordinate the physical planning of the country as a whole, and, where necessary, to take over control itself, is the proper department for exercising control in general, in co-operation with the bodies concerned, over the utilization of land. This, however, is an extremely difficult and involved problem which concerns many interests and the development of the country as a whole.

In broad outline the subdivision of land may be dealt with in two categories, i.e. (i) an unorganized, “natural” process which mainly arises from factors such as the system of testation, capital requirements, injudicious credit provision, lack of knowledge, etc. These factors largely gave rise to the subdivision of farms into the present pattern of uneconomic farming units; (ii) an organized process of fragmentation which consists of individuals—often estate agents and speculators in land—buying up farms, dividing them into small-holdings and selling them at enormous profits.

The serious proportions which the fragmentation of agricultural land has assumed, so much so that it may be regarded to-day as one of our major and most difficult agricultural problems, are possibly not fully realized by the public at large. From an economic study that was undertaken two years ago by the Division of Agricultural Marketing Research, it is deduced that a farm ought to yield at least R4.000 in products in order to ensure a decent living for a family. From the census figures it appears that only approximately 44 per cent of the farms in South Africa in respect of which figures do exist, met this requirement in 1962-’63, and this is attributed largely to farming units which are too small.

It is estimated that there are more than 100,0 small-holdings in our country of which more than one-half is in the Transvaal. In two extension regions at Pretoria very few commercial farms are left and the number of small-holdings of all sizes comes to approximately 14,000 at present. The Warm Baths Soil Conservation Committee mentioned in a letter to the Minister of Agriculture in 1967 that as many as 720 small-holdings varying from 10 to 100 morgen in extent, existed in its district, whereas a farm measuring 500 morgen in extent was regarded as the minimum size for a farm under favourable conditions in that district. From a survey that was conducted in the Soetbosveld of the North-Western Transvaal in 1965. it was found that 75 per cent of the number of farms was under 1,500 morgen in extent. From the point of view of cattle farming on its own, approximately 2,000 morgen are regarded as the minimum for an economic unit.

Investigations conducted in other extensive stock-farming areas show the same pattern throughout. In the district Middelburg, Cape, a farm measuring approximately 3,000 morgen in extent is regarded as a minimum economic unit. Approximately 63 per cent of the farms are smaller than this minimum. In the district of Boshoff it has been estimated that approximately 1,600 morgen ought to be the minimum economic size of a farm, whereas approximately 56 per cent of the farms in that district are less than 1,500 morgen in extent. I can proceed in this way and mention numerous other examples.

The Tomlinson Committee mentions in its report that the general deduction may be made from the available data that of the total number of commercial farms in South Africa between 30 per cent and 40 per cent are too small to provide a decent living to the family.

The Commission of Enquiry into European Occupancy of the Rural Areas mentioned, inter alia, in its report of 1959 that the number of small farms were increasing; and that farms had become so small in many cases that there were a number of farmers in certain regions who would be forced from their land. Consequently the commission was of the opinion that subdivision had gone too far in certain parts of the country and that this would definitely promote further depopulation in these parts. Therefore the commission recommended that active steps be taken to consolidate uneconomic units and to prevent the further development of such units.

The Commission on the Occupancy of Rural Areas also gave a detailed exposition of the adverse effects, especially in the economic, agricultural and social spheres, of farms which are too small. What it amounts to in brief is that it will lead to rural poverty in the worst degree. The effect of this is not only that the farmers and their families are suffering financially and have to struggle to keep their heads above water, but also that the soil suffers as much. These small farms usually are overgrazed, choked with noxious or valueless intruding vegetation and badly trampled, with the result that soil erosion assumes alarming proportions on such farms. The farmers on uneconomical farming units do not have the capital for constructing essential soil conservation work. These small farms constitute one of the main causes why we cannot make the desired progress as regards soil conservation.

It is not possible to make full use of the advantages offered by technological development. especially as regards mechanization, on farming units which are too small. In the first place, the farmer cannot afford the expensive farming implements, and, in the second place, such implements cannot be utilized economically on such small units and are therefore not justified financially. As a result high and efficient production cannot be expected from these small farms. Extremely specialized industries such as flower farming, poultry farming, pig farming, etc., are, of course, not taken into consideration in this connection. These specialized industries, which are assuming the character of factory farming, are usually present only a small percentage of our agriculrun in the vicinity of our large cities and retural industry.

The problem of farming units which are small is not peculiar to our own country. In the older Western countries it is one of the factors hampering the progress of the agricultural industry and the cause of rural poverty. Enormous amounts are being spent annually in these countries on the consolidation of land. In view of the fact that it is Government policy to consolidate farming units which are too small, it would be foolish and extremely unwise to allow the further fragmentation of agricultural land to continue unchecked. The consolidation of land is a slow process and requires heavy expenditure, but it is one of the most important aids for placing the agricultural industry on a sound footing. Therefore, the time is more than ripe for appropriate legislation in this connection.

This proposed legislation is undeniably of a far-reaching nature, especially as regards the freedom of land owners. But as is the case with other similar legislation, the interests of the country and those of the community have to be placed above those of the individual, who, through his actions may hamper the progress of the country. This is no new principle, however. because the powers of controlling the subdivision of land in proclaimed controlled areas are already contained in the Natural Resources Act, which was replaced by the Physical Planning Act in 1967. At present the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is advising the Minister of Planning on the subdivision of agricultural land. It is desirable for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services itself to exercise control over the subdivision of agricultural land. Therefore the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has been gaining experience since 1967 in connection with the subdivision of agricultural land and the determination of economic farming units in various parts of the country.

The principal objection to the control of the fragmentation of agricultural land is mainly that it is so difficult to determine when a farm is an economic unit and when it is not, as there are so many factors which determine this. I want to concede that the mere size of a farm does not ensure that a person will derive an income from that farm on which he can exist. What is important in this regard is the physical, economic and sociological factors such as the climate, the agricultural potential or production possibilities, the managerial ability of the farmer, which is very important, the financing of the undertaking, the ratio between the prices of products and the means of production, price trends, the debt burden of the farmer, etc. It is also clear that a unit may be an economic unit under a particular set of circumstances, but if, for example, it changes hands, it need not necessarily still be the case. Therefore the real criterion which is employed in the determination of the minimum sizes of farms, is the net revenue which an average farmer can derive from the farm under normal circumstances. Here it is important to stress “an average farmer” and “normal circumstances”, because as soon as allowance is made for the special person with special knowledge the entire calculation would be valueless. Consequently one would have to act conservatively in this regard. Whereas a farm may be allowed to be smaller for the requirements of a particular person at a certain stage than what would be allowed for the “average farmer”, it might be found subsequently, after the person with the special qualities has sold the farm or fallen away, that the land is too small for an economic unit for the average farmer in the particular region. Similarly, we shall also have to guard against units which are too small during periods of higher prices than those which may be regarded as normal or subsequent to a series of favourable years.

The point of departure is the determination of the minimum extent of land which will under particular circumstances ensure the entrepreneur of average managerial ability an average family revenue which may be deemed adequate. The calculations for any particular unit are made chiefly on the basis of the following technical information;

1. (a) The potential of the various kinds of soil and types of veld as determined by rainfall, climate, soil type, depth, slope, etc., i.e. the production capacity of the arable land and the carrying capacity of the veld;
2. (b) the surface of the various kinds of soil and types of veld with an indication of the desired systems of crop rotation and rotational grazing so that a sound land utilization system may be applied.

On the basis of the aforementioned physical information the total net revenue, in respect of which allowance is made only for farming expenditure, for the unit concerned, is calculated by the application of appropriate economic standards. The economic standard in respect of each facet of the farming industry may be defined as the average net revenue which a group of average farmers will be able to achieve on an average for a few seasons under similar physical and economic circumstances in respect of each facet. The net family revenue is then calculated by decreasing the total net revenue by an allowance for interest and redemption charges on capital at a reasonable rate. The calculated minimum net family revenue is subsequently compared to a revenue norm of R1,500 to R2,000 per annum. This amount has been determined in the light of information obtained about the revenue levels of a number of population groups. Adjustments will probably be necessary in future, because of changed circumstances, but this in itself ought not to give rise to any problems.

The practicability of the proposed method was proved by the then Natural Resources Development Board, established in terms of the Natural Resources Act which was replaced by the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act in 1967, which took its decisions regarding the subdivision of agricultural land on the advice of the Department of Agriculture. As is known, the subdivision of land in certain proclaimed controlled areas which at present include, inter alia, the whole of the Transvaal and the goldfields of the Orange Free State, is subject to the approval of the Minister of Planning. In each case the calculated net revenue criterion is taken as norm for determining whether a piece of land is not becoming too small as a unit for farming purposes.

In view of the fact that testamentary dispositions are probably one of the major causes of uneconomic units in the country, they cannot be left out and have consequently been included under the control of this Act. Any testamentary disposition made by a testator who died prior to the commencement of this Act is being excluded, as its inclusion would be unfair and would cause many problems and delays in finalizing estates. By way of explanation, I should like to point out that joint heirs of land will not be obliged at all times to convert the land into cash. If, however, they were to come to a mutual agreement to utilize the land jointly in some satisfactory manner, there ought to be no objection. Persons who have already decided that coming generations should inherit their land, ought to consider revising their wills, even at this stage. In pursuance of discussions held with various bodies and persons we have deemed fit to effect certain amendments since the introduction of the Bill in the House of Assembly last year. I also made a promise that the take-over of control would be made as convenient as possible and that the public would be accommodated where it is at all possible to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister delivered a speech which was larded with references to so-called investigations which were carried out in the past in respect of uneconomic agricultural units. In his speech the hon. the Deputy Minister also told us a few things about the norm which he thinks will be laid down to determine whether a unit will be economic or not. This he did with reference to the average income of a number of population groups for different types of work. I want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister definitely did good work in preparing this speech so that he could put his case in this way. I also want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that it will be the task of this side of the House to prove to him that there are a large number of loopholes in his speech in spite of his preparatory work. I want to say immediately that we on this side of this House move the following amendment—

1. (a) confers upon the Minister far-reaching powers with regard to the subdivision of agricultural land, which needlessly interfere with the rights of the individual;
2. (b) leaves the State free to acquire good agricultural land and to use it for non-agricultural purposes; and
3. (c) …

Who says so?

If the hon. member had read the Bill, he would have seen that this is so. The amendment reads further—

This amendment summarizes our objections to this Bill. This legislation has a very long history. As far back as 1962 a discussion in connection with the subdivision of agricultural land was initiated in this House by the present Deputy Minister of Transport. On a later occasion legislation came before this House which also envisaged a board of control, as well as local committees which would help with the subdivision of agricultural land and the norm which would have to be laid down. This then formed the subject of a select committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Ladybrand. After that the committee was converted into a commission of inquiry, which could not complete its work. This commission visited only two places, namely Pretoria and Bloemfontein, where evidence was taken. The following year this question was again referred to a select committee, and the work was completed in that year. This legislation therefore has a long history. If the Government itself could drag on the matter for six years, eight years since 1962, I cannot understand that the urgency has now become so great that the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks that legislation has become necessary. According to the hon. the Deputy Minister dozens of reports emphasizing the urgency of this matter have already been received. The reason why no action was previously taken is, firstly, that legislation which could deal with this to a large extent, was in the hands of the provinces.

Only 25 morgen.

Yes, that is correct. There is also the old Act on the Natural Resources Development Council. This Council had extensive powers. This Act was, however, replaced by the Physical Planning Act in 1967, in terms of which the Minister of Planning has already frozen practically the whole of the Transvaal in respect of the subdivision of agricultural land. In the third place, there is the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, which was passed as long ago as 1937, and in connection with which Dr. Henning told us a few things before the select committee at the time. He said that where there is unbeneficial occupation of agricultural land and too many people live on a piece of agricultural land, that Act can be used to consolidate and redistribute that piece of land so that people can live on it in such a way that the soil is not exhausted and its value is not reduced.

It was used only once.

But why was it used only once? There is provision for that in the Statute Book. The hon. the Minister, together with the Minister of Planning and the provincial administrations, already has the necessary powers, in terms of the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act to deal with such an evil if it exists. However, let us look at the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech. He said that this is legislation with “far-reaching (in-grypende) powers”. This is exactly what we are saying in our amendment. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that these are “drastic” (verregaande) powers …

The hon. the Deputy Minister did not say “drastic”, but “far-reaching”.

If the hon. member is a linguist, he must tell me what the difference in meaning between “drastic” and “far-reaching” is. Later in his speech the hon. the Deputy Minister said the following —

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister listed the various factors and said the following—

These are all the other factors which play a part in determining whether a unit is an economic one or not.

Do you agree or not?

It is because I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s objections that I am opposed to this Bill. The hon. Deputy Minister is trying to single out only one particular factor. I hope to prove to the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon that uneconomic division is the smallest factor in connection with agricultural problems. If the hon. the Deputy Minister himself can mention these factors which prove how difficult it is, I want to know from him: How difficult will it not be for his Department to implement this legislation in future? I want to tell him that this legislation will be a white elephant on the Statute Book of South Africa, because it will be impossible to implement. If he should dare to implement this legislation, there would be such an agitation on the part of the farmers themselves in South Africa that it would be impossible for him to implement this legislation. Even at this stage I want to predict that when the farmer of South Africa realizes what the implications of this legislation are, the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act of 1970 will stand there, perhaps just like the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act of 1937, and it will not be possible to implement it in South Africa. After all, we have already become used to the fact that the Government blows up a problem out of proportion to its actual size and then tries to prevent it by means of the most far-reaching powers and legislation, merely in order to gain a better grip on the freedom of the individual. Naturally a serious problem will require exceptional and strong action, but how big is this problem of the uneconomic division of agricultural land? Does it take place on such an extensive scale throughout the country, or is it limited to certain parts of the country only? The report on European Occupancy of the Rural Areas mentioned the problem and singled out certain parts of the Northern Transvaal in particular—Soutpans-berg and Marico—as examples of areas where large-scale subdivision, also as a result of bequests, had taken place. But for the rest we have always heard that farms were becoming too large and that the land barons are a danger in South Africa. But now we hear that farms are becoming too small. Which one of the two is in fact the problem? [Interjection.] A noted agriculturist—I am not referring to the hon. member for Fauresmith, because he is no expert on anything—Prof. Tomlinson, declared in 1964 at the land service camp at Roodeplaat (according to Departmental Agricultural News No. 360, 10.7.1964):

Sir, where than is this problem that farmers are subdividing their land on a large scale and are lettting dozens of sons farm on small farms? If 82 per cent of the farms in the Transvaal do not even have one heir, where is the problem?

This Government must realize that the modern farmer will not act as unwisely as was done decades ago when farms were divided in such a way that the land was quite inadequate in extent. The South African farmer realizes full well that if he wants to afford his son a reasonable change in agriculture, and especially under this Government, his land should rather be too large than too small. I do not wish to suggest that there are no, unscrupulous speculators who have deceived many on the pretext that what they are offering for sale constitute economic units on which an enterprising farmer can make a living. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself mentioned that there are 100,000 small-holdings in the Transvaal, 14,000 of which are in the vicinity of Pretoria. Many of those people were definitely deceived over the years, but most of the people who are deceived in this way are not bona fide farmers. In any case, what State assistance is there for this type of man? There is absolutely no State assistance for this type of man. According to this side of the House there are most definitely very few bona fide farmers who are deceived in this way.

Who deceives them?

I do not think I have to repeat it. I said that they were deceived by speculators and persons of that type.

You did not say it was speculators.

Yes, I mentioned them. One of the most difficult problems is to determine what an economic unit is. After all, when determining what an economic unit is, one must have a norm which has been scientifically established. [Interjections.] I cannot do that, and therefore I am opposed to this legislation, but I want to show the hon. member how difficult it is. One farmer’s standard of living requires R200 a month, for example, the next perhaps R400 a month or more and No. 3 perhaps R50 a month. Every case will therefore have to be considered individually and on its own merits. Sir, what will the result of this be? Before A divides his land to give it to B and C, he will have to furnish proof—in this case he will have to furnish proof to the hon. the Minister— that the proposed division is economic because his income was such that both B and C will both be assured of a decent income. We know that the farmer will hesitate to give this information to the Receiver of Revenue. So much the more will he hesitate to give this information to the hon. the Minister. However, the main problem will arise when a farm or a piece of land seems to be economic and becomes uneconomic as a result of circumstances, and vice versa. I want to mention some examples. There are many such cases which are obvious. Take, for example, the export grapes of nearby De Doorns and Paarl. Today a good living can be made on a very small piece of land, but what will happen if there is a sudden slump in the world market price? Will their farms then become uneconomic units? For example, what a fantastic change has not been made in the yields in agronomy as a result of scientific progress? Many of those agricultural units might have been considered uneconomic 15 to 20 years ago. Can the same mistakes not be made by the hon. the Minister in the future? Can his views not be proved quite wrong by future developments? And what would the hon. the Minister have done in the meanwhile? He would have prevented our industry from being enriched by the entry of possibly progressive farmers. Only on account of certain circumstances at a given moment he would have said: Agriculture is uneconomic now. Therefore farmers may not divide. Therefore farmers must see to it that their sons obtain employment elsewhere. But just a year or two afterwards, as a result of changed circumstances, that land might become so economical that two or three persons could make a living on it. How is it possible to lay down a norm for determining what is an economic unit and what is not?

The problem which worries everyone today, except the Government apparently, is that the rural areas are becoming depopulated of white people. One of the most adverse effects of this legislation will be that it will result in fewer farmers being established on our land. This legislation is in fact designed to place obstacles in the way of such aspiring farmers. It would have been a major problem if this Government were saddled with an increasing number of farmers for whom there was no land. If this were the case, I would have been able to understand that the hon. the Minister had a problem, but in the past 15 to 20 years alone the number of farmers in South Africa dropped by at least 3,000 a year. But now it seems to me as if the Government is not proud enough of its record in connection with the reduction of the number of farmers over the past 22 years. Now this must be artificially stimulated by preventing farmers from bequeathing land to their sons before all doubt has been removed about the possibility of earning a living on that land. What modern father is still so thoughtless as to bind a son to a piece of land on which making a living has become a doubtful matter? And if there are any, are they sufficient in number to justify interference by the State in every testamentary bequeathal of agricultural land? Once this legislation has been accepted, nobody will be able to make a will about the subdivision of agricultural land before that will has been submitted to the hon. the Minister. What we on this side of this House want to know is whether these implications of this legislation have been explained to the farmers of South Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is a typical backbencher. He makes a big noise to show that he is also in this House. When we had a commission of inquiry in this connection previously, we put this same question to Mr. Chris Cilliers and also to Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers. Both of them admitted that, when it came to the subdivision Of agricultural land, interference in bequests would not be desirable and would not be welcomed by the farmers of South Africa. This legislation amounts to this, that a farmer cannot do what he wants with his property. Other people will be able to set aside his most intimate decisions—which is, after all, what his wishes as expressed in his will are. Sir, a persons last wish has always been regarded with the greatest respect, and thus far no sound argument has been advanced, either on the committee or before the commission or by the hon. Minister as to why a farmer’s testamentary disposition must first be submitted to the Minister before it can be valid. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Do we expect this from the businessman; do we expect it from the merchant; do we expect it from the professional man or from the industrialist? Why this discrimination against the farmer of South Africa?

They hate the farmers (hulle is boerehaters).

That is a fallacious argument.

Admittedly there are farmers whose heirs must be protected, but the protection can just as well be afforded by means of education and correct guidance being provided to the testator by the Department. This is what Mr. Sevenster says, and he was Secretary to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Before the passing of the Agricultural Credit Act he was also chairman of the Farmers’ Assistance Board. What did he say in paragraph 30 on page 17 of the report? He said—

There the hon. the Minister has the answer in dealing with such a matter. It is a strange coincidence that when uneconomic units are being discussed, it is usually said that high land prices must be linked with it. But on a previous occasion the hon. the Minister also received an effective reply from Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers, the chairman of the South African Agricultural Union, when Mr. De Villiers said that the price of land had little to do with the profitability of farming, but can rather be influenced by other factors, such as inflation and depreciation in the value of money. The Government is, of course, in trouble. The Government’s policy in connection with the prices of products results in a poor dividend to the farmer on his investment, and at the end of the financial year the farmer compares the poor dividend he receives on his large investment with what he would have received in any other sector, and then he obviously feels dissatisfied. The Government fully realizes this and thinks that the price land is artificially high, and what is it now trying to do with this legislation? This too was envisaged for us by Dr. Henning when he gave evidence before the committee and said that one of the effects of this legislation would be that it would force down the price of land.

Is that advantageous to the farmer or not?

I will give the hon. member a reply to that if he will only give me a chance. These matters are fully realized by the Government, and that is why they think that the price of land is artificially high, and now they are also trying to force down the price of land artificially by discouraging the division of land and in this way reducing the demand. Sir, while continuing to follow a weak policy in regard to the prices of products, they can then suggest to the farmer that he is receiving a large dividend on his investment because his capital investment is less. This legislation will result in the price of agricultural land in the interior being forced down artificially. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Minister dealt with this Bill at such length that I do not have much to say about it. However, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Newton Park. Having listened here to the hon. member for Newton Park, we realized more and more that although the hon. member discussed agriculture here, he had become a real city-dweller, and it is in fact for that reason that he is representing Newton Park. The hon. member is concerned about the inroads this Bill will make on the rights of the individual.

The Minister admitted it.

Sir, to a certain extent all the laws of the country are making inroads on the rights of the individual—not only this Bill. This applies to all laws, and laws are made for the benefit of the country and the people. The hon. member said that one could not determine an economic unit in terms of the yardstick used in this Bill. After all, one cannot simply draw a line through the country and say that so many morgen will be regarded as an economic unit and that anything smaller than that will be regarded as an uneconomic unit. After all, this would be foolishness. What constitutes an economic unit, will have to be determined on its own merits in every part of the country.

Do you have the staff to do it?

Yes. The hon. member said that this Bill was not a practical measure as the Government had for several years been trying to straighten out this Bill for introduction in this House, but with such an Opposition, which puts forward such absurd proposals, it is to be understood that it will take time. Sir, in this respect, too, we are dealing with an Opposition which is opposed to this legislation here in this House, but when they attend meetings of the agricultural unions outside, they agree with it.

Who did that?

There have been instances where certain Opposition members agreed with agricultural unions that legislation against the subdivision of land had to be introduced. They agreed with it.

With the principle.

If that is the case, let hon. members of the Opposition help to improve the Bill so that it will work properly. Sir, to prove that the hon. member for Newton Park has adopted the attitude of the city-dweller entirely, I want to point out that he wants the fragmentation of land surrounding the major cities and towns to go on, for there are certain organisations which are making money out of it. People are so quick to say that a man living in the city would like to have 25 or 50 morgen to live on so that he may retain his sense of living in a rural area. Sir, it is unhealthy for the country that one person should own 25 or 50 morgen of agricultural land merely to live on. This will have the effect that the country will eventually not be able to produce enough for its inhabitants. The hon. member said that this measure would be a white elephant. My reply is that many members on the Opposition side will in the course of time be white elephants in the constituencies they are representing now.

Especially in the rural areas.

The hon. member for Newton Park intimated here a moment ago that he would see to it that farmers would not be satisfied with this measure. In other words, he wants to incite the farmers outside against this legislation. He said one should not dictate to a farmer what he was to do; one should not interfere with his rights. The hon. member knows that the farmers who are able to think for themselves, agree with this legislation because they can see where it is leading to, and that our farming population is going to become like the farming population in many European countries, where the fragmentation of land took place on such a large scale that the majority of those farmers became peasants. We are not keen to have that position in this country. With the subdivision of land there is so much fragmentation that it renders each of those parts uneconomic. Sometimes there is a fair-sized farm which may perhaps be subdivided into two or three parts, but instead of doing that, it is fragmented into eight parts, and then they are cut up into thin strips so that everybody has a piece of land bordering on the river. This means that the whole farm has been fragmented to such an extent that none of those subdivisions is worth anything. The hon. member also wanted to know what would happen at De Dooms, where the farms are so small, if grapes could no longer be exported. The hon. member may just as well say that if the skies should fall, all of us would die. He wants to spread scary stories amongst the farmers, but I can tell him that they will not meet with approval.

I think it is time we also learnt some of the lessons learnt in the older countries. In Holland, for instance, we have the subdivision of land, “verkaveling” as they call it. This had assumed such grave proportions that the State had to intervene, and this they call the “herverkaveling”, i.e. re-subdivision. The Dutch state made it its object to eliminate the defective agricultural structure where it occurred and represented an obstacle to the implementation of effective and economic farming practice, and to bring about at the same time an improvement in the social standing of the farming communities in question. The combination of those small farms also raises the social standing of the farmer. Although the Opposition has always said that the farmers cannot make a reasonable living, they do not want to assist in preventing them from living on farms where the income is too small. This objective in the Netherlands is being accomplished by means of the consolidation of land. The process of land consolidation includes for the most part a general reconstruction and renewal of the agricultural districts. Fragmented farming units are consolidated. Small, uneconomic farms are enlarged and, where possible, converted into economic farms. Roads and canals are realigned and rebuilt, and drainage and water utilization, etc., are canalized. The evacuation of small, uneconomic units is promoted and encouraged in that it is possible for the owner of such a piece of land to sell it to the State on relatively favourable conditions. The land made available in this manner, is then used for enlarging the remaining small farming units.

There we have a country which is much older than ours and which permitted this fragmentation of land, and now it is costing that State a tremendous amount of money to bring those fragmented pieces of land together again. Would the Opposition like us to leave this matter to posterity, when the land will already have been fragmented and it will cost the State thousands of millions of rands to consolidate those fragmented pieces of land once again? Just think of what the extent of this was in a small country such as Holland. They said that views on the necessity and need for consolidation had progressively changed since a start had been made with this programme. In 1937 it was considered that 500,000 hectares or roughly 22 per cent of the arable land of the Netherlands was in need of consolidation, but as time went by there was such a considerable increase in the extent of this area that it is being accepted at present that land consolidation is urgently required on an area of approximately 1.5 million hectares. As long ago as 1937 they saw that this was necessary, but they failed to do something about it, as the Opposition also wants this country to do, and then it increased from 500,000 hectares in 1937 to 1.5 million hectares in 1963.

There are many other matters which I should like to mention, for the Opposition takes the view that the farmer should be allowed to do as he pleases; to farm as he pleases. But once he lands in financial difficulties, that farmer applies to the State for assistance, and if the State does not help him 100 per cent, we hear this Opposition complaining again that the State is not rendering enough assistance to the farmer. If we want to take a further look at what is happening in Holland, we shall see that to enable the State to control this state of affairs, it will virtually have to peg the price of land so as to prevent it from rising out of proportion with the price of agricultural produce.

When this debate was adjourned on Wednesday I had reacted in a general way to the speech made by the hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill. I had referred to the fact that we took it amiss —I want to emphasize that—that the hon. the Minister had such derogatory criticisms to make against the Marais Commission which investigated the co-ordination of transport in South Africa. The Minister, in disagreeing with their recommendations, which is his right, accused them of being superficial, of not having studied their terms of reference, and he said that the appointment of the commission had been seized upon by interested parties to further their own interests. I am not quite clear as to what the hon. the Minister meant by that. Is he accusing the commissioners of furthering their own interest? I do not think so, Sir, but then it is still a shameful thing to suggest that a commission of this calibre, with men of this quality serving upon it, allowed themselves to be used by interested parties. I looked again at the minority report of Mr. Joubert on this question of the quality of the investigations conducted by the commission, and it seems to me that his greatest objection was that the commission did not give the Railways adequate opportunity to put their point of view. That, to me, is a strange admission of neglect. The Minister can say that other interested parties seized upon the appointment of this commission to further their own interests, but the Railways did not! That is the complaint, Sir. Why should the commission be blamed if the Railways did not seize the opportunity afforded them of putting and arguing their case before the commission? But I am beginning to wonder now about this commission.

It had distinguished members on it. The chairman is a most distinguished South African economist. Other members of this commission have served on the Newton Commission and on the Schumann Commission, where they did such good work that the Minister thought it wise to appoint them again, but now suddenly they have become superficial and unintelligent and have lent themselves to abuse. This same Dr. Marais is now chairman of another very important commission which is investigating the agriculture of South Africa. Can the Government have confidence in him in that position after what the Minister of Transport has said about the commission of which he was the chairman which investigated the co-ordination of transport? Has the Minister recommended to the Cabinet that Dr. Marais be relieved of his position as chairman of this agricultural commission? Because if he does not do so, he could not have been serious when he made this unfortunate statement to the House on Wednesday.

And, Sir, it raises another issue. I think that all governments in South Africa and all government in the democratic world are grateful that men of learning, men of experience and men of proven insight are willing to serve on commissions, which is not a very remunerative occupation, in order to give to the government of the day the advantage of their experience, their knowledge and their wisdom. But if this is the manner in which a commission is going to be treated by the Minister responsible for the Department appointing it, if this is the thanks they get, if this is the sort of side-swipe administered to them because they render a report with which the Minister concerned does not agree, one wonders whether in time men of real integrity, men of self-respect, will agree to render these valuable services to the country toy serving on commissions. I think the Minister owes an apology to outstanding citizens of South Africa. He has the right to differ; he has the right to reject their recommendations; but without issuing gratuitous insults to men who deserve better of their Government than the Minister has accorded to them.

Sir, we on this side of the House do not agree with all the recommendations of this commission, but we are grateful—and I want it to be noted that the Official Opposition are grateful—that men of this stamp and of this quality are willing to assist Parliament and the Government and the nation to make up their minds on the problems before us. We still believe that in spite of the Minister’s attitude there is much of value and much that deserves careful consideration in the report that has been rendered by the Marais Commission. We shall come back to this.

It is quite clear from the Minister’s speech and the memorandum he has submitted, and from information which is available to the public, that the Railways are returning to the position in which they found themselves in the days of the Minister’s predecessor and that they can no longer accept the traffic offered. While the Railways apply and claim a monopoly of transport in South Africa they cannot discharge their functions by transporting the goods which the public of South Africa offer for transport.

Now the hon. the Minister had many excuses. It was the manpower shortage; it was the drought; it was the flu epidemic. It was also a fact which was the main cause for Mr. Sauer’s difficulties, namely that the Government is not allowing the Minister a fair share of the capital available for public investment in South Africa. I think the House should note how inadequate the services of the Railways have become. The services rendered by the S.A. Railways are so inadequate that they are limiting the growth of South Africa, restricting the entrepreneurs of South Africa and frittering away the opportunities offered to the people of South Africa to become a great nation economically. I want to give a few examples.

The Natal Associated Collieries told us recently that they arranged for exports totalling 240,0 tons, 200,000 tons more than they had before, to be exported from April of this year until March, 1971, to the value of R1.5 million. They felt that they had to increase their exports further because their markets internally were being reduced for a variety of reasons. They were advised by the Railways that no significant increase would be possible until the harbour at Richard’s Bay had been completed. Sir, the completion of the harbour has nothing to do with flu or with the drought; it is just that the planning of the Ministry has not kept up with the development of South Africa and the changing needs of the transport users of South Africa. It has nothing to do with flu or with the drought. In view of this, one is entitled to ask the Minister when the harbour at Richard’s Bay will be completed. Can we have a progress report so that those people who are being restricted at the moment will know how to plan for the future more accurately than they can at the moment? The same Associated Collieries relate that they were allocated trucks for 1,040,000 tons for April, May and June of this year, but could get only 825,530 trucks, a deficiency of 20 per cent. To what extent was that due to drought or to flu, or is it just that the Railways can no longer cope with the demands made upon them by the people and by the industries of South Africa, by our enterprise?

If one reads the latest economic survey of the Stellenbosch Bureau, one finds that they complain about bottlenecks on almost every page. The chief bottleneck, about which we shall have more to say, is the manpower shortage, but they also rate the inadequate transport system very high on the list. We find that the Railways cannot cope with the transport of lime, citrus for export, iron ore, chrome, manganese or coal, and generally businessmen are being restricted. There was reported recently a speech at a meeting of the Chamber of Industries at Bloemfontein by Mr. W. Hochstetter of the S.A. Brick Associa tion, in which he said that he was offered an export order worth R100,000 a month of foreign exchange and later probably R250,000 a month, but he lost it because the Railways told him that they could not undertake the transport of these goods to our harbours. He said that when he tried to arrange transport for the goods the Railways told him that trucks were not available and he could not accept the contract. He had since heard that the Dutch company which had offered the order was negotiating in Australia instead. He asked how this experience could be reconciled with the exhortation to industrialists to increase exports. So we see, Sir, that what is happening on the Railways is running counter to the very policy of the Government that we should do everything in our power to increase exports. Mr. J. G. H. Loubser, Deputy General Manager of S.A. Railways, was present on the occasion when he mentioned it. Mr. Loubser explained “that it was not simply a case of trucks not being available but the capacity of lines had to be taken into consideration; there was so much immediate business that the Railways had difficulty in keeping up with it despite big improvements and expansions; vast planning was required, but it had to be global and not individual, and the Railways must have prior notice of any substantial increase in traffic, even 20,000 tons a month on one line; the big problem was to know what to tackle realistically in a growing country like South Africa.”

Sir, the Railways are failing South Africa. They have a problem in regard to what to tackle realistically. People are being frustrated in their enterprise. We are returning to the days of Mr. Paul Sauer, when the Railways were inadequate and could not accept the traffic that was offered. We have had other railway users describing the delays between Durban and Johannesburg as chaotic and chronic. We are told by these users that normal deliveries from Durban to Johannesburg now take four weeks and express deliveries three weeks. Express deliveries are now slower than normal deliveries should be, Sir. At the end of June we read that three uranium plants in the Western Transvaal had to close down because no line could be taken to them by the Railways. If I may pause, Sir, I should like to quote someone whom I think we will all accept as an impartial witness to confirm what I have just said, a man who is probably a friend of the Minister’s, Mr. W. B. Coetzer, chairman of the Federal Mining group and of the General Mining Corporation, who said in his annual report published in June—

It is, therefore, most discouraging for the industry to find that although significant export markets exist at prices substantially in excess of ruling local prices for coal, we are unable to export more than a token tonnage owing to lack of railways and port facilities which will take several years to overcome.

I think it is clear that the Railways are lagging behind the transport needs of the entrepreneurs of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Have you lost your notes?

Sir, I am glad that I could give hon. members opposite some relief; they were looking pretty tense a minute ago.

Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned witnesses from inside South Africa, but it is also interesting to note what visitors from overseas who are interested in expanding business with South Africa have to say of our transport system. Here I have a report from a friend of the Government, a Japanese gentleman by the name of Mr. Y. Tsuji, the president of an export-import company in Japan, who said, according to the Rand Daily Mail of the 17th July in an interview, that Japan would like to increase trade with South Africa but the major difficulty was an inadequate transport system. He said—

Sir, that is the view of an outsider. The Railways are not equipped to cope with the possibilities and the potential of South Africa.

This situation is serious, and I for one do not want to diminish the importance of the drought in causing the hon. the Minister’s difficulties. But, Sir, as we have said in another context to the Minister of Agriculture, surely the time has come for those responsible for the government of South Africa to realize that droughts in South Africa are endemic. There is hardly a year that passes when we are not stricken by drought. A drought should not be looked upon as something abnormal, as something that happens once in a while; it recurs regularly and provision must be made for it in our planning, whether it concerns agriculture or transport or any other aspect of our business. One hopes that the time will come when members of the Government will not hide behind the fact that there is a drought in South Africa because then they will be in permanent hiding; because, I repeat, that droughts are endemic in South Africa.

The other point I want to make is this. It is a strange excuse to talk about flu and drought and to advance that as an excuse. The Minister should know that the real reason why he cannot cope in a flu epidemic or why he cannot cope when a drought strikes South Africa, is that there is no elasticity in the organization of the Railways. The Railways are permanently overstrained; the staff are working excessive overtime in normal times. In any other normal business when an emergency arises you call upon your staff to work overtime and to give you more of their energy and more of their initiative to overcome the emergency. But, Sir, the Railways are in a permanent state of emergency; and when an emergency is caused by an outside factor like a drought or a flu epidemic, there are no resources left upon which the hon. the Minister can call. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in South Africa, and all this hiding behind flu and droughts does not alter the fact that the planning for the South African Railways and Harbours has been inadequate and that the responsible Minister and the Cabinet have lacked the vision to appreciate the growth potential of South Africa. They think too small for South Africa. That is our major criticism of this Government. That is why we find in the speech delivered by the hon. the Minister that he breathes a sigh of relief that he can expect a decrease in the growth rate of South Africa, which will give him a chance to catch up and to consolidate. Sir, it is a strange organization that has to rely upon setbacks in the economy of South Africa in order to be able to return to normal. One wonders whether the 20 per cent decline in investment in certain industries in South Africa during 1969 was the result of deliberate Government planning and influence because they cannot cope with the growth of South Africa. South Africa is too big for the Government!

There is no doubt that a main reason for the difficulties of the Railways is the fact that the capital resources of our country are limited, but more important is the labour shortage, which is due to restrictions placed on the use of labour, which make it impossible for us to supply the needs of our country for local purposes, for export purposes and for the growth of our industries. So the hon. the Minister breathes a sigh of relief because our growth rate is going to be reduced. He wants to become like a jackal which feeds on the lion’s kill, where the lion is the restrictions on labour and the kill is the restrictions on the development of South Africa’s economy. There is no flexibility in the Railways; there is no slack that we can take up in emergencies and the staff have to work so hard that one sometimes wonders how they survive. I think that everyone of us in this House, everyone concerned with business, everyone concerned with the transport system of South Africa should pay tribute to the staff of the S.A. Railways for the tremendous sacrifices they are willing to make in order to bolster up an inadequate Minister and an inadequate Government. They bear the burden, Sir. The hon. the Minister is not aware of it really, except through reports. They are the people who have to work excessive overtime; they are the people who have to go virtually without family life and without relaxation in order to try to overcome the difficulties created for South Africa by the wrong policies of this Government. Sir, the Minister, aware of this, has just announced increases in pay amounting in toto to R60 million per annum for the staff. We all welcome this; we welcome it all the more because the Minister now realizes that he cannot afford to ignore even the political influence of the staff. You will remember, Sir, how, when he introduced the Part Appropriation Bill earlier this year, he assured us that he did not have to try to buy the railway votes. Does he remember saying that?

I do not remember that.

You mean you have to buy it now?

I will deal with that in my reply.

The Minister will remember that in his speech earlier this year he pointed out that the United Party had lost Umhlatuzana, a Railway seat, and that it had lost this, that and the other seat where the Railway vote is important. He said that in his speech, and he said that it was not necessary for him to offer inducements to the railwaymen to vote for his party. And then what happened, Sir? After the setback which the hon. gentlemen received in the general election, he rushed off to Langlaagte, where there is a major concentration of Railway votes, to announce a R60 million increase in the salaries of the railwaymen. I am glad they got it. The only problem that it creates for me is the bookkeeping problem. Where does the hon. member for Langlaagte feature in the bookkeeping of the Railways? Is he a revenue asset or a capital asset? Does he come on the debit side or the credit side of the S.A. Railways, or is he a frozen asset? It would be very interesting to know.

There is no doubt that this increase of R60 million is welcomed and justified, but it is not going to be a solution of the Minister’s trouble. It may temporarily alleviate the shortage of staff. But, Sir, where there are not enough white workers in South Africa to do all the work for South Africa, where three and a half or three and three-quarter million people are not enough to render all the higher services required by a population of 18 million to 20 million, the Minister can be as sure as he is sitting half asleep in his seat at the moment that other sectors of South African enterprise will increase their offers to the limited number of people available to do the work that they require to be done and that the general wage structure of South Africa over a period will rise and that the Railways will again and again be in the same difficulty. As I said on Wednes-day, most surprising of all is how many people the hon. the Minister made unhappy on the Railways when he gave this increase of R60 million. Everyone of us has had letters and there were statements in the Press which were most depressing. We all want the S.A. Railways to do well and we all want a contented staff on the S.A. Railways. But yet you get letters from drivers pointing out that in Mr. Sturrock’s time the workday was reduced from 8 hours to 7 hours 40 minutes, overtime increased from 25 per cent to 33⅓ per cent and Sunday time from 50 per cent to 100 per cent.

There was unemployment at that time.

Mr. Speaker, have you ever in the Parliament of South Africa heard bigger nonsense than that interjection? At that time South Africa was importing immigrants to the tune of 30,000 to 40,000 a year to fill the gaps in the employment structure of South Africa. But the hon. member for Parow has forgotten that; he does not know what he is talking about. So, drivers tell us that in Mr. Sturrock’s time the workday was reduced and overtime and Sunday time increased. Later, at the time cost of living allowances were consolidated with basic salaries, overtime was reduced. It is only now that it is back once more at 33⅓; Sunday time is not yet back to 100 per cent while the working day is now eight hours 40 minutes. As one driver told me, he has to work 226 hours a month before he has done the minimum the Minister requires of him. The Minister will remember that on occasion he told the running staff that they were worth to him more than he could pay them. Well, does this rhyme with this interesting fact I was told by drivers that a driver today gets the same pay as an invoice typist on the S.A. Railways with six years’ experience? Furthermore, Sunday time being paid to drivers is equal to that of a receptionist at one of our airports—I think R1.90 an hour. Drivers are irreplaceable and you cannot use clerks to drive trains although you may use them to do the work of checkers and shunters. Drivers just have to work without relaxation and without social life and they are seldom at home with their families. They work, and they work hard. But the gratitude they get is that they are being paid the same as an invoice typist with six years’ experience. They tell me that it takes them from 15 to 20 years to get to the top of their grade whereas an artisan becomes fully qualified in five years. Good luck to the artisan; but why should the driver by comparison then be paid less and treated worse than typists and receptionists? This is the question the Minister should answer. How, in fact, has he succeeded in making so many people unhappy?

I spoke to some workers at Prospect in the company of Mr. Miller, their M.P. I should like the Minister to hear what they have to say. As a matter of fact, I cannot understand why these things do not come to the notice of the Minister except when we bring it to his attention. It seems as if somebody is shielding the Minister from the facts prevailing on the S.A. Railways. They want to know why a clerk or a member of the administrative services, when he comes and does their work, gets four times as much in overtime as they get? If the work of a clerk is worth R2.50 in overtime to others, why is it not worth R2.50 to them too? Moreover, they want to know why if there is overtime to be worked, they are sometimes told that although it is their job, they will not be allowed to work overtime because it has to be kept for the clerks who have been specially trained to do it? They tell us that some members of the administrative section double their income by doing overtime in jobs occupied by lower paid people. Sir, we are grateful to these people for doing it, but is the hon. the Minister setting about it in the right way? All he is achieving is to make the checker, the shunter, the lorry driver and even the stoker unhappy because they are made to feel that their work is inferior. They want to know why members of the administrative section can get four times the rate of overtime they get and want to know what is wrong with their jobs. It is, in fact, one of the worst examples of staff relations I have ever come across. It is short-sighted. How much better would it not have been if, in negotiation with the staff association concerned, the Minister had tried to bring in lower paid workers, non-white workers, to do the less skilled aspects of these jobs and to give the present incumbents higher status and income by using them in supervisory capacities? How much wiser would that not have been? How much better staff relations would that not have been? How much more contented these important producing staff units would not have been, instead of seething with discontent and resentment against the Minister and his department?

One thing has become clear from the complaints we have had about the use of about 1,500 units from the clerical and administrative sections to do overtime in these other jobs. One thing that has become clear is that the Minister cannot hope to have a truly contented staff until he undertakes a scientific revaluation of jobs on the S.A. Railways. This is a point which we have raised with the Minister before. He says they are doing just that. Well, it may be done in a haphazard manner and by people who are directly concerned and thus cannot take an objective view. The fact remains that there is something wrong on the S.A. Railways when a driver is being paid the same as a copy typist. Roster compilers, for instance, complain that the gap between their wages and those of the people for whom they compile rosters is getting wider and wider, and yet he feels he shares the responsibility of keeping trains going. This type of example I can multiply indefinitely. There is not the slightest doubt that we cannot continue indefinitely with valuing jobs on the S.A. Railways as they were valued in 1910 or in the time of the old Cape Midland Railways.

We are living in the second half of the twentieth century, and the value of the jobs on the S.A. Railways should be reviewed, be modernized and brought up to date.

Speaking of staff, I should like to ask the Minister whether he intends during this Session of Parliament to bring any further relief to the Railway pensioner. I think he should know that they, too, expected something out of the R60 million. True, they are no longer working for the S.A. Railways, but they feel that they have helped to bring the S.A. Railways where they are to-day. To-day they regard themselves as being the dead people of the S.A. Railways; they no longer exist. I think the Minister will do us and them a favour if he could tell us what his policy will be in the immediate future for these people.

Speaking of pensions, I should like to ask the Minister whether he has given any consideration to suggestions he has had from various quarters, including from this side of the House, that the pension scheme of the S.A. Railways should progressively become a non-contributory scheme. The Pension Superannuation Fund is in a healthy position. According to the latest report I have here, the fund is more than R500 million strong. Its income last year exceeded its expenditure by R29½ million. Contributions from members amounted to about R21 million and the Administration’s contribution also R21 million. The interest on the accumulated funds amounted to R23 million. In addition, there was a special contribution by the Administration of R1,200,000. The total expenditure was R37 million. Now, the Administration is making a contribution of R1,200,000 because it is said that this fund is not actuarially completely sound. But actuaries based all their calculations on an assumption, namely that if for any reason the S.A. Railways and Harbours should cease to exist, there should be enough money in that fund to pay all its obligations to pensioners. But that, Sir, is an obsolete concept when it comes to State and public enterprises such as the Civil Service and the S.A. Railways and Harbours. If the day should come that the State can no longer meet its obligations towards its own contractual pensioners, then there would be nothing left of the State in any case. Here the hon. the Minister can make a real contribution in the interests of his workers by accepting our suggestion and progressively making the pension scheme a non-contributory scheme.

There are one or two aspects of the Marais Commission inquiry which I should like to deal with briefly. In dealing with that I want to point out that it is becoming ridiculous that sectors of the South African public should subsidize the Railways to the extent that they do. I find, for example, that in his present Estimates the hon. the Minister budgets for a deficit by the S.A. Railways of R74 million, a surplus from Harbours of R19 million, a surplus from Airways of R9 million; in the case of the pipeline to the Southern Transvaal and the Northern Free State, on an expenditure of R9,429,000 he expects an income of R62,875,000. That means a surplus of R53 million. Now, if the Railways have to be subsidized in the public interest, let it be subsidized by all means. I note that Mr. Joubert in his minority report on the Marais Commission spoke of the fact that the Railways should not become a social burden on the community. But what is happening now, is that the S.A. Railways are becoming a social burden on the motorists of the Southern Transvaal. I do not know why there is this discrimination. What ethical, moral or economic justification is there for it? If the Railways have to be subsidized, let it be subsidized, not by the limited number of people who use our Airways, not by the much larger number of people who use our harbours, not by the motorists of one area in South Africa alone, but let it be subsidized, as it should be in the public interest, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Let the people get the benefit of modern progress which we see in things such as a pipeline. I cannot understand the hon. the Minister. How many years did we not go almost on our knees in this House to plead with him to establish a pipeline between the coast and Johannesburg? Each year we were ridiculed and sneered at. We were called ignoramuses for making a suggestion like that. But now he has done it and the deficit of R74 million on the S.A. Railways which he expects for next year will be met, according to his Estimates, to the extent of R53½ million from this pipeline which he scorned …

Is that pipeline your brain-child?

I did not say that. The pipeline is the brain-child of modern technology, of the human mind of the 20th century. That is the position. But we certainly pleaded for it again and again and we were scorned by the hon. the Minister for doing it. There is no doubt about that and everybody knows it. That hon. member was not here then. He is slowly learning now. I will not go into detail now but if you study the Marais Commission Report there is no doubt that the time has come for the acceptance of some of its recommendations. The time has come that the S.A. Railways, Harbours, pipelines and Airways should all be organized more and more in the spirit evinced by the retiring General Manager of Railways when he recently spoke to the South African division of the Institute of Transport. He then said that one of the main objectives of the Railways should be to render efficient transport and to avoid the unnecessary duplication of transport systems in South Africa. For that. I think we need new thinking. There is no doubt that the Railways have an important function in South Africa. We have heard from various commissions that that function is chiefly to transport bulk matter and to undertake transport over medium and long distances. In un dertaking that transport I should like to repeat that it should not be subsidized, because it is not the most economic form or most rewarding form of transport there is, by certain groups only. It should not be subsidized to this great extent by limited users or institutions like the pipeline. It should become the responsibility of the public as a whole because it does this work in the interests of the public as a whole and not only in the interests of a group of motorists or of people who fly or who send freight by the South African Airways. We find that the high rated traffic of the South African Railways which according to the Minister’s speech is only 16.52 per cent of the total traffic earns 70 to 80 per cent of the revenue of the Railways.—Here too one can perhaps wonder whether this is not asking a limited section of the people to subsidize the national transport organization and whether perhaps a rationalization of our transport system would not enable the whole nation to get the benefit of the work done by the South African Railways. The subsidy has to come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Of course the Minister will not accept the suggestions contained in my remarks. He cannot because of the fundamental, underlying difference between the outlook of the hon. gentlemen opposite and that of the United Party members on this side of the House. The Minister is limited by his own restricted vision and the restricted vision of the Cabinet. Again and again the history of the South African Railways since 1948 has proved that they have fallen behind the enterprise of the people of South Africa. They cannot keep pace with the will and the ability to expand of the people of South Africa. We saw this in the discussion on the motion of no-confidence when my hon. Leader had a vision of a great South Africa with a growth rate approximating that of Japan. We see it in the support of economists of high standing who have emerged from that side of the House and from this side of the House, economists like Mr. Jan Marais of the Trust Bank and Dr. Frans Cronjé of the Netherlands Bank who are agreed that South Africa is capable of infinitely greater growth than this Government envisages—growth which, as our Leader put it in the no-confidence debate, could make of South Africa by 1990 one of the ten greatest trading and industrial nations of the world. We need vision which this Government lacks. We need insight and faith in South Africa which this Government lacks. We need the courage to say that South Africa is a country with 20 million people and not only 3½ million people. We need people with the courage to say to the white workers of South Africa: Your development and the increase in your standard of living is unlimited provided that through your trade unions you negotiate with your employers and also the State as an employer to take more of the non-white workers and put them in positions which white men can afford to give to them so that the white men can become available for better and more remunerative work in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister is one of the few members of the Cabinet who has done this to a limited extent. We know that there are between 12,000 and 13,000 Bantu on the Railways doing unskilled work formerly done by white people. We know that there are more than 1,000 non-Whites in the country doing graded work formerly done by white people on the South African Railways. This has been to the benefit of the white workers, the non-white workers, the South African Railways and South Africa as a whole If that vision could become imaginative, if that vision could become courageous, if the Minister could have the outspoken support of hon. members opposite and if that support could also be given to the Minister of Labour and especially to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, there is no limit to the development of South Africa. There is no limit to the development of the South African Railways, and in a burgeoning, growing economy, it will be easier to make the adaptations that have become necessary in the reorganization rating, and planning of the South African Railways and Harbours. Other commissions have said that these changes must take place gradually, over a period of ten years; but these changes will never come, unless we are willing to see South Africa for what it is— potentially one of the great states of this world, a country in regard to which one could almost say: “The sky is the limit.” This could be the case, provided that we did not have a Government which was a brake and a retardation upon the ability, the skill, the initiative, the will and the enterprise of the people. Sir, I should therefore like to move the following amendment:

1. (1) the Minister has failed to indicate that the Government has any effective plans to overcome the manpower crisis which throws intolerable burdens on the staff, frustrates the users of the railways, endangers the safety of passengers, generally retards the economic growth of the country and threatens to undermine the prosperity of the people; and
2. (2) the Minister has rejected useful and justified recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Co-ordination of Transport in South Africa”. *

Mr. Speaker, we who have known the hon. member for Yeoville for a few years, were almost impressed when he started looking for his documents. We know that he is a personality who can occasionally be original and approach a matter soberly. Those of us who have known him longer, know that he has one great talent, and that is to speak glibly for half an hour in this House without saying anything, and above all to repeat himself. I want to refer the hon. member to what I said in this House last year. I referred to him when I made the following remarks (Hansard, Vol. 25, column 2187) —

This afternoon it was the same old story, with the addition of a little criticism from the public, the business world, and disjointed criticism from Railway officials. For six years we have heard this same old story told in this glib manner. This afternoon we once again heard, when the hon. member referred to the Minister, “how little he has offered to overcome the problem of manpower shortages; how he gave away R60 million in one year just to make his employees more unhappy”. These general, trite and vicious remarks were made by the hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon. I have known the hon. member for a long time, and I must say that one sometimes feels like, as with a forward little ram, taking his four little feet together under your left shoulder and using the pocket knife of the hon. member for South Coast to do a traditional deed, tail and all. I intend doing this too, and putting it on record this afternoon. We must ask ourselves whether we did not have a perfect application this afternoon of the advice and the guidance which the United Party obtained in regard to publicity from a specialist in a distant country. The advice was: “If you want to succeed, decry the leaders; sow confusion and predict corruption; otherwise you have no hope.” They followed that advice closely through the mouth of their first speaker. One can only ask that Party: “Where is the flag of the U.P. to be found?— Wherever there is gossip and blunder, always thereunder, no wonder.”

Reference was made to the so-called dissatisfaction among the staff and the manpower of the Railways. The testimony of the country and the Administration is that absolutely no complaints worth mentioning were received from any staff association. Individual complaints such as these to which the hon. member conveniently referred we come across every day in every business undertaking; he gets them in his own household as well. But in contrast with the allegations which the hon. member for Yeoville made here in connection with the Railways staff, there is proof of piety, trust and sacrifice, of men who volunteered their services to work overtime and to work in grades other than their own. In this way they were able to cope with a temporary near crisis from December 1969 to April this year. We hear nothing about this. We heard about overtime and that they are paid too little— so naive and so elementary! As I said last year, the hon. member had too little time to prepare himself. Overtime is paid on the basis of the basic wage, namely one and one-third for everyone. Hence the difference when officials in higher grades have to act in lower grades. This is logical, this is correct, this is fair—but no, they must prey on grievances. They must wrest things out of context as their specialist says; otherwise there is no hope for them. These railwaymen who offered their services in other grades, did os with a jealous pride; to such an extent that when the people recovered after the epidemic, certain workers could not be taken back because there were enough already. This applies especially to shunters, drivers, checkers, etc. This is truly an example of a dedicated category of people who are prepared to provide a national service.

What do we get from these hon. members? We get gossip and suspicion-mongering instead of positive recommendations, a renewed appeal and an acknowledgment that we appreciate what is being done in circumstances which affect our country generally; and not the Railways in particular. They talk about a manpower shortage. Details of the staff trained for auxiliary services and other grades, are as follows: Firemen, 395; driving and cartage services, 129; checkers, 315; shunters, 231; conductors and ticket examiners, 120—a total, therefore, of 1,190 persons. These are not aggrieved people and people who harbour grievances, but people who want to render a service. But this attitude is used for politicking in this House and these people are used as voting cattle. It is suggested that they are critical, are voicing criticism, are dissatisfied and over-worked. I waited for a positive recommendation or reference from hon. members on that side of this House as was made by members on our side of this House, some of whose sons offered their services as apprentice firemen during this crisis period. That is more than they can say. These people worked during their holidays in order to meet this problem. We have many students in this country and we should like to come across this phenomenon on a wider level. However, all we get from hon. members on that side of this House are campaigns, moral impudence and decadence, instead of this positive attitude and approach. During the past financial year 748 workers voluntarily relieved in other sections where there were shortages. Here in the Western Cape, where the shortage was minimal, the men were prepared to go to the Western Transvaal, Natal and the Northern Cape in order to supplement the shortages there. We appreciate and value this very greatly. I want to repeat that this is not proof of officials feeling aggrieved, but of officials realizing their duties and responsibilities.

And this was before the increases. In reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) this was long before the increases. The increases played no part in this, because these people know their duties.

At the moment it is a little early to arrive at a final conclusion about the tendency which exists in connection with resignations from and entries to the service of the Railways. However, there are a few statistics which are quite illuminating. In April, 1969, 1,599 persons entered and 1,765 left the service. This state of affairs continued until June, 1970, after the salary increases. After that there was a reduction. In July this year there was a net gain of 1,345. A loss of 8.1 per cent was transformed into a gain of 5.2 per cent. In spite of this, the hon. member for Yeoville asked with his traditional smooth adroitness what the hon. Minister was doing in order to meet this problem. He said: “How little has he done to overcome this problem!” We are replying to the hon. member. The old hollow cry of immigration was again dragged in by the hon. member. I just want to tell the hon. member that immigration is not the first and the last word in connection with our manpower shortage in South Africa to-day. The hon. member knows as well as I do that in the private sector there are numerous examples of undertakings having spent up to R5,000 in order to import manpower and having none left after a few weeks. The Railways itself had that experience a few years ago. Immigration is not a magic word, but in a moment we will show hon. members on the other side what the hon. the Minister and his Administration are doing in order to approach and solve this problem scientifically.

The history of the Railways in South Africa is a story of vision—the hon. member for Yeoville maintained that there is no vision— a story of spirit and single-minded purpose to face its own problems and to serve the country’s development, and is not one of decline and petrification such as that of the United Party. What have the hon. the Minister and the Administration done to meet this problem of the manpower shortage? They have tackled this problem scientifically, effectively and, in most cases conclusively. The Minister and his team set about with a will. In the field of electro-technical engineering, communication, mechanization of office work, centralized traffic control and other technical fields, the improvements are simply incomparable. They have worked wonders with a view to achieving greater efficiency and saving manpower. The hon. member would do well to listen to this. Thus, for example, approximately 3,000 firemen were eliminated by accelerating electrification and by using stronger diesel and electrical tractive power. Talk about saving manpower!

As far as the manpower shortage is concerned, we are supposed to open the sluice-gates, throw open the doors and let anyone come who wants to. “Let us eat and be merry, for to-morrow we die!” says the United Party. Here on our part we have systematic planning and proof of adjustment to the developments in this country. By the end of this year it is expected that there will be 444 diesel locomotives in service. The horsepower of electrical locomotives was increased from 1,070 to 3,320. It was almost trebled in order to pull heavier loads and to achieve a larger turnover with fewer officials, if I may put it like that. In this way manpower is saved and this provides proof of planning, thought and a purposeful attempt to meet this problem. The cubic capacity of petrol tank wagons was increased from 8,000 to 13,500 and that of well wagons from 91½ tons to 200 tons; all this was done to adjust to industrial consumption and abnormal loads with a view to larger production and the saving of manpower.

I mention further examples. As far as workshop productivity and technical processes are concerned, since 1960 a production incentive scheme was started in workshops with a reduction of bonus working times of 35 per cent. But that side of this House maintains that we have no adjustment, vision or imagination.

In three large iron foundries, namely Bloemfontein, Salt River and Pietermaritzburg, R2.1 million was spent on mechanization during the past 15 years, which resulted in the actual utilization of production capacity for iron at those centres being increased by 240 per cent. Mechanization, larger production with fewer people: This is planning, vision and foresight! This is proof of a will to meet a situation. Seen as a whole, productivity in all spheres of work in workshops rose by approximately 60 per cent as a result of improved methods of work and equipment. This improvement represents an annual saving of approximately 1.2 million man-hours, which is equal to the services of 400 bonus workers with an annual wage of approximately R1.5 million.

Let us look at the reparation of trucks. In the days of the United Party, in the years when they were in power, it took up to 173 days to repair one truck. To-day it takes us from 9 to 17 days with the newly introduced line system. What naïvety, what arrogance to make statements like this. We are out of date, we have not adapted to the demands of the times, we have no imagination, and we do not keep pace with the development of the country! I can go on to mention numerous similar examples of what we save with computers and signalling. Just to mention a few more examples, in the field of civil engineering the use of concrete sleepers was introduced, which resulted in a saving of 200 white supervisors, 4,500 white railway workers and also non-white labourers, because they can now be laid by means of machines. This testifies to planning and insight.

To come to the business aspect mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville, the correlation between the growth of the Railways and the growth rate of the country during the past 20 years: it is alleged that we are lagging be hind and are not in a position to keep pace. Sir, do you know what the correlation was, as calculated by scientists? It was very significant. In the past 20 years it was 0.75 per cent, which is very close to being equal. They are rather quiet now. [Laughter.] This finding was confirmed by, among others, the Transport Research Centre, scientists in Stellenbosch, in the publication “Relationship between the Goods Transported by Rail and Economic Development in South Africa”. They know nothing of this, just as little as they know of the Marais Report, but they are presumptuous enough to have opinions about it. The fact that there is a sound correlation between the country’s economy and the Railways does not necessarily mean that the ratio between the series mentioned will remain constant. As industrialization increases, the growth of the Railways must decrease, because transport is a cost item and costs must be kept as low as possible. But during the past 20 years they have remained equal. I think if anybody here has to make an apology, it is the hon. member for Yeoville, who must apologize to the hon. the Minister for alleging that the Minister has no vision or planning.

There is another side of this picture which I should like to illuminate, namely the share of the Railways in the industries of South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville must listen again. It is interesting to note that under this Government, many practical and positive steps were taken not only to stimulate our own industries, but to expand them into modern giants in their own fields, something which that side of this House never thought of when they were in power, because their attitude was: We have the gold, so let us buy the goods with our gold; we do not need to manufacture here and we rather import them.

To-day the South African Railways invests millions of rands in industry and its annual account in respect of rolling stock is staggering. At the end of last year, orders to the value of more than R151 million were placed; these included 151 modern electric locomotives, 55 diesel locomotives, 982 passenger coaches and 7,000 goods trucks. The history of the Railways in South Africa, Sir, is a story of vision, spirit and purpose. During the past six years purchases by the Railways and Harbours reached R230 million, of which only R8 million was ordered from overseas suppliers. In the time of those people, it was just the reverse. They talk about development; they talk about the growth rate. They may have dreamt about it and may have obtained a vague impression of it on account of the achievements of this Government. Of the R240 million, only R8 million was spent overseas in 1969. Can hon. members of the Opposition recall anything similar in their time? Sir, if any South African cannot rightly be proud of the South African Railways, its chief, its officials and its contribution to the national growth of South Africa, he can only be a United Party supporter; of that I am convinced.

Sir, during his term this Minister has done much for this industry in South Africa. Take salary increases, for example: In 1955, R9 million; in 1962, R20 million; in 1964, R12 million; in 1965, R36 million; in 1968, R43 million; in 1969, R10 million; and in 1970, R60 million; in other words, R190 million in the last 15 years. Sir, can you expect any railway worker not to mention this with appreciation and pride instead of allowing himself to be dragged along by the Opposition’s politicking? What was done in connection with housing?

Departmental houses, R74 million; house ownership scheme, R103 million; number of houses made available, 11,000; house ownership, 25,000. Constant endeavours are made to improve methods in order to ensure higher productivity. During the past four years the administrative processes were carefully examined by the Railways’ own organization and method officials, and what happened? What was the result? As a result of that, 1,838 posts could be abolished. Because of this saving, the regrading of 2,358 posts could be financed, while the project could still show a saving of approximately R2 million, based on the salary scales after the recent concessions of 1st June, 1970.

Sir, we will have to go far and we will have to search far to find a more effective, more scientifically developed and more centralized transport scheme, which is adjusted to the development of the country and the growth of the country in general, than the Railways of the Republic of South Africa. Its Airways are the best in the world, its transport costs are among the lowest in the world; and it takes a United Party member to say in this House in the year 1970 that these services are outdated, that the Minister lacks vision and that the Railways are not keeping pace with the development of the country. The time has arrived for that side of the House to realize that apart from political peddling, they also have a national contribution to make in the sense of positive sacrifice, positive recommendations and positive co-operation in a situation such as that in which the Railways has found itself during the past four months.

Sir, if the hon. member for Randburg had gone on a little bit longer we would not have had a staff shortage; we would have had a surplus; we would have had to pay off staff. But he did not go far enough. He could have made his comparisons much more interesting and much more impressive. For instance, in 1850 odd it used to take my grandfather nearly six weeks to get from Durban to Johannesburg by ox-wagon. Just think of the improvement! You can do it now in 14 or 15 hours by train. That would have given the hon. member a much more impressive comparison. But let us get a little bit more modern. I have here an extract from the Natal Year Book of 1910, in which it is stated—

They can sometimes clear within eight or nine days in the year 1970. It is this sort of argument we have had to listen to from that hon. member. The euphoria in which he lives makes it possible to understand how 3,000 of his majority at Randburg disappeared with the morning mist at the last election. If you realize that even the 140 odd that is left may disappear, then we realize that the hon. member was making his swan song. Furthermore, one can understand why you get in the index of the Government Gazette of 3rd July, under Item 1070, under the heading “Indecent, obscene and objectionable goods”, an item like the following: “Result of by-election, electoral division of Langlaagte.” That hon. member had the nerve to get up in this House and state that there were no complaints— “geen noemenswaardige klagtes nie”; no complaints from trade unions or from staff associations. And yet until the Langlaagte increase, there were three inquiries afoot in connection with three disputes declared as such. These have now been cancelled. Yet the hon. member says there are no complaints! When last did he talk to a railwayman? No wonder I am treating him as a joke and reply to him with jokes, because he Obviously has no concept of what is going on on the S.A. Railways.

That hon. member says: “Don’t worry; the hon. the Minister is going to solve our staff problems. Just leave it to him and he will solve it.” Well, I have the annual reports here of the General Manager for the past couple of years and in 1967-’68 he said: “The Department continues to experience serious staff shortages.” I quote again: “During 1968-’69 staff shorages in key grades persisted.” Go to the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister this year, for 1970-’71, and you hear of a state of near emergency during the last couple of months. Yet the hon. member’s reply to all this is: “Leave it all to the Minister and it will all come right.”

Looking at this mass of information we have here, it is no wonder that the S.A. Railways have gone over to third-generation computers. I am not going to try to compete with the hon. member for Randburg in quoting statistics. I do not have a third-generation computer mind. I have only a simple mind. All I know is from what I have seen and from what I have heard in direct contact with people, and that is that the staff position is leading to a complete breakdown in morale amongst a large number of railway employees. And if that hon. member does not realize this, then he is completely out of touch. Furthermore, not only is there this discontent, but there is a user-crisis also. The hon. member for Yeoville listed some of the things which could not be moved. There are yet others—timber, cement, lime, etc., and there were reports of uranium mines that had to close down because they could not get trucks. So it goes on week after week—reports of the Railways’ inability to move goods. Thus, we have frustrated users and a despairing staff. This is the picture the Minister has to face in this debate.

We have before us the guesstimates of last year; I call them “guesstimates” and not “Estimates”, because what do we have? In revenue they were R36 million out, or 4.2 per cent; in Airways 7.5 per cent out; in pipelines 13.5 per cent out—surely a pipeline is one thing one ought to be able to estimate correctly? We have a surplus of R27 million instead of the estimated deficit. What happened? Is it that the third-generation computers went out of action or is it that we have a past-generation Minister? Is it not time that instead of trading in computers we traded in the hon. the Minister for a Minister who is prepared to look ahead and to plan ahead? The only thing that worries me in this connection is, if we did get a change, who would we get? The hon. the Deputy Minister? Maybe we should retain the present Minister a little bit longer until such time as we can get rid of the lot. The Minister has at his disposal all these modern means: computers, staff—everything you can think of to guide and advise him. But what do we get?—an inability to deal with the problems facing him. I remember the hon. the Minister placing his reputation at stake that he would make a success of the South African Railways.

He is doing it.

Hon. members say he is doing it. But is it making a success of the South African Railways if you are unable to move the goods offering, if you have staff crises and if you have people working the sort of overtime they are required to work? That is what hon. members call a success. When the hon. the Minister himself, at our request, calls for advice, what does he do with that advice? He insults his own advisers whom he has called upon to advise him. Let me give the House an example of the reaction of some of the Minister’s own people to his rejection of the recommendations in the Marais Commission report. I want to quote from the S.A. Pilot, the magazine of South African Airways pilots. I am quoting from an editorial in the summer volume of 1970. What I am going to read is the reaction of the Minister’s own pilots to his decision—

The article ends as follows—

That, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister’s pilots’ own answer to his rejection of the advice which he himself sought from people he himself had appointed.

Separate control over the Airways have been advocated by us over and over again in this House.

For how long?

Ever since I entered this House. Certainly in 1965, for which I have the quotations here. Even before my time other hon. members were pleading for separation of Airways and Harbours from the Administration of the South African Railways. But the hon. the Minister rejects many of the reasonable recommendations made.

Let us look at the question of the Airways. We have a Railway service in which R2,500 million are invested. The Airways are able to produce from an investment of R55 million, a revenue of R59 million In other words, their revenue was greater than the capital invested in the Airways. Does that not show that the whole problem of the Airways is a different problem from the capital loaded requirements of the Railways? We have had a commission of experts, not experts whom we call experts, but people whom the hon. the Minister himself regarded as experts. I have here his announcement of the appointment of that commission. He referred to the members of that commission at the time and said—

Then he quoted all the qualifications—it took up nearly half a column—of the outstanding commission which he had appointed. He went on and said—

The hon. the Minister then went on to deal with the interests that were represented. So, it is not our view. It is the hon. the Minister’s view of a commission which he now calls superficial and one which has not done its job. But when he appointed them in 1965, he did not think that of them. But now, because they do not agree with his hidebound ideas, ideas which belong to the past, they have become useless and superficial.

The hon. the Minister has consistently in Budget after Budget, treated with contempt requests from this side of the House to look further than the immediate few yards ahead. Does the hon. member think back or does his memory not go back far enough, to the appeals we have made year after year from this side of the House to look further ahead and to plan further ahead? Let us take the simple question of aircraft in the Airways Department. I can remember how the hon. the Minister ridiculed me, debate after debate, and asked what I knew about it. He said that they were doing the planning. I remember how in 1965 the hon. the Minister brushed aside a suggestion by me that the Airways acquire Boeing 737s. He said at the time that no consideration had been given thereto and that if they needed planes in future they would buy what they need. Now we are flying them. But that is five years later. For years passengers have been unable to get the bookings they want on aircraft. Year after year, way back to the early sixties, we pleaded for a computerized automatic reservation system for the Airways. The hon. the Minister said that it was not necessary. Eventually he said that it was going to be considered. Now, at long last, in late 1970, we are going to get Saafari. But what of the years that have been lost? What of the traffic and profit to the Airways that have been lost because of the hon. the Minister’s obstinate refusal to look just a little bit further ahead than the immediate future?

Let us take the question of trucks. One of his problems is staff, but another is trucks. In 1968-’69 the relevant records showed that there were 4,191 trucks due for delivery while 7,071 were on order. In 1969-’70 there were 3,900 expected to be delivered out of the 7,0 on order. But only 2,837 were delivered. Now another year has gone and suddenly the hon. the Minister has woken up and placed an order for approximately 10,000 goods trucks of various types. But why does it take year after year and crisis after crisis before you can get action out of the hon. the Minister, before you can get him to look just a little bit further ahead and to plan further than to-morrow morning? One could go on with more and more examples of the hardship brought about to the users of the South African transport services by the hon. the Minister’s failure to plan ahead.

I rather want to deal with the other crisis, namely the staff crisis. Last year we put to the hon. the Minister five problems which faced the staff, namely salaries and wages, overtime, housing, discipline, promotion and working conditions. A year and a quarter has passed and apart from the Langlaagte increases nothing whatsoever has been done to deal with any of the other four problems. In regard to the pay increase, which was one of the five issues we raised, I want to support what my colleague the hon. member for Yeoville said, namely that it seems incredible that anyone could have made so many people unhappy with R60 million.

I want to deal with one of the groups, a group in respect of which the hon. the Minister is at present 33 per cent short of staff in the Durban area, viz. that of checkers. Checkers used to start with a salary of R140. Their starting salary has now been increased to R160. A checker with seven or eight years service would have received approximately R170. Today, as a result of the R60 million increase he will receive R180, but he will have to wait another year before he reaches his top scale and can apply to become a special grade checker. The result is that the man who starts as a checker to-day receives only R20 less than the man with seven or eight years service. Then there is the generous increase in overtime pay, namely 7½ cents and five cents. I took the following figures from an actual pay slip. I have the example of a checker whose basic pay is R180. In that particular month, namely June of this year, he worked 165 hours overtime, for which he earned R235, giving him a total salary of R402. When he had had his deductions taken off, the pay he took home amounted to R281. That included a stop-order deduction of R59 in respect of his house. The rest were normal deductions. [Interjections.] I saw the actual pay slip and took these figures from it. If the hon. the Minister can prove me wrong instead of shaking his head, I hope he will do so. If he can prove me wrong in saying that a man earning R180 who worked 165 hours of overtime and Sunday time would earn R402 and after deductions, including R59 for a house, would take home R281, I hope he will do so.

Is your complaint against the deductions?

No, my complaint is about the number of hours this man has to work and the unreasonable reward he gets for it. I say this because that same worker, if he works on a Sunday, will earn approximately R20. Before the increases in pay a clerk working the same number of hours on a Sunday would take home between R40 and R42. He would receive R3 per hour for Sunday time. I put a question on the Question Paper in this regard well over a week ago but I notice that I have not received a reply to it yet. I will probably receive it after this debate. I am therefore quoting the figures that were given to me instead of the figures I asked the hon. the Minister to give me so that we could have his official figures. I nevertheless hope that he will give us the official on the comparative scales of overtime. My point is that we are making people work overtime. Here is a specific case, where a man had to work 165 hours of overtime in order to take home a living wage on which he can give his wife and his children a decent home, decent furniture and a decent upbringing. What is more, he is only R20 a month ahead of the youngster who starts work now under the new salary scales. This applies to most workers in the middle group. As usual, they are the forgotten people. These are the people who have sufficient service behind them to make it difficult for them to resign, because they have too much to lose. These increases are aimed at drawing new people, or boosting the top scales. The middle group is the group which loses out time and time again.

The hon. member for Randburg, who has just left the Chamber, speaks of the loyalty of the railwayman. Of course he is loyal, Sir. If the railway worker had not been loyal, the Railways would have stopped running months ago, if not a year or more ago. The Railways have been kept going by the loyalty of the railwaymen, but that loyalty is being strained to breaking point. It is being strained beyond the point where the Minister can continue to run trains on loyalty. He will have to start running the Railways on hard cold facts and common sense and not on emotion. You cannot run a orgaization like the Railways purely on loyalty. It is all very well to talk of overtime, but these railwaymen do not want to work overtime. Do you think any man wants to leave home at 6.30 a.m. or earlier in order to start work at seven in the morning, only to return home at 9.30 or 10 p.m. every night of the week? Do you think any man wants to work every Sunday as well, even though he may perhaps have Saturday afternoons free? Do you think he wants to do that, Sir? He does this because he needs the money.

Why not propose to do away with all overtime?

Do you see, Sir? That is the type of answer one gets. I should like this to be placed on record. The hon. member for Koedoespoort asks why I do not propose the abolition of overtime. The reason is that if we were to take away overtime from the Railways, we would bankrupt 85 per cent of all the railway workers in South Africa. The railway worker would lose his car, his fridge and his furniture in 80 per cent of cases because he obtains everything except the bare necessities of life as a result of his overtime work. That is our complaint. Our complaint is not that they are earning extra money, but that their basic earnings are too low to allow them a decent existence. One has to bear in mind, too, what can happen to these people if they do not work overtime, despite the hon. the Minister’s assurance in this House. I have two cases here, which I do not have the time to quote, where train drivers were fined for this very reason. One man was fined R25 and then R35. He appealed right through to the Railway Board. His offence was that he refused to continue, after already working 14 hours 40 minutes on the Monday, nine hours 50 minutes on the Tuesday, 14 hours 41 minutes on the Wednesday and 14 hours 49 minutes on Thursday. When he refused to continue working on the Saturday morning, after 12 hours on duty on the Friday night he was fined R25. When this happened again later after 15 hours on auty, he was fined R35. These are facts. Those hon. members say that the Railways are running on the loyalty of its workers. When, however, a man, because of sheer physical tiredness, says that he cannot work any longer, this sort of thing happens to him.

We dealt last year with discipline. The position is just the same, Sir. There has been no improvement. We have this elaborate machinery, where volumes and volumes of paperwork are required to deal with one single case. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me when last he read all the papers concerned with a simple disciplinary issue. I am not talking about major issues now. I am speaking of ordinary disciplinary issues where a driver, for example, is fined. When did he last take the trouble to read through all the documents relating to such a case? As far as I can see, in case after case, what is decided at the bottom is simply rubberstamped and approved right through to the top. We have a Railway Appeal Board, which heard 438 appeals, of which only 56 were upheld. In 167 of the cases, there were divided opinions. 161 Cases were dismissed, and in the case of 54, the sentence was altered.

But if you talk to a railwayman, he says: “What is the use of appealing?”. The reason is that if a simple and usually not very highly educated person has committed some minor offence, he cannot prepare his defence case and put it down on paper. I have read dozens of them, where they had good cases, but just could not express it. They can ask for help, but even with the help the cases are sometimes not clearly put. Therefore the papers just go through from stage to stage; they are looked at and the decision is upheld. I have often wondered why it is worth typing letters to these people. It should just be a printed form to say that all the documents have been considered and all the facts in relation to the case have been taken into account, and that there is no reason to vary the decision. It is a standard letter. I almost know it off by heart, because I have read it so often. That too is one of the complaints. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should get an exjudge or an ex-magistrate to act as chairman hearing appeals so that he can look at them from a point of view of an impartial person who can give an impartial judgment. This should be done because this is creating bitter discontent.

An exmagistrate is chairman of the Appeal Board. Didn’t you know that?

I am talking of a judicial approach which will deal with all the complaints. The Railways and Harbours Board is the final court of appeal and that is not an impartial court of appeal.

Did the hon. member now know that a servant has the option of appealing to his own appeal board upon which he is represented or to the Railways and Harbours Board?

Where there is a divided opinion, it has to go back for a decision every time. In this case from which I have quoted, in 167 out of 438 cases there were divided opinions I repeat to the hon. the Minister: “Go and ask the men, the men who are subject to this system”. I have no time to get involved with the hon. the Minister in argument, because my time is running out.

Finally I want to deal with housing. The hon. member for Randburg referred to houses. It is again quoted in the Minister’s memorandum. 2,000 Odd houses were built during the last five years. In 1967-’68, however, 170 were built and 551 were withdrawn from service. This resulted in a loss of 381. In 1968-’69 there was a net gain of 32. That means that almost as many houses were withdrawn as had been built. The fact is that less houses are being built in the whole of South Africa this year than there are on the waiting list in Durban alone. People who are on the waiting list are often lower down on the list at the end of the year than they were at the beginning of the year: I have a case here of a person who started 85th on the list and who was lower down at the end of the year. This happens because people are brought in and are given priority above those on the waiting list. It is all very well to quote massive figures, but the fact is that the houses are not there for the people to live in.

Similarly, we have discontent in regard to working conditions and promotions. I want to conclude by saying again that what we need is a new approach, a new approach such as that outlined by the hon. member for Yeoville. His is a new approach which can be applied in so many ways to streamline, smooth out and expedite the running of the Railways and to restore the satisfaction of the staff with their working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Durban (Point), who has just resumed his seat, mentioned the tremendous housing shortage in Durban. Now, I do not know whether this refers to Durban (Point), or to what part of Durban it refers, but he must be a very poor member and a poor representative. Why, then, do such complaints not emanate from other constituencies? He has never yet brought anything to the Minister’s attention. He comes along and sits there with a lot of information, and he makes statements which are not altogether correct. He made a statement, for example, about a man who had worked a certain number of hours, could then not go on any longer, and was fined R35. That man did not do his duty. He should have told his immediate superior “Look, Sir, I cannot do any more work, because I am dead tired”.

He did.

No, he did not. That train would then probably have been one of the trains that was withdrawn.

Here is the case.

I have seen it all. This man did not follow the procedure he should have followed.

He was probably too tired.

The hon. member is talking even greater nonsense. This man simply did not follow the procedure. Last year in his Budget speech—I do not know whether the hon. member listened to it—the hon. the Minister said that if anyone could not continue to work he had the right to notify his immediate superior immediately, because it is dangerous. It is dangerous to put someone on to a train who is going to fall asleep, for example a driver. This dare not be done, because such a man could cause an accident.

You rather fine him.

No, he is not fined, but he should merely adopt the right procedure. I can clearly see the trend that speeches by hon. members opposite are taking. It is now shortly before the provincial election, and hon. members opposite are making election speeches to see whether they cannot catch a few Railway votes. That is the whole idea of the speeches made here this afternoon by hon. members opposite.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that cement and lime are available, but that it cannot be transported. How many building operations in Cape Town do not have supplies of cement and lime? Here there is not a single case where building operations could not be continued with as a result of a shortage of those commodities.

Come to Durban.

Apparently this is only the case in Durban, and one can only ascribe this again to a poor member of the House of Assembly. If the hon. member were more wide awake in his constituency he would receive fewer complaints. I represent a constituency with thousands of railway people. What complaints am I receiving to-day? I am receiving complaints from people who have to move for personal or family health reasons. Some of them want to go to Durban and I do not discourage them. They must just not go to Durban (Point).

I do not want to give lengthy attention to the hon. member for Yeoville, because he has received sufficient replies from other hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member wants to return to the days of Mr. Strauss. Shame!

The good old days.

The good old days when overtime, as well as Sunday time, was cut to a certain percentage. Those good old days when the Whites still worked for 35 cents a day.

That was not in Sturrock’s time.

One does not speak of someone who is no longer there, but Sturrock was regarded as one of the poorest ever Railway Ministers. The National Government inherited a bankrupt Railway Administration from him. He had to cut down the overtime and Sunday time payments, because he did not have money to pay the people.

You people cut it, not he.

The hon. member mentioned the figures a moment ago, but he now feels ashamed of it. I just want to repeat that that was the time when the white railway worker earned 35 cents a day. Now compare the present-day position. At a later stage in my speech I shall do so. The whole afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban (Point) merely criticized the hon. the Minister. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that during 1969’70 he did a great job of work. I want to include the General Manager, the Deputy Managers and the staff in this. One cannot only criticize. The country has made a great deal of progress, and the Railways is a barometer of that progress. The greater the amount of goods offered for transport, the stronger the economy becomes. Our country has made a great deal of progress, in spite of the fact that hon. members opposite accused the Government of a recession in the economy. But this afternoon, now that the Railway debate is in progress, this is no longer the case. Oh no, now the economy has progressed too rapidly. The Minister cannot handle it. One must at least remember, to a certain extent, what one said the previous week. One must just remember a little; then one could perhaps get a little further.

I admit that trains were withdrawn. I admit that there is a staff shortage. I know it. One surely cannot deny something that is true. But I now ask the two hon. members there: How are they going to supplement the shortage?

But he told you.

Yes, I know. I am coming back to that. Hon. members must not be too hasty. Now a lot of immigrants must be brought into the country to drive trains here. Where is one to get them from? Where is one to get immigrants to work as stokers?

But who said so?

Hon. members just criticize and do not make any suggestions.

But he did not say so.

Yes. He said we should supplement this by immigration. What does it mean? If one is to supplement it by immigration, he could perhaps have said that we can use Bantu as stokers. But we cannot. The stoker of to-day is the driver of to-morrow. Hon. members cannot deny this.

Yes, we know that is so.

Oh, does the hon. member at least know that? Good. One cannot let a Bantu work in the brake van at the back as a conductor. I now ask hon. members: Where are you going to put the people? One must find them in one’s own country.

And if they are not there?

I made a note of an extract from the editorial of last Thursday’s Burger—hon. members may now believe this or not—to the effect that our traffic in recent years had increased by 100 per cent. Our staff did not increase by an equal amount. The staff did increase, but only by 18 or 19 per cent. But now so many other improvements and facilitations have been introduced that it would have been unnecessary to increase the staff by 100 per cent.

Hon. members spoke scornfully here of the result…

For Langlaagte.

… for Langlaagte. Yes, I am glad the hon. member is mentioning it. I would also have done so.

With tremendous results, not so?

But just compare it now with others. One perhaps gets a horse that throws its rider more quickly. But if hon. members were now to analyse the question of the 4,000 voters who have left and whose addresses could not be obtained …

Ours as well.

But let us now regard it proportionally. The hon. member will surely know that the ratio is three to one. 1,000 of their voters left, as against 3,000 of ours. These are the proportions in any constituency with a majority of between 3,000 and 4,000. (Interjections.] No, it is not. The hon. member may go to my chief electoral officers and he will find out that that is the relationship they lay down. Take an out-and-out Railway constituency such as Uitenhage. There the hon. member for Uitenhage sits, and I asked him. He increased his majority by 1,300, notwithstanding a poor Minister and poor officials.

And Umhlatuzana?

And I am speaking of my own constituency as well. In spite of the fact that the United Party went around telling stories, I pushed my majority up, and the number of United Party votes decreased. The United Party says that the increase of R60 million was an election promise. That is not so. Someone made the less attractive remark—I do not want to say base remark, because that is unparliamentary—about the Minister trying to buy votes. It is scandalous to say that.

Who said it? You are the one who thinks it. None of us said it.

[Interjections.] It had to be given. Must one now wait until the stars fall from heaven?

There could have been a Press statement.

But nevertheless, over and above that, the Railways still cannot compete with the private sector. The private sector can still offer higher wages at any time, and the money talks now and then, although not always because one has one’s loyal railwaymen who will not leave the Railways. But there are people who will leave the service for more money. And the private sector can easily do it because the higher wages are simply added to the price of the product. But the Minister cannot increase his tariffs every year, because then there would be the devil to pay. He simply does not do it.

Another aspect of the staff position is that many people resign. As I said a moment ago,

I represent a few thousand railway people, and I receive hundreds of letters from people who have resigned and who, after a few months, are sorry they did so, and they ask me to help them to get their jobs back on the Railways. I get hundreds of those letters. He was just a railwayman, but the little more money enticed him to resign, and then one has to try to get his job back for him. And I may say that because there is, thank goodness, a scarcity of these people, we could place them all back in their jobs.

Not all of them.

The Estimates budget for a deficit of R14 million, but Railway tariffs will not increase; they are remaining the same. That is why there is a Rates Equalization Fund, to which the Opposition also objected by asking why the fund stood at such a high level. But this is in order to cover possible shortfalls, otherwise one has to increase tariffs every now and then, and the Minister of Transport cannot do so. He would become the most unpopular of ministers. But you may ask any railwayman to-day—go to Maitland, which is now represented in this House by that big-wig sitting there and ask them—if they want any Minister of Transport other than Ben Schoeman, and the answer will be that they do not want any other Minister. (Interjections.] That has been my experience. We have had big problems in the past year. I have already mentioned the manpower shortage. We cannot supplement the manpower shortage by employing non-Whites.

And yet they do do it.

Yes, but then where one cannot get Whites and where the non-Whites can work separately under white supervision. I would have said this at a later stage, but since the hon. member is making the interjection, I shall say it now: One cannot let a White and a Coloured or a Bantu work in the same office. If one were to allow that one would have chaos. Who would then leave? The Whites would. Is that what the hon. member for Yeoville wants? Does he want the Whites to leave because non-Whites must sit with them in the same office? The hon. member does not reply; if I were in his place I would also have kept quiet.

You are knocking your own skittles down now.

In spite of the manpower shortage it was still possible to handle the major portion of the transport offered—perhaps not as quickly as would have been the case under normal circumstances: we admit that. There was a heaping up of trains; there was, for example, a bottleneck at Bloemfontein. I was virtually in daily contact with the System Manager in Bloemfontein, from whom I received the most courteous and polite treatment, particularly during this drought. The hon. member for Yeoville said we should remember that there would always be droughts. Yes, there will always be droughts, but must the hon. the Minister now order 50.0 or 100,000 trucks, appoint superfluous staff and then sit and wait for a drought so that he can use the trucks and the staff? It would be stupid for a Minister to do this. I know that we will have droughts again, but then we must handle the position as we are doing at present. There was tremendous pressure on the South African Railways during this drought. In one drought-stricken district —I now want the hon. member to listen so that he will also know something about drought-stricken areas …

You are now busy with a drought-stricken speech.

The hon. member himself is drought-stricken. One drought-stricken district, which uses maize and cane for fodder, needs at least ten trucks a day, and this includes Sundays, because one cannot only feed an animal six days a week. This means 300 trucks a month in one district. During the four months in which the farmers have now had to feed their livestock, one district has thus far needed 1,500 trucks. It is very easy for hon. members to sit there and to criticize the Government and the Minister. In the past four months one district has needed 1,500 trucks for the transportation of fodder.

What about private transport?

There are hundreds of districts in the same position. There is, a farmer sitting at the back there who has just entered Parliament; he will confirm every word I am saying here. There are hundreds of drought-stricken districts. I therefore do not find it strange that there are 3,000, 4.0 or 5,000 trucks standing at Bloemfontein at one time. What did the General Manager say when I telephoned him and asked him to make a plan about getting fodder trucks through more quickly? He said that 30,000 railwaymen were down with flu. Hon. members opposite are now coming along and making political propaganda out of that. [Laughter.] Yes, you are making political propaganda out of that. The people were sick, and who must now do the shunting? Who must do the stocker’s and the driver’s work? No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the right approach to criticize the Minister here as hon. members opposite have tried to do to-day. Because we are faced with an altogether abnormal state of affairs. If we had not had an unprecedented drought, this abnormal state of affairs would never have come about. Even so. the Minister did not sit still. There are 11,000 trucks on order, a portion of which has already been delivered, in addition he has 200 diesel locomotives on order, as well as 482 trailers which are necessary, particularly here in the North West; 450 electric locomotives; and 600 passenger coaches.

Resignations from the service have decreased and the staff is getting stronger by the day. In listening thusfar to the two speakers from the other side of the House, one could gain the impression that the Government was doing nothing for the railwayman. And yet the Government has increased the railwayman’s wages tremendously. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said there was insufficient housing. Well, let me just tell him that there are three schemes, and under these three schemes no less than R136 million has been spent on Railway housing since 1950—R136 million in the last 20 years. Just take a look at Nou-poort, in my constituency. The old zinc houses that stood there have been neatly rebuilt and restored in the past number of years. On the one side there has been virtually a new town, consisting only of railway houses, established —all of them neat houses with garages and everything. Why has specifically the hon. member for Durban (Point) been so hard hit? I wonder if it is altogether as he has sketched it to be.

Let us look at the wage position. In the last two years R113 million was granted to the railwaymen in increases alone. Mention one other industry, even in the private sector, that can equal this? In 1962 the per capita income in the service of the S.A. Railways was R1.674; in 1963, R1,899; in 1964, R2,180; in 1965, R2,359: in 1966, R2,517; in 1968, R2,967; and in 1970, R3,176—almost twice as much as in 1962. From this one can surely see that the Minister is not neglecting his people. In fact, they did not leave the Railways because they did not receive increases, but because the private sector offered them more. But they are now coming back again.

Now we come to overtime and Sunday-time. Last year I asked the hon. member for Yeoville to stand up here and propose that overtime and Sunday-time be abolished. He did not do so. I now repeat the same question today.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) replied to that.

You are the main speaker about Railway affairs on your side; that is why I am asking you.

My reply is the same as that given by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

How many letters do I not receive in which railway people tell me that they would like to work overtime because they want to get something or other for their home.

Must they work overtime for that?

Yes, why not? To mention an example: if the wife wants to buy a piano or a radio and her husband buys and pays for it out of his overtime, he can refer to it with pride as the result of his labours.

Is it fair to have to work overtime to buy a radio?

The hon. member is now trying to make the whole thing appear silly. But I say again: I would be glad if the United Party would say that they would like to see Sunday-time and overtime abolished. What is the United Party doing now? I experienced this in Railway centres such as Burgersdorp, Noupoort and De Aar. They go along and make a tremendous amount of promises. But the railwaymen no longer believe in the promises of the United Party …

No, they only vote for the United Party.

The outsider can easily make promises because he knows it will not be necessary for him to carry them out. If I were sitting on the Opposition side, I could make a world of promises because I know that I would not need to carry them out. However, if you are on the Government side, then you must keep to your word.

I want to conclude by once more thanking the Minister and his head officials for the great job of work they have done in the past year under extremely difficult circumstances. They nevertheless succeeded in transporting all the goods that were offered for transport. Although there were delays, they could nevertheless handle it all.

Before replying to the hon. member I should like to thank the outgoing General Manager, Mr. Kruger, for the services he has rendered to South Africa. I hope he is going to enjoy his rest and that it will be a long and enjoyable one. I know the incoming General Manager, Mr. Loubser, is taking on a very heavy cloak, but with his ability and with the assistance of his Deputies and from this side of the House, he will be able to fulfil his duties as he should. I should also like to thank all railwaymen in South Africa for the wonderful job they are doing under these very difficult employment circumstances.

As for the hon. member for Colesberg, I hope he did not intend misleading the House. I understood that he actually increased his majority at the last election. That is what we on this side of the House understood him to say. I have here Die Burger, and he has great faith in it. According to this paper his majority was 3.261 in comparison with 3,854 in the election of 1966.

Read out my percentages too.

The hon. member for Colesberg also said …

Also read out the percentages of the votes that were cast.

… that if we were wide awake we would not have all these complaints. I am coming to some complaints just now in my own constituency which I have to disclose to this House. Although I was a cliffhanger, according to the Afrikaans Press, and I was fighting for my political life, those very railway people in Pietermaritzburg voted for me because they know that when they bring a complaint to me, I attend to it as it should be attended to.

What was your majority—

My majority, after conceding 10 votes to my opponent, was still 1,740. That was equivalent to a rise of 1,720.

I should also like to refer to the commission of inquiry. The rejection of this report by the hon. the Minister was one of the greatest disappointments to commerce and industry and the country as a whole. Looking at the names of the commission members it was impossible for anybody to have appointed a more select group of men than those that appeared in the Gazette as the commission. One must remember that the hon. the Minister appointed these gentlemen. He selected them. What did the hon. the Minister say in his preamble in the Gazette when this appointment was made? He said—

But, Mr. Speaker, four years and R100,000 later, in one fell swoop their education, experience and ability are thrown into the waste-paper basket. There are no words strong enough to apologize to these gentlemen. To say that their inquiry was superficial, in simple language, is ludicrous. Nobody will agree more than the members themselves.

One point that seems to rile the hon. the Minister more than anything else, is that the commission investigated and recommended the separation of the four services. Surely, in the course of their investigation, they were led in that direction. They had no alternative but to follow and report upon it. That was their duty and that was expected from them. To say that the report was a great disappointment to the hon. the Minister can only be compared with a small child who could not be given what he wanted. Of course, the interested parties vented their disappointment to the hon. the Minister, not to promote their own interests, but the interests of the country as a whole. Does the hon. the Minister object to outside criticism? In the job that he is in, it is expected that he should accept criticism and try and rectify that which is pointed out to him. I am quite convinced of the fact that in time to come he will still ask the outside transport employers to come and assist him. The future development of the country as a whole is at stake and transport at the present time is applying the brakes on the economy of the country. I think that the hon. the Minister should reconsider the report and accept as much of the recommendations as possible. By putting it off, he is merely putting off the evil day.

I should now like to deal with rail accidents in South Africa and especially in Natal. This is a cause of anxiety. One must ask what are the main reasons for these accidents. What is the Minister doing about them? Something must be done. The Administration itself cannot afford the cost of these accidents. With the terrific pressure on staff and the turnover of staff one must ask whether they are sufficiently trained to control the running of trains. I am thinking of this dreadful accident that occurred only about ten days ago at the railway station in Hammarsdale where the one train was stationary and the other train crashed into it. Surely that was caused by human failure. Is the Administration satisfied with the condition of the railway tracks throughout the country? Is it satisfied that there are sufficient gangers to service these tracks? I ask this, because what really alarms me is the safety of our passengers. We must at all costs prevent them losing confidence in our trains.

Then I also want to speak about the staff position. It is quite alarming to notice the wastage of staff I am quite convinced that pay is the main reason for the present staff position. We must accept the fact that pay and overtime have become synonymous for the sole reason that no Railwayman can live without his overtime. It has become part of his life. This is altogether an unhealthy state of affairs. Salaries must constantly be reviewed and improved. A. heart specialist in Pietermaritzburg discussed the matter with me recently. He asked me whether I realized how many coronary cases amongst railwaymen caused by stress and strain were being brought to their notice. It is quite alarming. It is a physical impossibility for these human beings to work these long hours that they have to work to earn this overtime.

Working conditions should be improved where possible. After writing the last high school examinations two matriculants went to the railway station to look for employment as clerks. This is a similar case to the one mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville. After seeing the small offices with very little ventilation and with electric lights and very poor furniture, they took the application forms and left. A month later they too were found in a local commercial bank and when this Railway official asked them why they did not come back to the Railways, one replied: “How can we work under those conditions? Here at least we feel that we are part of an organization where we are looked after.”

Then, Sir, I want to come to my old pet subject, the disciplinary code. I want to know once and for all: What is the procedure regarding complaint, investigation and fine? Who has the authority in the Railways, throughout the country, to impose fines? When is a case referred to the disciplinary inquiry officer? Does this happen only in serious cases? I have three cases here which require a little elucidation, especially in view of the manpower shortage, and the Minister’s remarks on re-employment. The first case is that of a stoker who was apparently sick one morning. When he eventually reported for duty, he produced a medical certificate. He was, nowever, apparently discharged “omdat by gedros het”. On the 3rd September last year he received a letter saying that he could renew his application after 12 months, subject to the usual requirement of acceptable references. On the 20th May, 1970, he was told: “Die aangeleent-heid geniet nog aandag”. On the 12th June, 1970, he was told: “U word aangeraai om elders werk te aanvaar en as u dan na verloop van twaalf maande nog in ’n betrekking by die Spoorweë belangstel, en bevredigende getuigskrifte kan lewer, sal die aangeleentheid heroorweeg word.” We notice from this communication that the initial period of 12 months had now been extended for a further 12 months. Sir, who is the person who is putting the spoke in the wheel for this man to be re-employed?

Then I have a report here dealing with an apprentice on the Railways, which I thought was very interesting. During a period of 2½ years service, this person was fined R130. He is someone I refer to as a schoolboy. In the private sector he would be regarded as a person learning his trade. After reading a report drawn up by the Railways in this connection, I asked for an explanation. I asked for a description of the tools, together with their value, which were alleged to have been removed by this apprentice. The tools in question happened to be an eight-inch screwdriver, bearing his own marks and apparently the private marks of another apprentice on it, worth 50 cents. I asked for this information because theft, a common law offence, was involved. I thought that if anybody deserved to be punished, he should have been punished. On the list of irregularities of service, however, no mention is made of this matter. The peculiar point here is that there is also nothing in the report which states that this person’s work was not satisfactory. I should like to know who fines these people. Were the other apprentices, working with this person, also fined? I investigated this case and I interviewed this young man. He is the son of a professional officer in Pietermaritzburg. When I was reading all this, I expected to find one of these long-haired and peculiarly dressed individuals. However, I did not. When I arrived there, he had just come back in a track suit after he had run several miles for exercise. He was well-groomed. The only fault that I could see was that he had a wrong name.

Shame!

No, there is no “skande” about it. That is how alert I am; where is the hon. member for Colesberg now? I attend to these things, when they are referred to me. I am their member of Parliament and the funny thing is that these people to whom I am referring each have a vote. Their vote has exactly the same value as my vote and the hon. the Minister’s vote. Here I have another matter and this is a case of a trainee. He was a railwayman who went on a military course and who, after he was there for a while, received a circular which had been sent out by the Railways to find out whether he was coming back. He said he was not coming back. So they wrote to him and sent him a statement of his financial matters and eventually stated that he owed them R203.50. His father who was also an official phoned me and said that he could not balance the amount and that his son had never earned anything like that, according to his building society book. So I told him to write another letter and to make inquiries. The official in Durban replied in such a way that it was a case of take it or leave it. Those were the facts. Nevertheless, he wrote a letter and the result was that they kindly informed him that the amount in which he was indebted to this department was only R52.91. This was the final amount he owed them whereas it was R203.50 in the beginning. What I, as a member of Parliament, object to is this. We were querying the amount when there was a mistake, and a legitimate mistake; they wanted practically four times more from the man than he owed them. He was told, however: “It may be mentioned that should you fail to advise this officer of your intentions regarding this debt, further steps will be taken against you.” We are still investigating the case. Why threaten a youngster? He is only a kid who had commenced his duties in the Railways before he went for military service.

Referring to housing, I notice in the 1968’69 Estimates that 495 houses were built at a cost of approximately R12,800 each. During 1969-’70, 517 houses costing approximately R8,000 each were built. This gives us a difference of R4,800 which is the amount by which each house is cheaper than the ones built the year before. How can this be, when costs have been going up? Did the hon. the Minister build sub-economic houses for the Railwaymen? How could he have done it at only two-thirds of the cost of the previous year? It would be most interesting to hear what the position is. In the beginning of the year I asked the hon. the Minister whether it was not possible to subsidize the Railwaymen who have to rent homes in the private field. They have to pay high rents whereas the civil servants are subsidized to pay their building society interest. I still want to know whether it will be possible for the hon. the Minister to consider that concession. All the railway pensioners in my constituency have asked me about an increase in railway pensions. When they heard of this terrific largesse which was handed out at Langlaagte they thought that they would receive a part of it. We have heard that the interest earned by the fund is far greater than the amount paid out. These people say it is their own money. What they are claiming is only a small pittance of their own money. I think the hon. the Minister must consider this matter.

He is waiting for the next election.

Most likely the Provincial election. Then there is the question of women’s salaries. I am quite convinced and satisfied in my mind that the women employed by the Railways in the various clerical and other positions do exactly the same work as men. They are entitled to the same salaries. I have repeatedly asked for this. I was hoping that the hon. the Minister would lead South Africa in that direction, because he usually does things that other Departments do not do.

There is another item I was specially asked to mention. It is a minor item that; yet it affects certain people, for example, tourists and even M.P.’s. What I am talking about is the service on dining cars. Travelling on the Orange Express from Natal to Cape Town we were served tea in plastic cups, with another little plastic cup containing hot water. Plastic cups were also provided to serve the rest of the party. Coffee in plastic cups was also served on the Orange Express. As I understand it was quite cold and unpalatable. I do not know if that is an advisable way of serving tourists. The hon. the Minister will most likely tell us that he saw this on his recent trip overseas, because the first time that I have seen these plastic mugs is since the hon. the Minister returned from overseas.

Mr. Speaker, there is a budget before this House in which millions of rand are involved. This is the budget for the most important Department in South Africa, the lifeblood of our economic development. Although it is this budget which this House must debate, we have had three speeches from hon. members on the opposite side, made with a view solely to the provincial election which lies ahead. They made no contribution to the discussion of this budget and the efficiency of the Railways as such. I want to mention a few examples. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City), who has just resumed his seat, complained about the conditions under which our people have to work. Has the hon. member forgotten what the conditions were like under which their people had to work? There were hovels and galvanized iron buildings. In my part of the world we used them for cattle pens. The hon. members also spoke about plastic cups, and so on. All three hon. members on the opposite side who spoke put certain words in the mouth of the hon. the Minister, which he never used. They did so simply to make political capital. All three hon. members said that the Minister had said that the Marais Commission’s report was based on self-interest and self-aggrandizement. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) said it again a moment ago, as well as the hon. member for Durban (Point).

I challenge you to prove that.

The hon.

Minister stated very emphatically that the evidence which was led before this Commission, was motivated toy self-interest and self-ageran-dizement on the part of various bodies. That presents quite a different picture.

I am going to mention another example. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) mentioned the recent accident. He wanted to capitalize on it in order to indicate that there are insufficient people to do the work and that the safe operation of the Railways is not being properly investigated. Surely he knows that after every accident a commission of inquiry is appointed and the safety of the Railways is always given prime consideration. But I am going to mention a second example. The hon. member for Durban (Point) informed this House that, before the R50 million had been granted, there were three cases of disputes, in order to indicate how dissatisfied the railway staff were. But then he admitted immediately that after this R60 million had been granted, the disputes were settled. In other words, those who had been dissatisfied were now satisfied. But then he went on to contradict himself, just as the hon. member for Yeoville did, because he wanted to echo what that hon. member had said. But he did something else; and the hon. member for Yeoville did the same thing. He hurled the insult at the railway staff that they could be bought for R60 million, that their weight in votes was worth R60 million.

You tried to do that but they did not rise to the bait.

That is the accusation he hurled at them, that their votes could be bought. Yet hon. members know that the 110,000 railway staff members are divided up into seven staff associations. After the Minister had stated that this was the amount he had available for the improvement of salaries, the General Manager conducted thorough negotiations with all those staff associations in order to make the correct allocation and these staff associations, that are after all the mouthpiece of the staff members, stated quite emphatically that they were satisfied with the allocation. Where does the hon. member get this general accusation from that we have created more dissatisfaction?

Were the local associations consulted?

Surely the executive committees of the seven staff associations are the spokesmen for the entire staff. After all, one cannot afterwards go and negotiate with local associations as well. But I want to take another example. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City), in the same way as the hon. member for Durban (Point), complained about the system of discipline and disciplinary procedures, as well as the disciplinary appeal which is being maintained. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that the Disciplinary Appeal Board and the Railways Board are mere rubber-stamps to set the seal of approval on what officials have done.

I said that they were regarded as such.

The hon. members said that they were mere rubber-stamps. To try to defend his case, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) took three individual cases, without getting his facts straight. The one man was an absconder.

No. Who says that?

He said it himself, not some other person. He makes political propaganda here and says that the man was not re-employed because his Christian name and surname were unacceptable. What is the hon. member insinuating with that? In other words, he did belong to the right language group. That is all it could mean. He was trying in a Railways debate to beat the drum of the difference between language groups. He knows that that is nonsense. But the hon. member for Durban (Point) furnished what he claimed was the number of appeals which had been rejected, upheld and amended by the Railways Board.

The Appeal Board.

Oh, very well. In his plea he asked that the Appeal Board should have a magistrate as chairman, but surely he knows that they do have a magistrate as chairman. He ought to know that. It shows that those people have not done their homework; that is the main problem with them.

But I want to pause awhile and deal with this accusation in regard to the Marais Commission. The hon. members are the champions of the Marais Commission report where it deals with one aspect and one aspect only, namely the separation of the Railways, the Harbours, the Airways and the pipelines. [Interjection.] I say that you are the champions of that portion of the report, and I am justified in saying that because in his Budget speech the hon. the Minister showed you which of those recommendations were already policy, had already been accepted and were already being implemented. For example, the hon. Minister referred to paragraphs 263, 273, 276, 284 and 315 which he stated were already being implemented as policy. In other words, a large portion of this report was accepted and is already being implemented. [Interjections.]

Order! Was the hon. member for Durban (Point) not afforded an opportunity of addressing the House?

Yes, Sir, but he did not say anything. Surely hon. members know that the Minister tabled a White Paper during the session prior to this inquiry, but not one of them referred to this report. Not one of them took the trouble to read it. Not one of them took into account the fact that the Constitution of South Africa makes specific provision in sections 105 and 106 for the financial implications in regard to the Railway Estimates, in order to ensure that they balance. In the same report, in paragraph 6 which deals with the financial implications of separation, it is pointed out that the Airways is making a profit and that the Railways is showing a deficit, and one is referred back to the minority report of Mr. Joubert. To ensure that the Railway Estimates balance, are terms of sections 105 and 106 of the Constitution; but it is necessary not only in terms of that, but in terms of the sound economy of South Africa to operate these four services of the Railways: the Railways, the Airways, the pipelines and Harbours, as a unit. I know that there are Commissioners who feel unhappy, just as the United Party does, because recommendations were not carried out, but what was the real injunction to the Commission? What were the terms of reference? I think I could summarize the terms of reference of the Commission as follows: (1) the roles played by the various forms of transport in South Africa in order to promote the development of the national economy in the most effective way, and (2) the nature of the control measures and the administrative machinery which will be necessary to ensure that the roles as specified in (1) are played in the most effective way, whether separately or by way of coordination with one or more of the other forms of transport. This is the important aspect, Sir. But then I go further. In addition the Commission was instructed to take into account the statutory provisions applicable to the Railways in regard to the need to balance the Budget and the fact that subsidization by the Central Government of the Railways is limited. And in addition—and this is an important provision—they also have to take the road system and the carrying capacity of the roads into consideration. Now, when we look at this, the House and South Africa must take cognizance of the fact that the United Party are the advocates of the taxpayers of South Africa from now on having to subsidize Railway deficits, if there are deficits as a result of the separation, out of the Consolidated Revenue Account as far as low tariff goods are concerned. The agriculturalist who derives the benefit of the low tariff on the transport of wool or fertilizer or fodder, or his cattle, etc., will have to bear the cost, and they will have to take cognizance of this. And the consumers of South Africa, who are dependent in particular on the low tariff goods, will have to pay the subsidies if the United Party’s proposal is accepted.

I want to consider the second part of these terms of reference. Not only did the Commission have to give attention to the roles of the various forms of transport, but also to the financial effects on the various transport organizations, and in particular on the Railways and all its ramifications. This report—and this was overlooked by those hon. members— made no reference whatsoever to the financial implications and what their effect would be. On the contrary, the chairman himself stated in his minority report that the necessary statistical data was not available in order to submit a proper report in this connection. How can one accept a report if the chairman himself informs you that there was a lack of statistical data, and how can one accept such a report for such a vast industry as the Railways without taking into consideration the economic implications? These are important. What is this all about now? For the most part the report was based—and this is to what the hon. the Minister was referring—on evidence and representations and submissions to the Commission without any further analysis of the costs and of the economic implications. Must this House, with the responsibility it has, accept a report without considering the cost structure? That shows how superficial the United Party’s criticism is, because it is fixing its gaze solely on the provincial election.

I want to point out the following implication. I have said that there were no statistics in regard to this matter as a whole. I do not want to discuss the tariff policy, but I do want to look at this next item, i.e. the costs of transport, and it is important to do so. In the determination of the role of the various forms of transport and the promotion of the national economy in an effective way. the economy of the means of transport and the consequential applicable costs of transport are important factors. What would the consequences be if we were merely to accept this report on separation as it stood? Then I want to point out that one can determine the costs of transport per rail with reasonable accuracy. We have the figures, capital investment and the costs, etc. We have those statistics, but what about one’s road hauliers? We did not have the costs of those road hauliers, nor did the Commission. All information they had concerning the road hauliers was their own personal capital expenditure, what their motor trucks, etc., cost them. But who subsidizes them? Every person who buys petrol in South Africa, has to pay 6 cents a gallon as a subsidy, as a levy to pay the costs of national roads. Every man must pay a motor car licence to help subsidize the roads. The provincial taxpayer subsidizes these people using the road. [Interjections.] These are the people the United Party want to benefit to such an extent now with this proposal of theirs. Time will now allow the analysis of this whole report. But when we consider the report we must remember a few things. This commission consisted of 12 members. Four of the 12 submitted minority reports, and in his minority report the chairman states—and this is the important aspect—

He goes on to say—

What does he say in addition to that?

It is the chairman who has this to say. But he goes further; from his experience of the Railways as a State corporation, the Commissioner finds that the efficiency of the service will in no way be impaired if the Railways, the Harbours and the Airways are retained as a unit; that is the opinion of the chairman of the Commission. Then there is Mr. Joubert, another member, who made a very thorough study of transport, not only in South Africa but throughout the world, and he stated emphatically—

But not the roles and the efficiency of the transport system as a whole. He pointed out that at some centres such as Port Elizabeth it had been indicated that the public were satisfied with the present set-up, but when the Commission heard evidence in Durban certain Port Elizabeth interests rejected the evidence which they had submitted in Port Elizabeth. He went on to say that in the absence of statistics it was not possible to take a proper decision in regard to the question, and then he states—

He said that these public bodies, many of them elected by the voters of South Africa, particularly if one thinks of the provincial authorities, municipalities, etc., were satisfied with the position as it was to-day. Who are the dissatisfied people?

How can he use words like that?

Because they did not come to give evidence. They were invited to give evidence. I am also pointing out, therefore, that that Commissioner also submitted a motivated minority report, and in that minority report he pointed out clearly that he was not in favour of the separation which was recommended in the majority report. He advocated that the three services should be retained as a unit. In his minority report he went on to say—

The Commission did, however, make recommendations in regard to the rating system. In other words, they exceeded their limits as far as this aspect is concerned. This member of the Commission pointed this out and the hon. the Minister pointed it out. Then he went on to say and this is where the United Party falls down—

For that reason he is opposed to the minority report. He goes on to say—

The hon. the Minister was therefore justified in saying that most of the evidence given in this connection was given by people to further their own economic interests, and now hon. members on the opposite side are putting the wrong words in his mouth. In addition, this Commissioner said—

Sir, this is the record of this National Party Government, i.e. that there has never been a breakdown in the country’s national transport services, and that while we have been experiencing the greatest economic upsurge which South Africa has ever experienced in its entire history. But this member of the Commission is not the only one to have submitted a minority report. Read what Mr. Anderson said in his minority report.

Read the majority report to us; after all, that is what counts.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER; What counts is this … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to make his speech.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER; What counts is this: the hon. the Minister appointed a commission of inquiry consisting of 12 members, and the chairman himself was not in agreement with the majority report. In the second place there were four minority reports. I do not know whether such a report has ever been tabled in South Africa before, a report with four minority reports. The minority reports are motivated, but the majority report is not. On the contrary, the members who signed the majority report, admitted that they brought out their reports without the necessary statistical data, and without their having been able to analyse the economic implications of their recommendations. Sir, when one is dealing with the South African Railways, to which the entire economic development of South Africa is linked, then one may not take any steps or decisions if one does take into account the economic implications.

I want to assert here—and hon. members on that side will not be able to deny this—that if one were to bring about this separation which is being requested in the majority report, then the logical consequence would in the first place be that the Railways, which will be operated at a loss, will not be able to give the railway staff the benefit of any economic growth in South Africa. In other words, they are acting quite contrary to the interests of the tens of thousands of railway staff members here, for the Railways would then have to be subsidized, as the hon. member himself advocated out of the ordinary Revenue Account. If one were to start subsidizing the Railways out of the ordinary Revenue Account, then one would remove all initiative and idealism from the railway staff. Secondly if the services were separated and Airways continued to show the profits it is showing at present, then the logical consequence would be that there would be continued representations, from that side of the House as well, to offer Airways services to South Africa at a cheaper rate without taking into consideration the capital investment in Airways, without taking into consideration that the Airways was developed by the Railways from the ground floor up. There will also be strong representations, as the hon. member for Yeoville has already indicated here, that petrol should be cheaper for the Eastern Transvaal. He wants fuel to be delivered to the Eastern Transvaal at a cheaper rate because a profit is being made on the pipelines. This plea will be made without taking into account that one must balance the accounts of the Railways, the Harbours and the Airways as a unit.

Sir. for whom is the United Party a mouthpiece? They are the mouthpiece of a small group of road hauliers; they are the mouthpiece of a small number of people who want to undertake road haulage while those people are already being subsidized to a certain extent by the taxpayers of South Africa in that they are enjoying the benefits of capital investment in our good roads which were built by the Provinces, by the National Transport Commission and by the municipalities. It is these people’s cause the United Party is championing, and doing so to the detriment of the railway staff itself, for the railwayman gets his share when the railway services show a surplus. I think an hon. member spoke of R113 million or R140 million during the past year. But what is more, they are making that plea to the detriment of agriculture in South Africa, for agriculture will immediately have to pay higher tariffs on the transportation of their produce. It will also be to the detriment of the coal consumer in South Africa and to the detriment of all the timber consignors, and the hon. member was so concerned a moment ago about these people. Mr. Speaker, as far as this is concerned, I think hon. members opposite have failed o further the interests of the S.A. Railways. The time at my disposal is not going to allow me to analyse these things any further, except just to refer to the number of trains which were cancelled. When I stated in reply to a question for the opposite side that it was a few thousand, the hon. member for Durban (Point) actually whistled, so gleeful was he. But this is a mere .4 per cent of all the trains running. Does this now show inefficiency, in view of the size of the organization? Hon. members are surely aware that staff shortages are not only a phenomenon which occurs on the S.A. Railways, but that it occurs throughout all sectors of the South African economy— in the private sector as well among building contractors. But the Railways Administration has taken this into account because they have introduced mechanization, automation on an intensive scale, and have put electronic computers into operation. They have, by utilizing modern equipment, supplied an increased carrying capacity so as in his way to transport more traffic with fewer trains. Modern signals have been introduced, as well as a system of centralized traffic control to eliminate station staff as well as other staff and so alleviate the staff problem. Communication systems have been improved—for example in shunting. Traffic control has been introduced which may possibly eliminate the services of conductors.

You must remember that the S.A. Railways performs a socio-economic function far beyond its task of transportation. The S.A. Railways affords many people employment, sheltered employment. This is being done only too gladly because we do not want to see these people on the streets, ft is, as I have said, fulfilling a socio-economic function as well, as it did during the depression years—to ensure that the white man in South Africa retains his place as the supporter of agriculture, industry and the rural areas.

I shall reply later on to the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the report of the Commission which investigated transport matters. Let me say this now, however: His remarks that the majority report was aimed at satisfying a small clique of people is entirely wrong and is a grave reflection on the members of the Commission. The hon. member for Yeo-ville stated to this House what he thought of the Minister’s remarks on the work of this Commission. We must remember that this Commission was appointed by the Government under the signature of the State President and with terms of reference preoared by the Minister of Transport himself. The hon. the Deputy Minister I think has misread those terms of reference because he became all “het-up” about the subdivision of transport.

So far speakers from the other side have made very little contribution to this debate. They have not come forward with a solution for the great difficulties the Minister has to face. All they did was to get up and praise him, without offering him any solution for the great difficulties he has in running his organization. There was nothing constructive, so much so that all the Minister need do in his reply to this debate will be to thank them for their felicitations.

Judging from the remarks of the Minister in his Budget speech and from the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister about the Marais Commission’s Report, it seems as if they anticipated a different result of this report because now they do not like it.

The Minister always presents his Budget and starts the debate on a very conservative note. He does not give one the impression that he is happy with the situation. Here we must remember that in February we had “Operation eliminate the Herstigte Nasionale Party”. [Interjections.] The Minister at that time stated that he expected to end the year’s working with a deficit but he actually ended with a surplus of R27 million. I did not think the Minister appeared to be over confident, keeping in mind that they have managed to eliminate members of the H.N.P. from this House. I do not think they have succeeded in eliminating the H.N.P. altogether; as a matter of fact, the party still exists.

Order! That is not under discussion at the present moment.

That is so, Mr. Speaker, but I think they need being reminded of it.

Order! I do not think so.

The Deputy Minister says our remarks in this debate are being directed at the provincial elections. But the Budget the Minister introduced here was directed at the provincial elections because why did he not come forward and suggest that there may be tariff increases or increases in fares to meet his deficit? Year after year we find that the Minister underestimates his Revenue; thus he can always come here with a surplus. The fact that he was able to find R60 million which he handed out to the rial-waymen at the Langlaagte by-election shows what prosperity there is in the Railway service. But after the provincial election we will find that the Minister, when he is short of cash or is going into the red, will increase tariffs and give us an explanation next year. It is necessary that we know where the profits of the Railways come from. Harbours ended the year with a surplus of R19 million in comparison with a surplus of R14 million last year; Airways doubled their surplus of last year to a surplus this year of R7.7 million; pipelines have ended the year with a fantastic surplus of R47 million after having started off as recently as 1965 and then with a modest deficit. The Railways is on the other hand the problem child. We find that they have ended up with a deficit of R25 million this year. This is an improvement over last year’s position, but it is still something which should cause everybody concern, because this problem of losses on the Railways has to be overcome. There are no two ways about it. The Minister has run into trouble during the last year, as a result of his labour difficulties and the other difficulties he has had. Notwithstanding the speeches of some hon. members on that side of the House, I can tell the Minister that the state of morale amongst railway employees is very low. I know that hon. members on the other side will say that it is high, but I know that the hon. member for Parow was asked by one of his constituents, during the last election, to pay a visit to the Paul Sauer Building, so that he could see for himself what the state of the morale was, and how much dissension existed among employees.

Where did you hear that?

I heard it from one of the hon. member’s constituents. I was canvassing in his constituency and this is what I was told. The claim, that the Minister makes, that productivity has been increased by working with a smaller staff, and by carrying a greater tonnage per mile, is of course a fallacy. The Minister cannot get the staff. Throughout all the speeches here this afternoon, we have not heard, even from the Minister, how he proposes to overcome the staff shortage. All they can do is to ask: “What are you going to do?” Sir, it is out of our hands. It is the Government which has to solve this problem. Sir, it is not enough merely to pump R60 million into the pockets of the railwaymen and then to say: “We have solved the problem. There apparently have not been too many resignations since the increased salaries took effect, and we now have more staff joining than there are resignations.” Sir, they seem to forget that before the general election they pumped R9 million into the staff pockets by way of a holiday bonus. And then, Sir, they, the Government, went down the drain, and we now have nine more seats on this side of the House.

Staff shortages have not arisen overnight. They have been with us for a long time. We still have not had a solution to this problem from the Government. It is all very well for the Deputy Minister to tell us of the loyalty of the railway worker, how hard he has worked, and how certain clerks have gone outside to do certain jobs of work to help the Railways, but is that the way to run an organization the size of our Railways? Surely, if the Railways are dependent upon unqualified persons in a crisis it is a deplorable state of affairs. This is a matter which really should be investigated.

Sir, we were talking about resignations. The question has been asked: “Why do they resign?” I do not know whether the hon. the Minister follows up the reasons, but when one talks to individuals who have resigned from the Railways, one finds that the main reason behind their resignations, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) has said, is the ap plication of the disciplinary code. We have told the hon. the Minister this before. The fact is that a dead end is reached with the Appeal Board. Once one has appealed and the Appeal Board has turned down one’s application, one has had it. It is also a most difficult matter to see the Minister. We feel, as I have said before, that there should be a disciplinary code in the Railways, but we object to its administration. Another factor which emerges when one talks to these people is the system of promotion within the Service. The anomalies which exist in the application of the pay scales have also been pointed out here before. The Deputy Minister told us that that was something which was entirely in the hands of the staff associations and the Railways. There are, however, anomalies which are considerable. This is a matter which should be investigated because it is creating tremendous dissension in the Railways at the present moment.

As I have said, the man in the street and industry are hoping that the Government, after winning the election, will make some statement as to how they intend overcoming the manpower shortage. We want to see the hon. the Minister getting away from the political ideology of his Party and tell us what he intends to do.

Any suggestions?

No, you are the Government and it is your job to tell us. I want the hon. member for Germiston to get up and tell us what he is going to do.

Have you any suggestions?

Are you expecting us to take over the Government? We will do it for you. Now, it is no use coming along and telling us of the critical situation and the fact that trains have had to be cancelled. It is no good hiding behind the flu epidemic as this only lasted for a short time. It is over now. Let us therefore have something better than the excuses we have had up to the present moment.

We have heard much about planning. I feel that the trouble the Railways are in at the present moment, is in fact the result of a lack of long-term planning. I do not blame the staff for this. Certain members of the Select Committee on Railways had the privilege of visiting the head office, saw the work of the planning council and met individuals serving on the council. The members of the Select Committee found that they were very capable people. But I am convinced that a number of the plans of this particular planning council of the hon. the Minister never see the light of day. They are killed at birth for the simple reason that the Government makes the excuse that the funds to carry out these plans are not available. That is the end of it. I am fairly certain that the present position obtaining on the Railways, namely the shortage of trucks, and the general shortages of railway staff, is due to a lack of acceptance of longterm plans. Most business houses of any capacity have forecasting and long-term planning. The Railways have it as well. But I am fairly certain that the plans of these very capable railway servants never see the light of day. This is a serious matter although hon. members on my left do not seem to think so. The S.A. Railways handle a budget of approximately R966 million which is to be spent from Revenue this year. That is very big business. They also employ quite a number of persons. There is something like 225,000 people employed on the Railways. By any standard that is very big business.

When one reads the report on co-ordination of transport one feels that the Railways are not unlike the house that Jack built. There have been additions to it from time to time and we have never really got down to reorganizing this immense structure. I do not think hon. members on the Government side appreciate the size of this enormous utility service that we run and in respect of which moneys are voted by Parliament.

The Marais Commission, on the co-ordination of transport to my mind did keep to their terms of reference. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister does not like the result. They did do a job of work. They examined the position very closely. Much has been said about the chairman’s minority report where he says that the practice in the commercial world to-day is to amalgamate companies of similar types with a view to the better running of the unit and in order to save money.

Yes.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort says, yes, that is correct. But there is a considerable difference. What they do in commercial life is to form a holding company and to run the units that are taken over as separate units, which in turn are answerable to the holding company. That is the difference. If one of those companies run into the red, it is reorganized.

We have that situation at the present moment of one unit running into the red. If the Government were to form a holding company of the Railways, the pipeline, the Airways and the Harbours, as separate units, it would be up to the holding company to find out what they are going to do about getting the Railways out of the red. The hon. the Deputy Minister asked whether we were going to ask the man in the street and the farmers of course the farmers must be included—to subsidize the Railways. I think the sooner industry and the public in general realize what is happening, the better. It is wrong to take the profits from the pipeline, Airways and Harbours to bolster the Railway system, because you hide any inefficiency that exists in that system.

For what do you want to use the profits made on the pipeline?

I would suggest that the considerable profits on the pipeline be reduced so that the people in the Transvaal can obtain petrol at a lower rate than at present.

But the Railways supplied the capital.

I think that the capital involved has been repaid. I am certain that an outside concern would take over the pipeline and repay the Railways for its capital investment. There will be no difficulty in raising that capital.

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

No, my time is running out. In his statement the hon. the Minister of Transport said he was restricted in his purchases of equipment by the shortage of capital funds. He remarked that it might be necessary for him to have a look at the funds he has on hand at the present moment. We see in the hon. the Minister’s use for the replacement of rolling stock and memorandum what funds he could possibly use for the replacement of rolling stock and possibly also for capital development. He has nearly R14 million in the Betterment Fund and R241 million in the Renewals Fund. In those two funds he has a lot of money which he could use to make purchases for capital development on the Railways.

Much criticism has been levelled at the report on the co-ordination of transport. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us that certain of the points mentioned in the report are already being carried out on the Railways. We do not know how old this report is or when the Government received it, but it is only recently that we heard that the Government was introducing a heavier type of truck on the Railways, as well as heavier rails and airbrake systems which will be used in conjunction with the vacuum-brake system. This report was handed to us only recently, but I am certain that the Government must have known its contents a long time ago. The Minister calls this positive thinking in the advances as far as transport is concerned. He talks about increasing the truckloads and the weight of the trains and introducing diesel locomotives and electric locomotives. I think that the Deputy Minister will agree that that is progress. But at the same time the same positive thinking allows him to provide three narrow gauge steam engines and narrow gauge rolling stock and to retain out-of-date narrow gauge railways of 2-foot gauge. How are narrow gauge railways and the building of steam engines co-ordinated with positive thinking? The hon. the Minister has told us that the day of the steam engine is gone, but we have just built three new steam engines for a narrow gauge track. According to the Estimates, we are also going to buy some diesel engines for this narrow gauge Railway. That is what one calls a backward step. We take one step forward and go ten steps backwards. Surely the time has come that we scrapped the narrow gauge services. Let us take, for example, the Port Elizabeth line. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn will know that line that goes through the Langkloof, a great fruit-growing district. If that line were improved and made a wide gauge track, Port Elizabeth would be brought closer to Cape Town by rail and the farmers in that particular area would enjoy better service. I think the hon. member for South Coast also has difficulty with his narrow gauge track.

I should also like to speak about the Saldanha Bay project and the announcement by the Government that they have approved the building of a new rail link with Saldanha Bay and the building of a harbour there. The hon. the Deputy Minister can go to have his coffee now. The Government has approved the building of a rail link with Sishen in the Northern Cape. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this; I take the liberty to tell the hon. the Minister how wrong he was about Saldanha Bay. The hon. the Minister will recall that I appealed to him last year that the Saldanha Bay harbour should be developed and that a rail link should be constructed. I consider Saldanha Bay as one of the finest bays in the country. I am not the only one who thinks this. There are a number of other people including those who recommended that Saldanha Bay should be the ore port. However, the hon. the Minister said that he would not see the development of Saldanha Bay in his day nor would I see it in my day. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister how wrong he was. This is not by any means the only error that the hon. the Minister has made in his day. Much has been said about this harbour. I have seen during the war period one of the largest convoys of ships in the world there. With the building of the nuclear power station adjacent to the harbour, it is evident that we will have very vast development in that area.

What about Richard’s Bay?

Richard’s Bay will play its part as well. It is very necessary that it be developed too, and I hope the Government will go ahead with its development. The Government has been asleep over the years and has not been developing these harbours. I know the hon. member for Parow does not like Saldanha Bay. The committee who investigated the potential of this harbour recommended that it should be developed, but having listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech, I have the feeling that he is not in favour of the development of this particular harbour or the railway line. He told us that Iscor would build the railway line and the harbour and that they would provide all the facilities. The Railway organization will run it as a guaranteed line. It seems that the hon. the Minister is not very interested in the line at the moment and that he does not have any confidence in it. However, I hope that when the report comes through and there is a suggestion that the line should not be three feet six inches wide but four foot eight inches wide, he will not put a spanner in the works. In view of the importance of this Bay, I hope he will make plans at this stage to improve the railway connection between Cae Town and Saldanha Bay. Taking into consideration the severe competition we have from other countries in the export of our ore, we have to transport ore to the harbours and export it as cheaply as possible.

The recommendation is that to increase the capacity, the truck loads and the speed of the line we would be better off if we adopted wider tracks. I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accept that position. I think it will be a step in the right direction. Other countries, of whom Japan is one, widened their tracks to improve their Railway system. I think that is an item which we have to face up to. I am sorry that the new line which is being built to Richard’s Bay is not going to have a broader track, because you will probably find that that line will be able to carry much more than at the present moment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Salt River whether he has perhaps heard that the railway line and the development of the Saldanha harbour are not Railway undertakings, but exclusively Iscor undertakings. They are going to build the railway line, develop the harbour and purchase the rolling stock with their own money. The hon. member now pretends that the Minister did not want to build such a line last year, but that he has meanwhile decided otherwise.

What is the point you are making?

We want to appoint you as a train driver.

What about you?

Last year the hon. member for Salt River at least had a reply … [Interjections.] The hon. member must just listen for a moment. Last year the hon. member for Salt River at least had a reply when we asked him what his solution to this staff shortage was. He then said, as courageously as you please, that there was a very simple solution. He said that all that had to be done was to take up non-Whites into the positions previously occupied by Whites.

I never said that.

Yes, the hon. member did say it. Let the hon. member refer to his Hansard. I do not blame the hon. member, because he was reprimanded for that by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and to-day he is much more careful. Now he throws his hands into the air and says that there is such a tremendous manpower shortage that they have no solution for the problem, and therefore we must find a solution. Why does the hon. member talk about it then? Why does he not leave it in our hands?

If I heard the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment correctly, it has three legs. One is the manpower shortage, another is the Railways’ inability to handle all the traffic, and the third is his criticism of the Minister’s decision on the Marais Commission. It puts me in mind of a three-legged pot, which is one of the most difficult instruments to handle. The difficulty with the pot is that if one just inserts a small piece of wood under one leg the contents immediately spill out. It also puts me in mind of the arguments the hon. members used here to-day. If one dislodges one of these legs the whole structure collapses. I do not want to say anything about the third leg of their argument, i.e. the Marais Commission and the Department’s attitude. All the arguments put forward here were dealt with fully by the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, I do want to underline one point for the edification of the hon. member for Salt River, since he could not understand what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. He now keeps on saying that this is a personal insult to Dr. Marais. The fact is that one of the most important recommendations of this Commission is that the services should be separated. It was specifically on that point that Dr. Marais differed from the rest of the Commission; therefore, the Chairman of the Commission that brought out the report held differing views. This is important and must not be lost sight of.

I now want to give attention to the other two legs of the amendment which the hon. member for Yeoville moved here. I want to begin with the manpower shortage. It would be foolish of us to deny that there is a dire manpower shortage in the Railways to-day. However, this is not an isolated problem that the Railways alone is faced with here in South Africa to-day. The extent of the problem is, of course, tremendous, because the Railways is the largest employer, employing 224,000 people. It is not an isolated problem that the Railways alone is faced with. It is a problem in all branches of the Public Service. Ask the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs how they are struggling, not only with technical staff, but also with ordinary manual labourers who must lay cables. He simply cannot get them. Every Government Department, as well as the large industries, has a manpower shortage, but now hon. members are trying to create the impression in this House that it is a problem exclusive to the South African Railways. It is a general problem in South Africa and its causes lie deep. It is very closely linked to the tremendous economic development which took place under the National Government in South Africa. The United Party has only one reason for believing that they would not have this situation when they come into power, i.e. that they know that when they come into power there will be unemployment in this country because industry, and the economic position of South Africa, will deteriorate under their régime. This is the only reason the United Party has for believing that there would not be a manpower shortage under their régime. One after the other the United Party speakers asked the hon. the Minister to tell us what he was going to do in connection with the manpower shortage. I can quote how the hon. member for Yeoville carried on in this House, before the recent general election, about this same matter, but I do not want to spend my time on that. He kept insisting that it was an atrocious injustice to the staff, and he asked what the hon. the Minister was going to do about it. I have the right to ask what the solution is that the United Party is offering, because they present themselves as the alternative Government in South Africa. In his speech prior to the general election the hon. member for Yeoville made an attempt—his attempt to-day was very feeble—at mentioning a few matters. He said at the time that attention should be given to improved remuneration for the Railway people. This has now been done. However, now other hon. members opposite are trying to make political capital out of it. The other day the hon. member for Newton Park made a very nasty statement here. During his speech on the motion of censure he said that the Langlaagte election was the most expensive by-election that has ever been conducted. He said that that election had cost the State R60 million, implying that the State had tried to bribe the Railway people.

Did they not do so?

The hon. member implied that the State used money with which to bribe the Railway people to vote for the National Party.

The hon. member for Yeoville also presented another solution here, i.e. that the pensions of retired Railway employees should be improved, and that attention should be given to a non-contributory pension scheme. The hon. member must, however, remember that last year the hon. the Minister made the largest and most extensive of improvements ever to the basic pension structure of Railway employees. Therefore the hon. the Minister cannot do so again this year. We are not Father Christmas. The hon. member, however, presents the tremendous Superannuation Fund balance and asks why the hon. the Minister could not take that R561 million and give it to the pensioners. The fact of the matter is that there is already an actuarial deficit of more than R70 million. As the hon. member said, this is to a large extent a theoretical deficit, but it has always been accepted by the administration that that theoretical deficit, if one may call it by that name, must not fall below a certain amount. That is why, each year, the Railways must contribute more than R1 million—this year it is R1.2 million—to ensure that that theoretical deficit does not fall below a certain amount. In other words, while the Railways have had to contribute an amount of R1.2 million to make good that deficit, the hon. member wants a contribution to be made to the pensioners, because there is such a large overall amount in the Fund. Last year he mentioned other matters of lesser importance, inter alia, that compulsory military service should be decreased so that more manpower could be available. But his chief argument then, as to-day, was that the labour pattern should be changed, because as far as the labour pattern was concerned he told the Minister that the Minister had just the right thing, because the latter was following the United Party’s policy. I want to read to the hon. member what he said. I quote—

In other words, and this is now the important solution he is offering, as far as that is concerned he says that the Minister must do what he is now doing. That is what the United Party also wants to do. He must negotiate with the staff associations, and then he must gradually employ non-Whites. In respect of this employment of non-Whites in the Railways I just want to say the following to the hon. member. At the beginning of the year, prior to the general election, he stood up, as piously as you please, and said that as things now stood he and the Minister did not see eye to eye, that the Minister was, in practice, actually carrying out United Party policy. There he is nodding his head again. But what did his henchmen, hon. members there behind him, and all the candidates of the United Party go around proclaiming from platform to platform in the country districts? Ben Schoeman is now cramming the Railways full of Kaffirs! Is that not so? Is there one hon. member on the other side who wants to deny that that was their slogan? The hon. member for Newton Park did it from platform to platform. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the Minister should not let himself be frightened by the verkramptes. But who were the political vultures? The United Party. They went to exploit the matter in the country districts for political gain. I say that the United Party are not sincere in their pose that they only want to employ non-Whites with the approval of the trade unions. I want to give them an example. The former hon. member for Umlazi, Mr. Lewis, said here last year that in 1964 he supported the Minister in employing Indian shunters in Durban. On 5th November a report appeared in the Natal Mercury about this speech and his support of the Minister’s policy of employing Indian shunters under certain circumstances. He then received a harsh letter from the leader of the United Party in Natal, who wrote to him as follows—

Sir, does the United Party then have various policies? Is it not true what we have been saying here throughout the years, i.e. that the United Party has a hotch-potch pamphlet (bokvreet-pamflet), a little yellow one, in which they dish up all kinds of things for the voters? But when they are in the country districts they tell another story. It is not their policy “in published form”. What is the hon. member for Yeoville’s reply to this? The former hon. member for Umlazi thought that the hon. member for South Coast was just silly. He then turned to the United Party’s chief propagandist and phoned Mr. Marais Steyn. What did the hon. member for Yeoville say then? “Harry, you simply go ahead and get all the publicity of that kind, and let the newspapers quote it for us. We like that very much.” You see, Sir, that is the opportunism of that side. That is the way in which these people want to solve problems. That is the way in which they want to solve the country’s problems. I say that this hiding behind the trade unions is just a bluff. The United Party is not honest in saying that this is their policy and that they will abide by it. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along here, in a no-confidence debate on a previous occasion, and under the pressure of questions put to him by the Minister of Transport, says that he would not force the issue if the trade unions did not want to take in non-Whites in the place of Whites— “He will not use the big stick”. If that is United Party policy, how do they ever expect to persuade the trade unions to employ non-Whites? I will tell you what is happening to-day. The Minister is managing to employ non-Whites with the permission of the trade unions, because he, more than anyone in this country, has the confidence of the staff associations. The staff associations and the trade union leaders trust the Minister. They know that this Minister would not leave the white man on the Railways in the lurch. That is why he has managed to let non-Whites do work on the Railways which was previously done by Whites, particularly unskilled and semi-skilled work, and he did so without antagonizing the staff against the Administration. This is based, however, on the trust the railway people have in the Minister.

But what is the position of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? He does not have the confidence of those railwaymen. No, the Leader of the Opposition is known as one of the arch-integrationists in this country. He is the leader of the United Party, which stands for enforced economic integration, the abolition of the colour bar and job reservation, the party that advocates the “rate for the job”.

Where do you get that?

The Leader of the Opposition is the leader of the party which over the years has advocated the fragmentation of the railway system, the national transport system, in all its facets, and the disintegration of the service in favour of private initiative. At one stage they wanted to transfer the Railways to a utility company. They wanted to transfer the railway workshops to private initiative. To-day they are still advocating that we should break up the service, and they know what the result will be. That is why I say that the United Party and the Leader of the Opposition must not think that they will get the co-operation of the trade unions and the staff associations to do what the hon. the Minister is doing. They need not think for one moment that the leaders of the railwaymen will trust them in this matter.

We then told the Minister to do it.

If that were ever to happen, I foresee strikes among railway personnel, like the strikes we had the day we took over from the United Party.

You had to make a law prohibiting it.

Now I come to the other leg of the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment, and that is the question of the inability of the Railways to transport the goods. He said that the Minister was back in 1954, in the same position in which his predecessor was. He said that the Railways could not transport the goods; “the Railway are lagging behind the transport needs”. It is the old refrain again; this handicaps the country’s progress; Col. Shearer also said that at the time, and to-day the hon. member for Yeoville repeats it like a parrot; there is a permanent crisis on the Railways and the capital investment is too little.

Sir, do you remember the days when we were subjected to heavy criticism here, when the Minister was accused of injecting too much capital into the Railways? That was said by the former member for Jeppes, by Hamilton Russell and by Mr. Plewman, the cicada of Port Elizabeth. They all stood up here like a choir and said that the Minister should now call a halt; we are injecting too much public money and capital into the Railways, and why are we doing this because there is already a superfluous capacity on the Railways? But to-day the hon. member for Yeoville comes along and because it suits him he sings another tune. I want to tell the hon. member that when this hon. Minister took over there had, since 1910, been a capital investment in the Railways of about R900 million, and in his time, up to the 31st March, 1969, the latest figures I have, there was a capital investment in the Railways of R1,580 million. Throughout the period before he took over it was R900 million, and in his time alone it was R1,580 million. In the previous financial year alone no less than R100 million was invested solely in the improvements to lines and in new lines and rolling stock, to enable the service to transport the goods. In the financial year 1969-’70 there were 440 locomotives on order, and 58 have been delivered; 8,070 trucks are on order, and 3,435 have been delivered. But he does not speak about that; he says that insufficient capital has been invested in the service. What the hon. member for Yeoville has done here to-day, and the pattern of the actions on the part of the Opposition, is to create a psychosis here in this House, with a political purpose, of course, i.e. to the effect that there is a crisis on the Railways and now they are conducting a crisis debate here; and they must now adjust their speeches accordingly. All their attacks are anchored to two admissions the hon. the Minister made here, which I have already mentioned: the fact that there is a dire staff shortage which is creating problems, and that in certain circumstances during the year the Railways could not handle all the transport.

But I also want to mention here that the hon. member for Yeoville is not original in coming forward to-day with such an amendment. In the 1954 debates he may go and read up the same amendment, or rather certain aspects of it, i.e. those dealing with the inability of the service to handle the transport and the staff shortage. I suspected as much and I therefore read up the 1954 debate. These are the identical aspects appearing in the amendment of the then hon. member for Sunnyside, Mr. Pocock. I do not want to read this now, but it was the same. [Interjection.] No, the entire motion is not the same, but I said two aspects of it were. At that time the hon. member for Vredefort, who was then Chairman of the Select Committee on Railways, gave them a very spot-on reply, and I quote from Hansard, column 1942. The hon. member said—

He said this—

Do you see, there is nothing new under the sun. It is the same old story which is still being told here. The hon. member for Vredefort continued by saying (column 1943) —

That is the difference, and that is why I say that if the United Party were to come back into power and if they were to govern the country and administer the Railways, I foresee that, we would very soon be involved in strikes again, particularly in respect of these staff matters. I want to mention here that there were extensive problems as a result of a combination of circumstances that made it difficult for the Railways to carry out its function in the past year. Hon. members of the Opposition are trying in every way possible to ferret out information. I am referring particularly to the hon. member for Port Natal, who tried, by way of questions, to obtain information about restrictive conditions on the Railways, which he then wanted to exploit for political gain. He asked here how many shunters had been involved in serious accidents over the past five years; but the fish did not bite, because the reply was in the negative—there was, in actual fact, a decrease. He then tried again and asked how many derailments there had been that had caused damage to rolling stock, and he then had to hear that in 1970 there were fewer derailments than in the previous year; once more the fish did not want to bite. He also inquired about the railway houses which were built and bought, and he then had to learn that the figure for 1967-’68 was 170, for 1968-’69, 495 and for 1969-70, 517—an upward trend. The dice simply do not want to fall his way.

Sir, for the first time in more than a decade —is that not significant?—the hon. the Minister had to say in his Budget speech here—

For more than 10 successive years the hon. the Minister could say here year after year that the Railways could handle all the traffic offering, and now that the hon. the Minister has had to come here this year and say that the Railways could not handle all the traffic offering, as a result of a combination of circumstances, the Opposition takes courage at that and seizes upon it as an opportunity to obtain an admission that there is a crisis on the Railways. We have had a cold winter, and while we were having to transport coal, trucks had to be diverted to assist in the transportation of livestock and fodder in drought-stricken areas, and that with an already depleted staff and a flu epidemic.

But the Minister admitted there was a crisis.

The Minister made no admission about a crisis on the Railways. The Railways have done wonders in the past year, notwithstanding all the difficulties they were faced with. Did any hon. member opposite make a single positive contribution to this debate. I want to do so; I want to point out a few of the Railways’ achievements. It was mentioned here that a large number of trains, particularly goods trains, were cancelled, but notwithstanding that the Railways improved the total tonnage of goods traffic. In spite of the fact that trains were cancelled, chiefly goods trains, there was no decrease in the total tonnage of goods transported, there was a small increase. Goods trains were cancelled, but on the other hand no fewer than 412 special mainline passenger trains were put into service. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down quoted some figures which I have asked for earlier this Session. I will deal with them in the course of my speech, but before I do so I would like to deal with one or two other remarks made by him. The hon. member for Parow made reference to somebody who is no longer here with us, the previous member for Umlazi. We now have a new member for Umlazi but I will deal with the previous member for Umlazi who mentioned the question of Indians in Railway employ in Durban. Sir, it would have been interesting if the hon. member for Parow had read out a letter which the Railway Administration sent to a certain workshop in Durban and in which it said, “In future we will be employing Indians in this workshop”. It went on further to insult every railwayman in that workshop by saying to them: “we hope that you will treat these Indians properly”. Any railwayman who did not do so. would be prosecuted. Sir, I am glad to see that the hon. member for Randburg is in his seat, because I want to refer to him before I come back to the hon. member for Parow. The hon. member for Randburg quoted some figures which, very curiously, were the same figures as those quoted by the hon. the Deputy Minister. In an earlier debate this year on Railways the hon. member for Randburg, who was backed up by the hon. the Deputy Minister, said that there were 113,000 white workers in the Railway service in 1959 and that in 1969 there were 115,000, an increase of 2,000. [Interjections.] The hon. member quoted the figure of 115,000; I have looked at his Hansard. In column 654 he quoted the number as having increased from 113,000 to 115,000.

Hansard is wrong, I suppose?

Sir, if there is time I will quote the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Hansard to him. The hon. member for Randburg gave the figure as 115,000 in column 654 of Hansard, but the interesting thing is that the Department of Statistics gives the figure as 110,000. The figure of 115,000 quoted by the hon. member for Randburg was, of course, the figure as at the 31st March, 1969, whereas the figure given by the Department of Statistics is the figure as at the end of 1969. If therefore the hon. member is correct, then surprisingly enough there was a decrease in the number of white workers on the South African Railways of 5,000 from March, 1969, to the end of the year. Sir, somebody must be right, and I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister or the hon. member for Randburg would care to check those figures.

Then I come to the hon. member for Vasco who, I believe, has not spoken in this debate as yet. In the last Railway debate the hon. member questioned me with regard to Railway supporters in my own constituency. He said that they would give the answers to the various questions which I had raised in the debate. Sir, I suggest that the Railway people in my constituency certainly gave the answer to the various questions that I had raised in debates here from time to time. Sir, this debate leads to another very interesting point. Do you know, Sir, that only once before in the history of South Africa were railwaymen laid off on the Railways? Only once before since 1910 did the Railway Administration lay off workers or reduce salaries. The last time that that happened was in the early 1930s, at which time the Nationalist Party was also in power. They laid off railway workers in the early 1930s, and they reduced the salaries of artisans from 18 shillings to six shillings a day, and made them common labourers. This was done by a government which always claims to be the friend of the railwaymen. It is interesting to note that in the early 1930s the Government was going out of power, and the Railways were in a crisis. In the 1970s they are going out of power and the Railways are again in a crisis. Over the years we have heard how loyal the railwaymen are to the Government. Here I should like to deal again with the hon. member for Parow. When he mentioned Langlaagte …

No, I did not.

Sir, do you see how easily they forget. It is no wonder that they are in trouble. The hon. member mentioned Langlaagte and said that we had tried to make political capital of it. He did not, however, mention that a certain newspaper, Die Vaderland, of which the hon. the Minister is the boss, actually published a cartoon of him walking to Langlaagte with a bag of money, just before the election. This is the Government which, year after year, has boasted of the loyalty of the railwaymen. This is how much they thought of the loyalty of the railwaymen. A dispute had been going for months about increased pay. Conditions were certainly bad and they needed those increases, but the Government kept them waiting for a suitable by-election before they gave them those increases. Is this the way that loyalty is rewarded? I assure you, Sir, that when this party runs the Railways of South Africa, we will not buy the loyalty of the railway workers.

The other interesting thing about this debate is that we are not only debating the labour policy of the Railways. Under the microscope is being placed also the whole labour pattern of this Government. The Railways Administration is the largest employer of labour. It is protected by its monopolies and the Government controls its every function. If Government policy is to work, it will be seen to work in the Railways. Surely, if it is practicable, it will be practicable in the South African Railways. If that policy cannot work for the South African Railways, it cannot work anywhere. Because of the way the Railways in South Africa are run, they have every form of protection that private industry cannot have. If Government policy cannot work for the South African Railways, where else can it possibly work? The Railways have all the advantages and they can put into effect every possible aspect of their own particular crazy philosophy. But what do we find? After 22 years they have not been able to implement their own policies in this very field where it should be possible.

What do you mean?

I shall tell the hon. member what I mean. They have failed miserably, and after 22 years in the desert, the position has reached crisis proportions which should not have been reached at all. Such a stage has been reached that not very long ago, when the hon. member for Parow was boasting in this House about the Railways being able to cope with the situation, he said (Hansard, Volume 28, col. 677) —

The hon. member was making this boast during the short session of Parliament earlier this year, in February. His boast was that, for ten years, the Railways had managed to cope. What does the hon. member for Parow say now? He was very silent about this very point just now. I want to repeat that the position we have to-day is exactly the same, for different reasons, as the position which existed in the 1930s. That Government was going out of power in the 1930s, and the Railways were in a crisis. This Government is now going out of power, and the noises they now make have a slight note of hysteria about them.

Returning to the question of overtime, hon. members will recall that the hon. the Minister said that there was a 24 per cent shortage of workers in the artisan class. The artisan class is one of those particular grades which does not work a great deal of overtime. That is probably the reason why the most serious staff shortages appear to occur in this class. The hon. the Minister has heard us say year after year that members of the Railways Administration are being deliberately under-paid so that they can be forced to work overtime. If they were not deliberately underpaid, they would not work overtime. They are being forced to work overtime and, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, when they leave home in the mornings their children are still asleep and when they return home in the evenings, their children are asleep. Family life among the average railwaymen no longer exists. Their working conditions have deteriorated over the past few years. It really has to be seen to be believed.

We have heard very little in this debate about Railway housing. Railway houses in the main are poorly maintained. In my own constituency some of the Railway houses are not fit for animals. When I have complained about these Railway houses—and I do not blame the servants concerned—there is just nobody to repair them. These houses leak. They are falling apart. Perhaps some hon. members, the more verkrampte members on the other side, may be well advised to bear in mind that in these Railway houses there is only one toilet, and that toilet is shared by both Europeans and Bantu people. This is apartheid! The hon. member for Pietersburg is froyning but this is perfectly true. There is one toilet, which is shared by both Europeans and Bantu.

Are you satisfied with that?

The blame lies with your Government. The side issue of this is that the Bantu servants say to their white employers: “You are badly off. You work for the South African Railways. We have houses, in Umlazi. We have our toilets inside our houses. You have your toilets outside. Of course, we feel sorry for you because you are working for the South African Railways.” Sir, I have asked for these houses to be repaired, but no workers are available. The Railways have not been able to solve the problem. They have not been able to repair the houses.

This is not all. The conditions of Railway workmen at their jobs should also be seen to be believed. I have already said that Railway shunters in a particular part of Durban are having to use what are no more than hovels as change rooms. This has been the position for years. Whenever they have complained about this, they have been told that there is a shortage of staff and that nothing can be done. This shortage goes on and on and at no stage during the last few years has the Minister been able to get up and tell this House that he has an answer. There is a shortage of nearly 20 per cent in all grades. The Minister now admits that he is using 15,000 non-Whites to do work previously done by Whites. If those 15,000 non-Whites were not used in these capacities, the overall shortage of staff on the South African Railways would not be approximately 20 per cent; it would be nearer 30 per cent.

The interesting question is: What is the Minister and the Government going to do about this shortage? We have not heard one word. Already the South African Railways employ almost one in every ten white persons. How much more can it draw from the economically active white people in South Africa? They are just not there! The pity of this is that when the Railways fail, the whole economy of South Africa is dragged down with them. The tragedy is that the Government is unable to find a solution to its problems. Hon. members have asked us what our solution is. Our solution is: Make us the Government and we shall solve the problem. [Interjections.] Sir, their laughs do not alter over the years. It is just that, as I have said earlier, one detects a slight note of hysteria in their laughter now. At this time last year, certainly in the Durban Harbour, they were short of 400 key men. General cargo handling in the Point area of Durban Harbour is 50 per cent of what it used to be. In 1962 the discharge rate in the harbour was 11.3 tons per hour. It is now 6.4 tons. In 1962 the loading rate in Durban Harbour was 12.2 tons per hour. It is now 7.9 tons per hour. This is an expanding economy! This is the economy of which we boast so much. The most surprising fact of all is that before the war we were able to offload 15 tons an hour in Durban Harbour. When he is questioned about these matters, the Minister replies: “Oh, but we have mechanization.” Mechanization in the Durban Harbour has meant that we no longer offload 15 tons an hour. We now offload 6.4 tons per hour. The figure has dropped by nearly a two-thirds of the original tonnage. This is the modern society. This is mechanization! In the Durban area lost time to ships in 1962 amounted to 100 days per year. In 1969 the figure was 521 days per year.

The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the cancellation of trains because of the lack of staff. What is the effect of this on the economy. To my knowledge in five days seven trains were cancelled in Durban alone. Nobody has yet spoken about the trucks of these trains. Are these trains pulling the same number of trucks that they used to pull? In one of the farming areas around Durban the number of trucks was 100 less over a period of one week. Quite apart from the number of trains, the number of trucks was less. Let us take the number of accidents. The hon. member for Parow mentioned accidents. Last year there were 397 accidents involving damage. There were 1,855 accidents in five years. Would it be right for somebody to question whether the Railways, because of its shortage which is caused by different reasons but mainly by Government philosophy, have not reached a margin of safety which now can be called into doubt? The matter is worse in that in the Durban area we are told, by way of questions and answers, there are 279 vacancies for shunters on an establishment of 625. I call into question that establishment of 625. I should like to know how that establishment is worked out. If it is based on the mechanization about which we often hear, I have already given an example of what that mechanization can mean in practice. While there is this shortage of shunters and this overtime is being worked, Mr. Speaker, do you know that 460 shunters have been killed or seriously injured in the past five years?

How many people were killed on the roads?

When we get an interjection like that, I believe it is time we changed the Government fast because that is going to get us absolutely nowhere at all. We will talk about the roads at another time. There are 460 shunters less. As this number of shunters have been killed or injured, the number of shunters must have been reduced. Connected with the question of shunters I should like to say that the turn-around of trucks has increased by one day over a period of five years. This might be one of the reasons why we are short of trucks. Another interesting aspect about the shortage of shunters is that shunters who shunt trains in marshalling yards are now fly shunting and loose shunting. A year ago this matter was raised with the hon. the Minister. This is what he replied—

At that time there were not sufficient shunters to bring these trucks to a standstill. There were not sufficient shunters then and there are not sufficient shunters now. What is happening is that trucks are being damaged in increasing numbers. Staff have also been injured in the vards. I have already written to the hon. the Minister on another aspect relating to the noise of this shunting but that is something for a later debate. Trucks are damaged in the yards. They are then taken to the mechanical workshop and there is nobody to repair them. The shortage of staff in the mechanical workshops means that the trucks are held up there. This is the vicious circle. The trucks then go onto the main lines and hence we find that the accident rate on the South African Railways is increasing. I believe that the increase of accidents is taking place because of the shortage of shunters.

According to your prognosis not a single train will be running.

It will be a lot better if the hon. member listens for a change; he might learn something. He may then do a little better in his next railway constituency. This situation cannot go on any longer. I suggest that the shortage of shunters is not only endangering the lives of the shunters, but that trucks are also being damaged because of the fly and loose shunting. These trucks cannot be repaired fast enough in the workshops, with the result that they end up on our mainlines, which leads to an increase in traffic accidents. To my knowledge, there were three major traffic accidents in Natal during the last month. One was certainly caused by a lack of staff.

In the time left to me I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question to which I have not been able to find an answer, although I have asked a number of railway people. What happens to clerks who work overtime in other grades as shunters, checkers and drivers when they are injured on duty? What is their position when they are injured on duty? It might sound like a very easy question to the hon. member for Parow who is looking at me like that, but I can assure him that many railway officials do not know the answer. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will give his assurance that when those people are injured on duty they will receive compensation in the normal way.

I would also like to mention another aspect to him, namely that of the new salary scales. As the hon. the Minister knows, and I hope he does, because no Railway official I asked did know, that if a youngster joins the Railways with a Std. 8 certificate he earns R130 per month and that if he joins the Railways with a Matriculation certificate he earns R140 per month. When a youngster enters the Railway Service with a Std. 8 certificate and the other goes on to Matric. and then joins the Railways, he will earn R50 per month less than the youngster with a Std. 8 certificate. He will earn R50 per month less and will also have lost two years’ seniority. It seems to me that this method will certainly keep down the standard in the Railways.

Another matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is one that I have raised before, namely the employment of people above the age of 40. I have a letter here from a man who applied for a job in Cape Town. When he put in his application he asked for appointment as a clerk, checker or storeman. He said he was 40 years of age, bilingual, matriculated, and that he was educated at a local school. The employment office told him that the only post they could offer him was that of a railworker, a white labourer. We have heard how short we are of labour, but I have said to the hon. the Minister in previous debates and I say it again, that he is not even making use of the available white labour, never mind the non-White labour we have so often asked him to employ.

It seems to me that this Government has been hoist with its own petard. It has a philosophy in regard to labour which, if anything, it should be able to carry out in this biggest department of labour that we have. Not only has it failed to do this, but this Government has also jeopardized the livelihood of every single South African. One realizes that if the Railways collapse, the South African economy collapses too. The time has come when we do not need any more high-falluting philosophies from people on the other side or any more “dankies” to the hon. the Minister, but action. If the Government do not give it to us, the electorate will give it to us in the Provincial election?

Mr. Speaker, it is my unpleasant task to follow the hon. member for Port Natal in this debate. This afternoon he emerged as a toilet expert. In that respect I cannot rival him. The hon. member for Port Natal made a few statements here today, and I fear that if he fights another election in Port Natal, he will not come back. The hon. member for Durban (Point) held one meeting in my constituency, and I have come back with a greater majority than I had before. The hon. member for Port Natal said that the United Party was not a party which bought the loyalty of the railwayman. In other words, any increase in salary granted either by the United Party in the past, or by the National Party in the past, or still to be granted by the National Party in the future, will be interpreted by hon. members opposite as being a bribe. They will say that it is money given to the railwayman in order to buy his vote. We shall tell this to the railwaymen. What is more, in going through the statistics —for which I do not have the time now— one finds that not all salary increases granted in the course of National Party rule were granted just before an election or a by-election. Hon. members opposite have so much to say about Langlaagte now. but they should go through the statistics. If they do, they will find that the National Party Government has as a rule granted increases whenever it was in the interests of the country and the Administration to do so, and whenever increases were due to the staff.

The hon. member for Port Natal made a few statements here, and I just want to refer to them in passing. It is very easy to hit back. In 1920-’21 Mr. Jagger, the last U.P. Minister of Transport under United Party régime before 1924, cut the salaries of railwaymen overnight, without prior notice. Furthermore, why does the hon. member not tell this House that in 1939 railwaymen found themselves confronted with the threat that if they did not take the red oath and join in order to go to war, they would be dismissed? After all, this is true. Why does the hon. member not say that when the National Party came into power in 1948, it had to cancel orders for rolling stock as there was no capital to pay for them?

In what kindergarten did you learn that?

I can prove it. The hon. member for Durban (Point) must not be so quick to make an interjection. He should read the report of the Select Committee of that time. Now I come to a very important statement that was made by the hon. member for Port Natal, i.e. that the railwayman is deliberately being underpaid so that he is obliged to work Sunday-time and overtime. Is that not outrageous? The railwaymen will take note of this. Overtime and Sunday-time have been in existence since the Railways was established. As that is the case, why should there be so many references to Sunday-time and overtime now? It is a daily institution in the ordinary structure of the Railways Administration.

Are all your people satisfied?

All my people are satisfied, and that is why I am back in this House. Both the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke very boastfully here of the large measure of dissatisfaction prevailing amongst railway officials. Does the hon. member represent a railway constituency? More than two-thirds of the voters in my constituency are railway people. There is a world of difference between the complaints I received and the complaints received by hon. members opposite. I could also quote and read out a few letters here: but this is not something that is done in a railway debate. Is it not highly peculiar that the type of complaints read out in this House this afternoon, only reached United Party M.P.s and not Nationalist M.P.s? What are the complaints in my constituency? I am merely mentioning them in passing; I do not wish to elaborate on them. The complaints I received are not of toilet standard, but are about matters that occur daily. These are not complaints of the kind being received by the hon. member for Port Natal What do we find in a railway constituency such as Uitenhage? The complaints one hears every day—actually, they are more in the nature of representations than in but of complaints were that a certain ex-official who used to be in the service of the Railways, wants to return to the service of the Administration. Secondly, one quite often finds that one has to arrange a transfer for a railway official owing domestic circumstances, etc. The third kind of complaint is one I receive every day, i.e. an official comes to one and says: “Do something so that I may be placed in a position in the Railways where I can work Sunday-time and overtime.” If this is the case, are the families of those railway officials unhappy, as the hon. member for Yeoville suggested here? Now the railwayman’s family is also being dragged into this debate. But, surely, the very opposite is true. Take the statistics. If there is supposed to be such a large measure of dissatisfaction in the ranks of the railway staff, how do hon. members explain the fact that during the period from 17th December, 1968, to 16th December, 1969, there were 21,945 resignations in the South African Railways, and that the number of applications received for re-employment was 16,272? In other words, only 5,000 of those officials who had resigned, did not apply for re-employment again. The number of officials re-employed was 8,956, because, I assume, as the hon. the Minister said here on previous occasions, the records of the others had possibly been too poor to employ them again. But if dissatisfaction were prevailing amongst the members of the railway staff, why would a person who had been in the service, apply for re-employment before the salary increases to the value of R60 million had been announced? No, Sir, I want to submit that these cases which were put forward by hon. members opposite, are isolated ones. These are cases that were selected and accummulated just for this debate, and on top of that they have been blown up with a view to the provincial elections that are to be held shortly.

The hon. member for Yeoville made a statement here in regard to railway pensioners. It was argued here that the hon. the Minister had to look after them. But now we should look at the statistics, investigate the matter and ascertain what party has really been looking after the interests of railway pensioners. You know. Sir I am actually ashamed to lay the statistics of that party before this House. Do hon. members know what the position was under United Party régime? In 1943 a married railway official received a temporary allowance of R5 a month, and an unmarried official received a little more than R1 a month. From 1st April, 1943 to 1st April, 1948, shortly after we had taken over, i.e. over that five-year period, that temporary allowance—hon. members opposite call this, as you may know, a “cost of living allowance”: this is the allowance with which they huckster on the platforms during an election—was increased to R120 a year in respect of married pensioners and R40 a year in respect of unmarried pensioners. In other words, over that five year period they granted pensioners an increase of R60 a year in respect of married persons and R20 a year in respect of unmarried persons. And the National Party Government? Since we came into power up to to-night, that allowance has gone up to R420 for a married person and R180 for an unmarried person, an increase of R300 a year for married pensioners and R140 for unmarried pensioners.