Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, when my time expired yesterday afternoon I was dealing with the hon. members for Simonstown and Durban Point. The reason I reprimanded those hon. members was because the hon. member for Simonstown had, with his questions to the hon. the Minister, tried to create the impression for general consumption that the new railway station at Prieska had been incorrectly planned. I should like to quote to the House the question which was put. The first question was put on 8th February, 1972, and reads as follows (Hansard, Questions, col. 165)—

1. (1) Whether a new station has been built at Prieska; if so, (a) when and (b) at what cost;
2. (2) whether it replaced an existing station; if so,
3. (3) whether the new station is larger than the old station; if so, to what extent; if not, why not;
4. (4) whether any extensions to the new station are planned; if so,

1. (a) what extensions,
2. (b) when will they be undertaken, and
3. (c) what will they cost; …

On 3rd March, the following question was again put by the hon. member for Simonstown—

1. (1) Whether the present station at Prieska corresponds in all respects to the original plans as approved; if not, in which respect does the present station differ from the plans;
2. (2) whether the plans were changed in any respect during construction; if so, in which respects.

In addition, the hon. member for Simonstown wanted to create the impression that the Railways Administration and the Minister had been responsible for additional expenditure which had supposedly to be incurred then. We know what an agitation there has been in recent months in regard to the planning of that station. I now trust, after having furnished the explanation in the House yesterday, that this will be accepted in that way. I hope the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Durban Point will first acquaint themselves with the facts before trying to offend honourable people.

Sir, if any single railway official happens to make a mistake, or if any negligence occurs, one is forced to hear about the lack of responsibility of the railwaymen.

Whom are you quoting?

I am quoting the blame the railwaymen have had to bear for 24 years, during the régime of the National Party Government. One was forced to hear with what contempt reference was made to Railway officials over this period. The reason for the contempt expressed in regard to the railwaymen over the years was that they are aware that railwaymen were, for the most part, Nationalists. I warned the United Party a long time ago, and so did other Nationalists, that the day would come when the United Party would come crawling contritely before the railwayman to win his favour. It is the railwayman who has made a major contribution to the welfare of our father-land. That political guilt-feeling of the United Party will have to endure a considerable time before they win the favour of the railwayman.

In conclusion I should just like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister, and express a few ideas. The Postmasburg station, in my constituency, has a real need for a footbridge, and I want to request that that matter be reconsidered. Secondly, since we have now had tremendous extensions at Prieska. I should like the Minister and the Administration to note that it appears that the goods shed will in the near future not be able to comply with all the requirements. In conclusion I trust that the Cabinet will adhere to its decision in regard to the Sishen/Saldanha project, not only with a view to economic benefits, but also to ensure that justice is done to a long-neglected area as far as development is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prieska has alleged that the actual cause of the United Party’s concern for the railwayman is a guilt-feeling we have had, since the days when we were in power because of our treatment of the railwayman. I find it strange that such a statement could be made. The hon. member forgets of course that the National Party has been governing for almost 25 years now, and that there are not many Railwaymen left who worked under a U.P. Government 25 years ago. In fact, the vast majority of railwaymen today know only one Government, and that is a National Party Government, and it is with that government that they are very dissatisfied. That story of a guilt-feeling is therefore so much nonsense. [Interjection.] Sir, I do not want to become involved in an argument with the hon. member for Prieska.

If they had known you better, they would all have voted against you.

Sir, the hon. Chief Whip on that side has such a long political past that if I were he I would not have a great deal to say.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the railway line which his department intends constructing between Kensington and the new harbour area of Table Bay. As the hon. the Minister knows, the new railway line will run through the Milnerton/Rugby area. The hon. the Minister and his department probably saw what repercussions there were in the Press reflecting the deep concern of the people in the area through which that railway line will run. The hon. the Minister will recall that a deputation came to discuss this matter with him. This deputation put its case to the hon. the Minister, and the hon. the Minister’s reply was an unequivocal “No”, based on the fact that most of the reasons for concern advanced by the deputation were not really very substantial ones. I do however want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is still reason for deep concern, and this arises from the fact that when the railway line is built, it will require the demolition of approximately 40 houses and flats. Sir, in these days in which we are experiencing a housing emergency, which we all know about and which the hon. the Minister of Community Development is very aware of, it is a tragedy to me that such a large number of houses could be demolished as a result of the construction of that railway line. But what is more, the people who are living in those houses today and the people who have bought those houses, are in the first place people of average means; they are not the type of persons who are financially able to have their houses expropriated and then have sufficient capital to buy new houses. They will find it difficult, for the price they will receive to buy a house in the Peninsula which will at least provide them with the kind of residence they have at present. But, secondly, the people living in that area today, did not, until very recently, know that this line would run through that area. If they had known about this specific development, then I have no doubt that most people would not have bought there. These people are now concerned about losing their houses. The public are of the opinion that the hon. the Minister’s “No” to our representations was not good enough. The public is of the opinion that there will in fact be another solution which will not lead to the demolition of 40 homes. The hon. the Minister knows his job well and I want to make a request to him today. Firstly I should like him to state here in the House that he as satisfied that every possible alternative has been examined and that he is satisfied, if there has to be a link with the new harbour, that there is no other alternative whatsoever which the Railways could adopt. I should like to have this assurance from the hon. the Minister.

I come then to point No. 2: If the department of the hon. the Minister is forced to follow that specific route, I would be pleased if he could also assure the persons in question that when it comes to expropriation, he on his part will do his best to ensure, firstly, that those people will as far as possible be placed in a position where they will be able to acquire new houses which are approximately similar to those they have at the moment, and secondly, that this matter will not be unnecessarily delayed; that he will instruct his department to ensure as quickly as is practicable that the people in question in that area will be informed without delay as to whether or not their houses are going to be expropriated, so that they may know what is happening. Sir, this is a matter which gives rise to concern. For a person who owns one of these 40 houses in that area, who in the first place does not know what he is going to get for his house and does not know where he is going to get another house, a man who has over the years been purchasing his house with great pride, perhaps with great hardship, this is a matter of grave concern, and I think the hon. the Minister will understand why these people are so deeply perturbed. That is the first matter.

I come then to a second matter. My information is that in my constituency, and probably in numerous other constituencies as well, there are many men who have retired on pension from the Railway service. The free pass concession continues to a large extent to apply for both the pensioner and his wife. This is of course a wonderful concession, and it is a very good thing that the pensioner, as well as his wife, is entitled to this privilege. But now I have a problem in this regard: My information is that when the man dies and the widow remains behind, the free pass concession, which the woman normally enjoyed while she was still married, is curtailed to a considerable extent. If my facts are correct, I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister this afternoon to go into this matter. In my humble opinion there is no need whatsoever to deprive the widow of a pensioner of these travel concessions. The Railways loses absolutely nothing. The trains which these people make use of are there in any case. It does not cost the Railways a cent to convey these people, and I think that when it comes to the human factor in this vast machine, the Railways, then it would be a good thing for the railwayman to know that when he dies, his widow will at least continue to enjoy the same travel facilities which he enjoyed. Thirdly, Sir, there are numerous people who retired after they had been living for years in a railway house. The moment that man retires, he must leave that railway house. Many people in my constituency have come to see me in this connection, and I think that other hon. members have the same problems. That pensioner and his wife are unable to find any other solution. He must compete in the ordinary housing market with the young husband and wife with a family; he has no chance of getting a house from any of the schemes, and I wondered whether something cannot be devised to help these people. I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister and his department, if this is practicable, should think in the direction of providing housing for railway pensioners. I am convinced that the railwayman, during his years of service, will gladly contribute to such a scheme. I know that if such a scheme is introduced, it will relieve many pensioners who are today renting railway houses of a tremendous burden and cause for concern.

I am rising to exchange a few ideas in regard to an important matter in my constituency, and to put a question to the hon. the Minister.

What about?

I want to discuss the matter of sinkholes, not the United Party. Sir, in my constituency we have for the past number of years been subject to the occurrence of sinkholes. This has led to some of the passenger train services being cancelled, and other sections opened and the result of this has been great inconvenience in connection with the conveyance of workers from Carletonville to the Rand. I want to thank the Administration and the Minister for the concessions in regard to additional road motor transport services which were introduced, but I now want to ask whether there are any prospects of the train services which were cancelled as a result of the sinkholes and the unstable ground formation there, being reintroduced, and, if not, whether consideration is being given to a plan to build a detour line to link up again with the line where the ground formation is and, thirdly, what the possibilities are in regard to effecting a further improvement in the provision of road motor transport passenger services. In the second place I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the possibility has been investigated of conveying fresh vegetables and highly perishable produce—and what I have in mind here is fruit like avocado pears and lichis—by means of air freight to the European markets, where there is great potential. We are frequently asked why it cannot be arranged for fruit to be conveyed to those markets by means of air freight. I think it would be a useful thing if the hon. the Minister could give us such an explanation.

I do not intend reacting to the hon. member who has just sat down because he has just raised specific matters, which of course is his right. I would like to deal with one or two other points. The first is the question of the noises emanating from the shunting yards in my constituency. I have raised this matter with the hon. the Minister in the past and on the information supplied to him, he did not think then that it constituted a particular hazard. In his own words, the noise was of a bearable standard. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I did not accept then that this was so and I certainly do not accept it now. The noise from these marshalling yards is such that I do not believe that any other marshalling yard in the country creates such a nuisance to local residents, because of the type of marshalling that takes place; and the hon. the Minister will know that some years ago we had the question of fly shunting in this marshalling yard, and I believe that what is taking place there is certainly very unsatisfactory considering the number of residential properties that are very close to these marshalling yards. I see from the Press that one of the African shunters was killed in this yard during the last couple of days, but I am not saying that this is particularly unusual if one accepts that marshalling or shunting operations are a hazardous occupation. But I would be curious to know how many people have in fact been killed in these particular yards over the last few years. I would say to the Minister that I certainly am not satisfied with what is taking place in this yard and I do believe that a very close examination is necessary. A great many people have been forced to sell their properties in the area, because of this nuisance and I am left with the further concern that in the near future there will be constructed a foundry in this area and I wonder just how much of a nuisance value this foundry will add to those people who already have very legitimate complaints in regard to these yards.

It is true too to say that while the Railways are a mirror of the country’s economic position, they are also a mirror of the staff position, and if the Railways staff is discontented one could almost say that the average worker in South Africa is discontented as well. If one looks at the Railways staff they are certainly far from contented. One of the reasons for this is that it is not only the salary position of the staff, which is certainly not satisfactory, but also their working conditions; one of the prime working conditions of the Railwayman is of course his housing. I know that a considerable amount has been spent on housing over the years, particularly under the various loan schemes. I have a great many Railway houses in my constituency under the different schemes and they are in fact the pride of the community there. They are very well looked after and they are a credit to the community. But my concern is with the departmental housing, which in my constituency leaves a lot to be desired. Some of these houses were built before the war, and naturally they are in such a condition that they need a lot of attention now. Some of them are a danger to health in that they leak and the whole condition of the houses certainly needs attention. When I raised this matter in the past I was told that the Administration has tried to get private contractors to repair these houses. I know that they have difficulty in this respect, but I would say to the hon. the Minister that it would certainly be cheaper to spend money on these houses than to have to build new houses. If one looks at the General Manager’s report, one sees: that of the 23 odd thousand houses occupied by Railwaymen in the year covered by the report, the net gain in new housing was only 146, and the hon. the Minister will appreciate that with so many people on the list waiting for housing a gain of 146 houses will not make a deep impression on the waiting list. That is why it is so important to keep in good repair the houses that the Administration has. I can assure the hon. the Minister that many of the houses in my constituency need urgent repair and probably very extensive repairs if they are to continue to be habitable. We know that Railwaymen on the various waiting lists go up and down the list like yo-yo’s. They find themselves No. 96 this week; they drop to No. 30 and then lo and behold, weeks later they are near the top of the list again. This situation has been brought about by the system of awarding points and so on. I have written to the hon. the Minister about a servant who has been in the service for 17 years who, with children, lives in a flat in the most unsatisfactory conditions. It would seem on the present basis of the number of new houses being built by the Administration that, right through his service, he will never obtain a Railway house. Sir, we have got to the stage now where servants of the Railways seek transfers to other areas because they feel that in smaller areas particularly, Railway houses may be more easily available. I know many a servant who has even been prepared to be demoted to a lower grade in a smaller area if it means that he can get accommodation.

Then, of course, there is the opposite pole where a person living in a Railway house will refuse to accept promotion for the simple reason that he pays a very low rental in the Railway house whereas, if he is promoted to a higher grade in another area, it may mean that he would lose the Railway house and the extra pay he would receive through his promotion would in no way make up for the extra rent he would have to pay if he were to move into a private house. This situation in itself causes a great deal of difficulty. That is why I say that this matter is of the utmost importance, and particularly in my constituency which handles the bulk of the Durban harbour work. We talked yesterday of the shortage of people to staff the harbour; there is a great shortage. The establishment of White workers is understaffed almost by one-third. We are not going to solve this problem if we cannot supply housing. Therefore I think it is beholden on the hon. the Minister, if he wants to attract recruits into the service, to supply departmental houses as this would certainly be an incentive seeing that the pay is not high enough. We are obviously going to have to do more in my own particular constituency to supply housing for Railway servants. The position at the moment is far from satisfactory and something will have to be done if the hon. the Minister hopes to ever fill some of the positions that are vacant in the service. The position is not getting easier. If the Durban harbour staff sinks below the existing level, heaven help us when, as we all hope, our exports increase. How will they cope then? Obviously the Minister is going to need a great deal more staff in Durban. He has imported staff from other harbours in the past. This is something we cannot go on doing forever. So this problem is not one which can be lightly brushed aside. The question of departmental housing needs a great deal more attention than it is getting. Any servant on the Railways will tell you, Sir, that his position on the waiting list means absolutely nothing since he may wait for the duration of his service without ever obtaining a departmental house.

The other aspect I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention is one which has been discussed in the past, namely the difficulty attaching to transfers from one department in the service to another. There are many complaints from the people in the harbour service, for instance, who find that they cannot transfer out of the harbour service although it is easy for someone to transfer from the System Manager’s office into the harbour service. As a result of this, people in the harbour service find that their promotion opportunities are limited since there is obviously a limit to their scope in the smaller service of harbours. I have raised this matter with the hon. the Minister before and I know it is not a problem which can be solved overnight, but I do still think after all this time that not sufficient recognition is taken of this fact that people in the harbour service seem to be in a dead-end job because they cannot get from the harbour service to the higher echelons, say in the Administration, the System Manager’s office. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when I participated in the Committee Stage debate yesterday, I dealt with a few points through which I made an attack on the hon. member for Yeoville. I said that he had been responsible for bruiting abroad certain misrepresentations in regard to the expenditure of the Railways. To come back to that, I said, inter alia, that he had bruited abroad a misrepresentation in regard to the contribution to the Renewal Fund, for he wanted to create the general impression that although we now have a situation of inflation, we are not making sufficient provision in these Estimates for the Replacement Fund and the Renewal Fund. Since he made the accusation that the Minister of Transport wanted to conceal or disguise —the word he used—certain funds relating to the Superannuation Fund—I pointed out to him that he had read the Estimates incorrectly, or had not understood them. I also referred to the hon. member for Constantia who made a misrepresentation here by implying that the Railways’ interest expenditure on capital loans had been increased. Here he, too, misunderstood the Estimates.

At this stage I want to deal specifically with Revenue Votes 1 to 17, dealing with the Transportation Section of the Railways, the section in which the great loss is being incurred. Of all the members who have risen to speak on the opposite side, not one has come forward in this House with a positive suggestion that we should cut down our expenditure in this or that sphere, nor have any of them told us where we should find that revenue. We can talk as much as we like, and we can make as many pleas and supplications as we like, but if we do not cut down the expenditure or increase the revenue we cannot, with the best will in the world, get these Estimates to balance. Every member of the United Party who rose to speak here, asked for greater expenditure. There was not one who proposed that expenditure be cut down, all we heard from the United Party members were complaints. I am thinking, for example, of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He came and emptied the old post bag with all the complaints here, for he is apparently the Samaritan on whose shoulder everyone with a grievance in the Railways should weep. He came to complain about all the complaints. He was, inter alia, the member who complained that these peoples’ rest periods were insufficient and that they had to work too much overtime. Now I want to say in all fairness to the hon. member that if overtime were eliminated or if the people did not want to work overtime, there would be only one solution. It would mean having to employ more staff. If one employs more staff one’s expenditure must increase. The hon. member for Constantia is it is said, the economic star of that side of the House. He raised this matter, and so did the hon. member for Yeoville. They were the two members who stated in this House that the Railways should, to a greater extent, finance its capital development from its own source of revenue. Already a considerable amount of the Railways revenue is going into the Renewal Fund, and a considerable amount of its revenue is going into the Betterment Fund. Towards the end of his speech the hon. member for Yeoville himself said that he did not understand this matter very well, but if I have to deduce what he wanted to say then I can only conclude that he feels that the Railways should establish a capital development fund, or something along those lines, out of its revenue. Did I understand the hon. member correctly? Apparently the hon. member does not know what he wanted. He probably read about it in some book or other.

The funds already exist. The Minister …

Order!

The hon. member can go and read the Hansard of the hon. member for Constantia, the economic star and the most enduring pessimist in this House. He advocated something along the same lines, i.e. that we should to a greater extent finance our capital development from revenue. While they are doing that, they still plead for increased expenditure and then they are the people who want to tell us here that we must get the Estimates to balance. Let us consider these Estimates now. We have the four books in front of us. I tried to summarize these very briefly. Let us consider the expenditure of R932 million. If one analyses the Votes and calculates the total amount allocated in the form of salaries, one finds that of the R932 million, R347 million is being paid out in salaries. That is a direct expenditure. I want to point out to hon. members that we must distinguish between direct and indirect expenses, for there is no way of effecting a saving in respect of direct expenses. This comprises salaries, wages and basic expenses which have to be incurred. Provision is being made for an amount of R134 million for material. I do not think there is one hon. member on that side of the House who will say that we have to cut Col. 3430: Line 40: After “will” insert “understand if I ignore his somewhat hysterical outburst and merely indicate that” down in respect of material or replacement parts. This is also a direct expenditure. Interest on capital amounts to R173 million. This is also expenditure which is beyond the control of the hon. the Minister, beyond the control of the Management of the Railways. The rate of interest is fixed and it has to be paid. This is also direct expenditure. Then, too, there is still the contribution to the Superannuation Fund. This amounts to R20 million. Hon. members requested that the contribution to this Fund should be increased. The hon. member for Yeoville tried to imply that this money is being stolen. This is also a direct expenditure. There is also an amount of R17,5 million earmarked for the Benevolent Fund. Must that be curtailed? No, hon. members on that side of the House all want the Estimates to balance, but they do not want to cut down on expenditure. The maintenance of buildings amounted to R18 million. In addition to that there is still depreciation. Hon. members opposite are the people who say that larger amounts should be written off as depreciation. This already amounts to a total of R74 million. I have just been pointing out briefly that most of the expenditure, viz. R813 million, is attributable to direct expenditure which cannot be curtailed. But how are the two to be reconciled now? Then those hon. members must say that we cannot introduce cuts, but that we must find it from revenue. What did those hon. members propose to ensure increased revenue? All of them were afraid to touch the rates. Not one of them had the courage to rise and state that we should increase the rates, for then they would be unpopular. However, if the National Party were to increase the rates, they would say that we were encouraging inflation. We must always bear in mind that basically the Railways remains a commercial service, and any commercial service must support itself. I do not think that we will easily get away from that principle, but what is their solution? They have only one single solution for this whole problem, and that is that greater use should be made of Bantu labour. Then they accuse the hon. the Minister of having supposedly deviated from the labour pattern of the Minister of Labour. They are the people who say that they will negotiate with the trade unions. Now I want to ask them with what trade unions they will negotiate?

With the trade unions in question.

I am very pleased the hon. member for Yeoville says that he will negotiate with the trade unions in question. Let us see what trade unions the hon. member for Wynberg wants to establish. These are the people with whom they want to negotiate. I want to refer the House to the Sunday Tribune of 22nd February, 1970, in which the hon. member for Wynberg, under the paragraph caption “The Industrial Conciliation Act” was reported as follows—

Those are the trade unions that side of the House wants to establish. They want to establish Black trade unions and then negotiate with them. That is the Party which now comes to this House with such pious faces; that is the basis which those hon. members want to use to bring the Bantu into the Railways and to get the Whites out of the Railways. Then they come forward with these false proposals because they want to establish their own trade unions and then negotiate with those trade unions. With a Minister such as the one we have, and with a General Manager such as the one we have, and with the senior officials such as we have, and with a staff which is loyal and diligent, I do not think we need feel any concern for the future of the South African Railways.

The hon. member who has just sat down, will we on this side of the House believe that the White trade unions can well look after their White workers and that we will leave them to do it.

The hon. member for Yeoville appealed to the hon. the Minister of Transport to show a new sense of militant pragmatism, idealism and imagination in the operation of his department. I want to deal with two specific criticisms. The one is in connection with our agricultural industry in the Western Cape and the other is in connection with the Cape Town harbour. The Minister should show a greater sense of realism with the freight rates he is fixing for the transport of exotic perishables from the Western Cape through the Jan Smuts Airport and on to Europe. I also want to appeal to him to make available to farmers in the Western Cape a larger air freight capacity. This is a growing trade today which can be valuable for South Africa both in the earning of foreign exchange and also in assisting Western Cape farmers in meeting the problems they will be confronted with when Britain enters the European Common Market. Hon. members will be aware that we are today exporting, at the proper seasonal times of the year, such perishables as strawberries, raspberries, green peppers, brinjals, melons and our world-renowned crayfish from the Western and Eastern Cape. The air freight rates that were in operation for the transport of perishables from Johannesburg to Europe are 35 cents per kilogram for 1 000 kilograms. After devaluation this rate was increased by a further 5 cents. The rate for the same weight of 1 000 kg from Cape Town to Johannesburg is 13 cents. As a result the post-devaluation cost of transporting goods from Cape Town to the European markets are now 54 cents per kg of which 41 cents per kg is the Johannesburg/Europe rate. Taking the mileage differential into consideration, namely 6 000 miles for the one and 1 000 miles for the other, we get a ratio 6 000 to 1 000 compared with 35 cents to 13 cents. This rate is exorbitant and makes the profitable export of these goods unattractive. At the same time I want to ask the hon. the Minister what freight capacity there is on South Africa’s aircraft operating between Jan Smuts and Europe. Is the Minister allowing the operation of private charter aircraft between Cape Town and Europe via Johannesburg in the event the South African Airways cannot carry the freight offering? I want to ask him too whether he regards the new Jumbo 747s as offering adequate capacity for the exporters’ requirements for perishable freight required to be moved between Johannesburg and London. I wonder if he would tell this House if it is not a fact that the Jumbos operating out of Johannesburg are proving a complete failure as far as the carriage of freight is concerned and whether it is not true that the Jumbo with a full freight load of passengers and fuel is only able to carry approximately one ton of freight as such when operating on that route. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that in the case of melons this country could enjoy a world monopoly during the months of March and April, provided we can get fresh melons to the London market. A price of R7 or R8 is paid there for a case of melons. The freight cost in this case is R3-50. Before exporting, farmers have to take this rate, their production cost and their selling costs into consideration. The same applies to strawberries of which we are now exporting some 25 tons, a high value commodity and one with which we can compete against the American market because of the fact that we catch them in their off-seasonal period. The same applies in the case of raspberries and green peppers. We have appealed to farmers to be realistic and imaginative in overcoming their problems, but I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to allow a lower freight rate to be operative which would assist farmers and which would not harm them in their efforts to promote S.A. exports.

Then I want to deal briefly with what I regard as the shocking inadequacy of repair wharf facilities in the Cape Town harbour. The original plan, I understand, was that the repair wharf would be 1 800 ft. long and would cater for vessels in excess of 150 000 tons. I understand that with the rearrangement of the harbour plans, the repair wharf is now only 1 100 ft. and can only take vessels of 150 000 tons. I understand that, as an alternative, the landing wharf is being used where longer vessels can be accommodated, and also the eastern mole. I believe that in each of these cases there is a woeful inadequacy of facilities such as crane power, compressor power and electric power. In the General Manager’s annual report he indicates that some 21 000 vessels are rounding the Cape waters annually since the closing of Suez. More and more of these vessels are of the large, super tanker capacity and the hon. the Minister will have seen that most of these vessels are experiencing the necessity of many major repairs en route. If we want the repair and engineering industry in the Cape to benefit from the availability of these repair opportunities, if we are to offer the necessary and adequate services to the shippers who use these routes, then I submit we should have greater regard for making available proper repair facilities and wharfage for these ships when they enter our actual harbour confines. If we do this we can go a long way to improving our foreign exchange deficit and to ensuring that in the Western Cape the labour which we have to offer our non-European as well as our European labour, will be more fully employed.

Mr. Chairman, what I have to say links up partially with what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said, in so far that I, too, should like to discuss the conveyance of perishable produce. I should like to furnish the hon. the Minister with the background to the matter I want to discuss here. I am thinking in particular of the Lower Vaal and the Lower Riet Rivers. This area, as far as the Railways is concerned, is served by the branch lines from Belmont to Douglas. The commodities cultivated on an intensive scale in that area include potatoes, which are produced on a large scale. This is an extremely perishable product. For the table market potatoes have to receive exceptionally careful treatment, or the farmer suffers losses. When it loses its white colour and begins to turn brown the buyer is no longer very interested in it. Once it becomes yellow-green he is not interested in it at all, except if it is to be used for making potato chips. It is not only table potatoes which are cultivated there, it is also an area which is known for the cultivation of seed potatoes on a very large scale. The crops in this area are harvested from the end of June right through to August/September. Not only are table potatoes conveyed, but also seed potatoes, of which hundreds of thousands of bags are sometimes conveyed for cold storage until the next season. Sir, in that same period, when the demand for closed wagons is tremendously heavy, it so happens that the Wheat Board requests transport for the wheat which has already been stored in co-operative stores. We also know that this is a time when the citrus farmers make tremendous demands on the Railways for the conveyance of their produce. What happens then is that the farmers simply cannot find wagons with which to convey the potatoes. This is not a complaint I am making now; I am personally aware of the fact that the Railways has, during the past number of years, made tremendous efforts in regard to the provision of wagons in the Northern Cape, in which area this region falls. I just wondered whether the Department could not perhaps negotiate with the Wheat Board to see whether that tremendous quantity of wheat which has to be conveyed during these peak periods, cannot be conveyed at an earlier, or perhaps even at a later stage. This creates a tremendous problem, and the farmers are suffering damages, particularly if we take into account times such as the past season when potato prices were tremendously low; each time the farmers’ table potatoes were graded down, they suffered great losses. I would be very pleased if this matter could receive attention.

There is another point I want to raise. For the sake of greater satisfaction among the staff, I wonder whether something cannot be done in this connection. We are aware of the fact that if a railwayman, for example should commit a theft, he has to be tried in the first place by a criminal court and if found guilty he is punished for his crime. But he is also subject to the disciplinary measures of the department. One is not always certain whether it is not merely an attempt to find a loophole, but there is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction in this regard. Those who are caught in this way argue that it is unfair to be punished twice. For me, that is obvious; I understand that very well. However, I would be very pleased if the hon. the Minister could make it very clear to the committee precisely what is being done, for example, to explain to such a railway official when he enters the Service, that in case of such offences, he will be subjected to double punishment, if I may call it that.

The last point I want to touch upon is the following: Recently we have heard from the hon. the Minister, by way of replies to questions, that during the past year a tremendous number of trains did not run, for various reasons. I should just like to mention that in my humble opinion —this is of course a superficial judgment —one of the reasons to which this is attributable is that railway staff do not always come to work. I am thinking in particular now of shunters, who are usually young men. If they land themselves in trouble they complain. Recently I made a few enquiries in this connection. I put this question to someone who was complaining: “If you do not turn up to operate the train, what happens then?” His reply to me was: “Then they ask someone else to do it.” Surely it is obvious that if another person is asked to do it, it is a person who has already booked off for that day. He could have gone out, he need not necessarily be sitting and waiting to be called. His own words to me were: “In the end that train does not run if no one else can be found.” Surely this means a tremendous loss to the Railways. Now I should like to know: Is some or other form of punishment being applied in respect of such persons, for example deductions from their salary? I know there are many plans in this respect; I almost wanted to say cunning plans. There are for example workers who have to start working at night, and who have to be called. But if such a worker intended the previous night not to go to work, then he does not sleep at home that night; he sleeps elsewhere. The person who has to call him does not find him at home. I think this is a matter which should really receive attention. I realize it is difficult, but there are a great many breaches of this kind, and it places the department in a predicament. Not only does the department suffer financial losses as a result, but those whose goods have to be conveyed are also placed in a predicament.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for De Aar spoke about the truck shortage which he finds in his area. All I can say to him is that the truck shortage is a hardy annual; we hear it repeated year after year, and the position does not seem to improve much. The department has its difficulties, and I leave the matter to the Minister to deal with.

The Departmental Disciplinary Code has been in existence for a long time. From what previous speakers have said, it would appear that a reassessment of this disciplinary code is necessary. It is all very well to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there are so many offences that one can commit under the disciplinary code of the Railways, as also in other departments, and I think the time is ripe for a reassessment of this code, in order to give those men, whether they pretend to be ignorant of the facts or not, a fair trial and so that it will be no good their crying to other people and saying that they did not know what the consequences of their malpractices would be.

I was glad to see in the Estimates that my constituency is receiving its fair share of the bite of the cherry. The double line between Mere bank and Chatsworth is under construction, as is also the new double line between Reunion and Umlazi. As the Minister very well knows, Umlazi is going to be a future homeland, under his Government’s policy, and Chatsworth is going to house a terrific number of Indians. They are both going to be metropolitan areas which I think in time will outstrip Durban itself. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on their foresight. I hope they will put these schemes into operation with the speed which they deserve.

Sir, I now come to my complaint. I cannot compare with the hon. the Minister as having travelled the world far and wide. Apart from my Army service, when I travelled at Government expense, I have travelled at my own expense. Of course, those trips are few and far between.

But you occupy the space occupied by three men on a train.

When you travel overseas, you have a chance of comparing what you see there with conditions in South Africa. We are very proud of what we have achieved; we tell everybody overseas that we are a young country; that we are over 300 years old and that we are a small country. In saying that, we are thinking of the White population but not of the other 16 or 17 million people in this country. Sir, what always strikes one forcibly, when one comes back through our ports of call, whether they are harbours or airports, is the nondescript appearance of some of our officials at the ports. One does not know whether they are in uniform, whether they are in mufti, or whether they are in their own “Fred Karno” army, or whatever it is.

And is their hair too long?

They are sloppily dressed and, as the hon. member says, they wear their hair too long. The caps are invariably too small; they do not fit properly; they sit on top of their heads. They wear shorts, open-neck shirts, and altogether they present a sloppy appearance. You do not know whether the man is in uniform, or whether he is in his own getup. The dress of the tug crews is also shocking. I do not expect them to come out in white summer dress, or in blue winter dress, but I think if the Navy can afford to have their men properly dressed on their vessels, we can at least have our tug crews, when they come out to meet passenger liners, wearing some sort of uniform, or if they are wearing boiler-suits then at least their boiler-suits should be clean and tidy, but this sloppy dress gives one a very bad impression and I have heard foreigners say, “what a sloppy crowd!”. They have congratulated the tug master, the skipper of the craft, on the way he handles it in the rough seas and so on, but then they get an entirely different impression when they see this nondescript bunch of pirates walking around, carrying billy-cans of coffee or tea or something else and looking sloppy generally. I think it is a disgrace to South Africa. The same applies at our airports. There again, you do not know whether the man is in uniform or not. Here I must give full marks to our lady staff at the airports. They are neat, pleasant and obliging. I have no complaints against the male staff in so far as their treatment of the public is concerned; they are polite, but their dress gets me down. I think the time has come when the Administration should at least call upon the Wool Board and local designers to design a neat, workable uniform. In this process we could make use of our own wool. I would ask the hon. the Minister not to import a dress designer. We have already had the example of our armed forces looking like Nazi nancies or pansies—call them what you like—or flower children. For God’s sake, Sir, let us put our men in decent, workable uniforms so that they will be proud of their uniforms and their work so that we in turn will be proud of them and the work they are doing.

The hon. member, who has now resumed his seat, raised a matter here which, in effect, concerns clothing. Clothing is probably intended primarily to cover one’s body. I do not find it strange that he has problems in this regard because I am convinced that he, when he walks into a shop, will probably have a perpetual problem in regard to clothing. However, I do not want to say anything further about him. I think he had something there which we could commend, but I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister, if he should want to furnish a specific reply.

But I want to return to something which the hon. member for Gardens said when he was advocating a reduction of rates for perishable produce conveyed per air to Europe. I am sure that we as farmers would be grateful if there could be the prospect of a reduction of the rates. But on the other hand we are also realistic, and in the Western Cape in particular we have farmers who are responsible, and who have learnt to be realistic and we expect that the Railways, and particularly the Minister, will consider pleas of this kind according to their merits and will accommodate us as far as is possible in the interests of the country, and if concessions are possible in those cases where expensive and luxury goods such as flowers are exported, we would definitely be grateful for that.

This debate has been in progress for quite a number of days now, and I am afraid it is wearing rather thin, but if I look at the Opposition on the other side, it appears to me that they have grown exceptionally quiet today and their enthusiasm has waned somewhat. Now you will probably forgive me, Sir, if I harbour the suspicion that the result of the municipal election in Brakpan has something to do with this. It seems to me there has been a short circuit in their victory train, and I want to express the hope that things will in future continue in this way.

There is something I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister concerning my constituency—actually it extends a little further than my constituency, and I trust that this is the right time to broach this matter, i.e. in this Committee Stage. It applies more specifically to road transport, and specifically the road transport provided by the South African Railways. If we examine this fine 1970-71 report of the South African Railways we find, facing page 90, a fine map which relates to another matter, but which nevertheless illustrates my point very clearly. What we see there is that the South African Railway network radiates out from Cape Town almost like a man’s hand into the interior. We have the railway line from Cape Town to Bredasdorp and Protem. We have the railway line from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth, and we have the railway line from Cape Town to Beaufort West, and then we have the short railway line from Ladismith to Touws River, and then I am not taking into consideration those in the west. These railway lines which radiate out in this way are also supplemented by roads which run in more or less the same direction. We have the national road from Cape Town to Mossel Bay, the national road from Cape Town via Worcester to Swellendam, the national road from Cape Town via Worcester to Montagu and Oudtshoorn, and lastly the national road from Cape Town via Worcester to Beaufort West. This pattern is more or less the same, as far as both roads and railway lines are concerned, but in any economy one would like to have a network, and in this case it is absent. A few years ago there was a survey in which our area was involved, and particularly in which the Overberg region was involved, which we had made by the University of Stellenbosch, by Prof. Verburgh, of that university, who deals with transportation. He carried out the investigation, and it was disclosed that a cross connection for this area was required to ensure real growth in this area. I am convinced that the only way in which such a connection can be made will not be by means of the construction of railway lines, but by means of a road transport service. The plea I want to make this afternoon is that the planners of this department should reconsider this matter a little and see whether an improvement cannot be effected. At present there are quite a number of bus routes, but I am afraid that some of those bus routes have gradually begun, as a result of better roads and the realignment of roads and the removal elsewhere of certain concerns and the development of industries on another level, to become obsolete. But it would be a pity if these good services which have been available there for years should be cancelled simply because they have become uneconomic, for there will definitely be people who will suffer as a result. I definitely feel that something can be done to bring about greater co-ordination of these bus routes and the establishment of routes there which will serve the public just as well, and which will definitely be more profitable for the Railways. I am thinking of one in particular, i.e. a bus service from Touws River, or perhaps the station on top of the mountain, and from there through Montagu and Bredasdorp to Agulhas, which will cut right across these various railway lines I have mentioned, and will bring about a connection which will be of the greatest value. When I think of the development of the coastal towns, which is taking place very rapidly, I foresee that the potential is there. If it is not already practicable in effect at the moment, it ought in fact to be possible in the near future.

Then there is a second matter which I should like to bring to your attention. This concerns for the most part the tourist trade. You will agree with me, Sir, that the Western Cape is probably one of the most beautiful parts of our country for tourists from other parts of the word to see. If the Americans, or other countries had such a potential, as we have here within 150 miles of Cape Town, at the southernmost point of a continent, they would definitely have exploited it as a tourist attraction and they would have regarded this as an opportunity to draw the tourists who come to South Africa. Sir, surely you know that any one of us when he is on vacation becomes almost like a milch cow; we simply pay up when we come to the first shop and the shopkeeper mentions the price of any article we find attractive. We have an opportunity here for people, who are staying for a while in Cape Town after their arrival here by ship, or who are staying over for a few days after arriving at the D.F. Malan international airport, to come and do a little sightseeing in this area. My plea here is that this route from Cape Town to Agulhas, however it may be planned—it could perhaps touch on at a few places worth seeing on such a tour—should be established, or that the possibility of such a bus route should definitely be investigated.

The hon. member for Swellendam was truly very wide of the mark with that casual remark he made when he said that we allegedly were very despondent about the results of the municipal election in Brakpan, a constituency which they took unopposed at first and which they have now taken in the provincial council elections with a meagre majority, one which represents hardly 4 per cent of the total number of votes cast. This amounts virtually to a defeat for them, because in the parliamentary by-election their majority was 20 per cent of the total number of votes cast. They are going downhill even faster than I thought. But you, Sir, will not allow me to elaborate any further on this. [Interjections.] I want to turn to the hon. the Minister himself and refer to one part of the speech he made here yesterday in which he spoke highly of an article in a paper which published a representation of the future United Party Cabinet. Well, I think that was an admission on our part and an admission on his part that these are things which are coming. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister could have had so much to say about the ages of hon. members on this side. Here I have an extract from a certain newspaper in which it is stated that there are grievances in connection with a certain party. It states that there is too much old wood in that particular party. In addition it states that it is time to clean house for a change. What newspaper is this? It is the Transvaler. To what party does it refer? It refers to the National Party. I quote (translation)—

This is what the Transvaler says. Who is the leader of the National Party in the Transvaal? There he sits—the hon. the Minister of Transport, and therefore he should not speak of old wood. He might have been an old cedar of Lebanon in the 1940s and prior to that time, but today he is very dried out.

It was asked from the opposite side of this House where expenditure could be cut and where the Railways were being operated extravagantly. Let me mention one example to him. Let me mention the example to him of the time he tried to compete with Hollywood. Do hon. members know that that hon. Minister had no fewer than five films made at a cost of R137 000 during the past four years? The majority of them were not distributed generally. Some were possibly made for a good purpose, for example, for training purposes …

Order! The hon. member should come back to the Votes under discussion. This is not a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, there is one particular film to which …

Order!

Yes, very well, Mr. Chairman, I shall keep to your ruling. I was asking where cuts in expenditure could in fact be made and I mentioned this as an example, but I shall not elaborate on it any further.

†I would like to refer to a specific item in the Estimates and that is the Jan Smuts Airport itself. This has been mentioned here before. The hon. Minister tells me in a reply that at the present moment 200 passengers can be processed within an hour and that they hope to be able to process 400 passengers within an hour in future. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has worked out the terrific problem that he and the Airways are going to have if say, two Jumbo jets with more than 700 passengers arrive at the same time.

You can discuss that under the Vote of the Department of Transport.

I am referring to the Airways and I am discussing the Jumbo jets.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I ask whether the handling of passengers is not done by the South African Airways personnel?

The airports are the responsibility of the Department of Transport.

The building?

The building itself and the airport. The personnel is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. All we are doing now is that we are doing the baggage handling on behalf of the Department of Transport.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the booking in of the passengers not done by South African Airways personnel?

Yes, of course, but he is not speaking about that.

Yes, he was.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking about the Jumbo jets themselves and the problems they are creating but anyway, if that is your decision, I shall not proceed any further with that matter since I have many other matters to raise.

The next one I would like to raise is the question of the future tube railway in Johannesburg. The hon. the Minister will probably know that the Johannesburg City Council has already investigated the matter. They have had a special committee coming from overseas to investigate the possibility and they intended approaching the Government at some stage or other for assistance with such a tube railway. It is believed that such a tube railway can be started in three years’ time. If anything like that were to be started by the City Council of Johannesburg, would the hon. the Minister be prepared, firstly, to assist it and if not, why would he not be prepared to assist such a new transport facility? On the other hand, will he be prepared to allow everything to be run by Johannesburg itself, as the London Transport Council runs the London tube trains? It is a new development which is coming, and I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister can tell us what his policy would be in that connection. I hope he will not say that we shall have to wait for some or other definite proposals to be placed before him.

The next matter I would like to raise is in regard to the railways between Soweto and Johannesburg. The hon. the Minister has given us some information in this connection, but there is no doubt that the problem of overcrowding has not improved over the past year or two. Overcrowding is still causing delay and distress to the passengers, many of whom having to get up very early in the morning to go to their work. It is one of the issues which should be tackled with much greater speed that is being done at the present time.

I come to harbours and to pollution. I refer to the Cape Town harbour and the pollution caused by the locomotives and the harbour tugs on a quiet day. I am particularly referring to “Smoky Sue”, that famous tug which is emanating such thick smoke on a clear day. It is one of the tasks of the hon. the Minister to see that pollution does not take place. The Air Pollution Act lays down that if there is an objection from a particular local authority to the Railways, the Minister will then investigate it. Has the hon. the Minister received any objections from the City Council of Cape Town? I believe not. If that is the case, I would appeal to the City Council of Cape Town to approach the Minister about the smoke menace in the harbour caused by the locomotives and the rugs and ask him to see to it that it is lessened.

Finally, I should like to know more about this famous placard on the Durban railway station of which a part was obliterated. We have not yet heard why actually it was obliterated, and we do not yet know who the people are who objected to it. As far as I know, this placard advertised certain casino facilities and it showed Whites and non-Whites round the gambling table. I believe that gambling is a much greater sin against the law than being socially together at the same restaurant or the same gaming table and so forth. Why were the dice and the roulette wheel not eliminated from the placard and why only the innocent fact of a few White people and a few Black people standing together? The hon. the Minister must explain that. Is that the new policy of his party? We must know.

Now you are a racialist.

I am not a racialist. I think it was a perfectly good placard and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to replace the original one—just to show that hon. member that I am not against that. But I want to find out what is behind this strange new policy and why this placard has now been changed. Is he now following the example of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in whose telephone directory the photograph of a poor innocent little girl of seven years of age in a bikini was not allowed to appear? My friend, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, is much more sensible in matters of that nature. I ask the hon. the Minister of Transport to consult with him when it comes to matters of that nature.

I do not know in what capacity the hon. the Minister of Transport was responsible for the breaking down of the archway entrance at Jan Smuts Airport.

That falls under Transport.

Is that Transport?

Yes.

Good, then I will talk to you about it under Transport. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond briefly to one statement the hon. member for Orange Grove made here. This statement was in connection with the municipal election in Brakpan, in connection with which he came to a very erroneous conclusion. In fact, without the delimitation being in any way changed, the National Party’s majority yesterday was 49 as against the 7 of the previous election. If the hon. member cannot detect progress in that, I do not know what he would detect progress in. As far as the other matters are concerned, I think I shall leave him to the hon. the Minister. I think the hon. the Minister will deal with him properly.

I am actually standing up to contribute my humble share towards paying well-deserved tributes to the Minister, the General Manager and the entire staff of the South African Railways for the extremely efficient way in which they regulate their affairs and carry them out. I listened very attentively to the hon. the Minister when he made his Second Reading speech. I could not but be impressed by the tremendous scope of the matters relating to the South African Railways. I want to say that I was impressed by the way in which the Minister explained to us the progress made in numerous spheres relating to the affairs of the South African Railways. I also feel myself compelled, since the drought disaster, which has ravaged so large a portion of our country for so long, has now broken, not only to pay tribute, but also to convey the thanks of my constituency to the South African Railways for the way in which it assisted our farmers. I can assure hon. members of the fact that there were numerous problems, particularly at the height of this drought. There was a shortage of trucks and other problems which I do not want to mention fully to you here. However, I can attest to the utmost kindness of each railway official with whom I had dealings at that time. Today, on behalf of my constituency and the small stock industry of South Africa, I should like to express our hearty thanks today to the South African Railways for the emergency relief we had at that time. In this connection I want to thank the station masters and other staff, particularly the checkers on the numerous small stations who had to handle this fodder. This drought resulted in their having to work even at night to dispatch fodder to the various points. I also want to express my hearty thanks to them. The people I should also like to single out are the managers and assistant managers of our road transport service. They had to transport this fodder over very long distances and particularly under difficult circumstances in the remote areas. I also want to thank them and pay them the necessary tribute. In short, the Railways had a tremendous share in relieving our extreme distress, and I should hereby like to convey my thanks officially.

Last year a concession was made in the rates for the transport of wool. Today I also want to express my thanks to the Minister, and in particular to the General Manager, who dealt with this matter, for the decrease in the rates for the transport of wool. Hon. members will understand that the wool industry has been through a particularly difficult time, and this temporary aid that was given to the farmers is very greatly appreciated in all circles. I just want to ask whether it is not possible—we have already made repeated representations—to make this concession applicable to the road transportation of wool. However, I want to give timely warning. In the newspapers we have seen how wool prices are increasing and we have seen that a general improvement in prices has set in. However, wool prices were so terribly low that in spite of these improved prices, the wool price is now still at the level which the commission fixed for the supplementary payment to farmers in the past season. I therefore want to call the Ministry’s attention to the fact that we must take care that we do not simply increase the rates again at this stage.

Mention was made here yesterday of the South African Airways. I had the privilege of travelling abroad on numerous occasions, and today I want to state here without any fear of contradiction that the domestic and overseas services of the South African Airways compare with the best in the world. The hon. member for East London City made a tremendous fuss about a suitcase of his that was wrongly taken possession of by another person. Incidentally, this has also happened to me. At Jan Smuts Airport I took a wrong suitcase and when I opened it in Pretoria that night I saw that it contained clothes that I really do not wear. I then thought that this was perhaps a joke my wife was playing on me, but then I noticed that the clothes were not the size I normally wear. I then realized that a very big mistake had been made. Even in this instance, when I had made a mistake, the kindness and the co-operation I received from the Airways in my great embarrassment was truly noteworthy. I mention this because I myself was put to shame and because I submit that it can happen very easily, because one finds numerous identical suitcases.

I just briefly want to touch on two matters affecting my constituency. The first is in connection with the Railway camp at Klipplaat. In a certain portion of the camp there are problems with the drainage of effluent. On several occasions I have held negotiations with the relevant system manager in that connection, but I have not yet been able to obtain satisfaction in this respect. I should like to ask if attention cannot be given to the drainage of effluent in the relevant portion of the camp, because I have really done everything in my power in an attempt to correct the matter. Very unhygienic conditions develop, particularly in summer, and I should like to ask that speedy attention be given to the matter.

The same town, Klipplaat, is divided in two by a very important railway crossing. I should like to ask whether it is not possible to consider establishing a fly-over there, or even a subway, because the crossing is situated on a slight rise. I can tell you that when shunting work is being done, many problems are caused in the old town because the town is divided in two by this crossing. This sometimes creates many problems for he inhabitants of Klipplaat. I therefore want to ask whether the Management of the Railways could not consider building us a fly-over there, or perhaps a subway.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet in the main made a “dank-die-Minister” speech and dealt with certain matters affecting his constituency. However, I wish to deal with one or two other matters which are not along the same lines as those with which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has dealt.

I would mainly like to deal with the effect of legislation that was passed last year as it affected the Railway pensioners. If one looks at the Estimates before us, one is struck by the decrease under Head 6, where the contributions to the Superannuation Fund, as far as the Railways are concerned, have decreased by R2½ million; and also by the increase in the interest paid by the Administration to the Superannuation Fund, under Head 15, where the interest has increased from R28 million to R37 million, which means an increase of about R9 million. The effect on the pension fund of the legislation that was introduced also has a bearing on the present position of the fund. If we look at the memorandum which was laid on the Table, and at the state of the fund, on page 29 of that memorandum, we see that the Pension and Superannuation Fund has now reached a total of R606 822 530. We have the opportunity to look at the situation as it affects the fund and the position of pensioners. I would like to say at the very outset that we obviously supported that legislation last year. It improved the position, particularly of those persons who are presently employed in the Railways, and those who are shortly to go on pension. The persons who went on pension many years ago, however, seemed to have been left in the cold as far as this legislation is concerned. We know that bonuses were awarded on a sliding scale to these people who retired before a certain date.

However, I would like particularly to refer to those older pensioners who, due to the fact that they made a small contributions and had a low rate of salary at the time of going on pension, found that their pensions fell below a minimum which the Administration has deemed necessary to pay to these older pensioners. This minimum has been raised from time to time. The last occasion it was increased, last year, the minimum pension payable to a married Railway pensioner amounted to R112 per month, and to a single pensioner without dependants, to R56 per month. I should like to suggest to the Minister that he should give due consideration to the position of these older Railway pensioners to ensure that they receive an income which is more or less commensurate with the high cost of living, and to enable them to meet the tremendous increase that has taken place in the cost of living. It appears that these people are not to receive anything, judging from the Vote which is now before us, apart from the fact that there is a 2 per cent per annum increase, compounded. I am, however, referring to those persons whose pensions still fall below the level of R112 per month and therefore have to have their pensions supplemented by Railway revenue, and not from the Superannuation Fund. This aspect relating to the reduction in the contribution is one which we welcome because in terms of the Budget which is before us, no provision is made for any revision of salaries or wages, and therefore it is important that these people be given consideration as far as the percentage of their contribution is concerned. I realize that the hon. the Minister is bound by the quinquennial report of the actuaries which must guide him in matters affecting the Superannuation Fund, but I am specifically dealing with amounts that are provided for from Railway revenue.

As far as the staff position is concerned, if one looks at the latest Report of the General Manager of Railways, one finds that at the end of March, 1971, of the total number of 226 243 persons in the employ of the Railways and Harbours, the White staff numbered 112 842 and the non-White staff 113 401. Consequently we now have the position where the number of non-Whites in the employ of the Administration exceeds the number of Whites. I mention this fact because I believe the hon. the Minister must give further consideration to the question of fringe benefits for these non-White members of the Railways staff. In certain circumstances these people are permitted to receive a gratuity for a period of employment of more than five years, and in the case of service of between five and fifteen years, they may be awarded an annuity; this is provided for in the Estimates which are now before us. In addition, these people of course make no contribution towards this gratuity or annuity. Therefore it is paid from revenue. Then there is the position of the compulsory savings fund, which is dealt with by regulation. According to the figures in the memorandum which was Tabled in the House, this compulsory savings fund for non-White servants now amounts to R2¼ million. I should like to urge the hon. the Minister to give consideration to revising the position as far as it affects the non-White employees of the Railways. In terms of the present system, which is based on the Act which was passed in 1960, and according to the latest figures I obtained in reply to a question some two years ago, the Coloureds have to pay a compulsory contribution into this fund, which earns interest at 5½ per cent—it used to be 4 per cent. These people are then paid back a certain amount plus compounded interest. In the case of the Coloured people, they only become liable for this compulsory saving when their income exceeds R61-10 per month; in the case of the Indians the figure is R44-20 per month and in the case of the Bantu, it is R42-90 per month. They are therefore required to pay into this fund, depending on their income. I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to improve this position and see whether it is not possible to have a scheme devised whereby these people will be able to enjoy a pension which will offer them some security and which will also be an incentive to them to remain in the service of the Railway Administration. The Railway Administration finds itself in this difficulty that having given training to a large number of people, whether they be White or non-White, they are then attracted away from the Railway service to private enterprise, with the result that they are lost to the Railway Administration just when their services have become useful. I am afraid that in the time at my disposal it is not possible for me to put forward any suggestions as to how this should be done, but at this stage I would suggest for the hon. the Minister’s consideration that the Administration should review the whole system under which non-Whites are paid their pensions and annuities vis-à-vis the compulsory saving scheme for non-White servants, which is also provided for in the Estimates before us.

Sir, the number of resignations from the Railway service is also a matter which gives cause for concern. Numbers of Railway employees, particularly White employees, resign from the Service in order to get a refund of their contributions from the Superannuation Fund. In this connection the report of the De Villiers Committee of Inquiry into pension fund matters, which was tabled some five or six years ago, although it dealt with private pension funds, did contain some interesting recommendations which could be followed by the Minister and his joint committee on the Superannuation Fund. The reduction of the contribution to 4 per cent does to a certain extent remove the incentive for these people to resign merely in order to obtain a refund of their pension contributions. Many of them are compelled to do so due to the high cost of living. Many of them, because they have to raise money which they require urgently, take this drastic step of resigning from the Railway Administration. [Time expired.]

Sir, we would be neglecting our duty if we did not correct certain impressions that have been left here, inter alia, by the hon. member for Umlazi and others in connection with suburban traffic and in connection with staff members who are supposedly dissatisfied. In the first place I just want to refer to the hon. member for Umlazi who spoke of a chronic shortage of railway coaches and trucks and the transport of non-Whites from Soweto. I want to conclude this matter by referring him to the Star of 1st March, 1972, in which we read the following—

Sir, I want to emphasize this: Progressives, not United Party men—

Sir, I think I have dealt with this matter, but I want to go further in connection with the so-called dissatisfied and unhappy staff, isolated cases having been dished up for us here. I think that the examples we have obtained in actual practice contradict this whole suggestion that we are dealing with a dissatisfied staff corps. We recently had proof of this in the Ovambo strike, when railwaymen and women, boys and girls, took off their jackets and aprons at 5 o’clock in the afternoon and joined their friends and fellow-members of the public to load and unload railway trucks in order to deal with a national crisis, not a crisis at a railway station or in the Railways service. This proves that we are dealing here with people who are not, first and foremost, officials of the Railways, but loyal South Africans who are not, like the United Party men, obsessed with the complex that they are only happy if they can criticize. These people are positively attuned. Their approach is : “If I cannot furnish a service, then I am unhappy.” Sir, I should like to have this placed on record. There is a lot of other proof that we are dealing here with people who have pride, self-respect and a sense of responsibility. Sir, the other day I referred to the training centres and conveyed a special word of thanks to the General Manager, his technical staff and, in particular to the trade unions that assisted him in this connection. We find that the out of service periods for South African locomotives, trucks and coaches is by far the shortest in the world. Here we have proof that those people are attuned to saving and productivity; that they do not let their vehicles stand idle but that their vehicles are kept in motion continuously. Sir, people who can furnish such an achievement are not dissatisfied people; they are not unhappy people. We also have statistics that prove that as far as the transport of manganese, chrome ore and maize is concerned, the trucks that were made available for this were not nearly all taken up by the Mealie Board and the exporters of manganese and chrome ore. It has been suggested here that as a result of a lack of planning, we cannot meet the situation. Sir, the railwayman teaches us in practice that we are dealing here with a problem that affects us all, including the United Party men on that side of the House. It is a national problem which, if we are not careful, can totally neutralize the benefits of our exchange rate by the pressure of inflation within our country. It is the duty of us all, not only the duty of the railwaymen, to ensure that this does not happen. There are many respects in which the Opposition and the public can help and do something in return for the railwaymen, and that is to give them better support. I refer here specially to the Airways. There are indications and signs—and we very thankfully take note of this—that there are companies in South Africa that have instructed their staff only to make use of South African Airways as far as overseas services are concerned. These companies want to take positive action; they want to prove to the railwayman that they stand by him in his struggle against inflation; they are saying to the railwayman : “We acknowledge all your positive efforts. We are going to do something in return, we are going to make a gesture; when we, our friends, our acquaintances and our colleagues in the business world have to make use of an overseas service, we are going to make use of the South African Airways.”

Sir, I do not want to be guilty of violating an ethical code as far as international aviation is concerned, but I think that in this case we ought to prove to South Africans—and no-one will blame us for this— that blood is thicker than water. I think the time has come for us in this Railway debate to accept the railwayman’s lesson that we are dealing here with a problem that affects us all. I present for the Opposition’s consideration the fact that from the entire drift of the debate from their side, we can deduce at this stage that it did not serve specifically to strengthen and inspire the railwayman in his efforts to make a noteworthy contribution towards combating this problem. We must take note that the railwaymen and their Administration are not going to sit on the scrap-heap in this critical period of monetary problems, but are going to plan as if nothing had happened; they plan as individuals with faith and courage for the future. You laugh, but the railwaymen take note of your laughter while they are making their sacrifices.

Why must they make sacrifices?

I say that they are planning. Provision has been made for R3 000 million in additional expenditure up to March, 1972, of which it is expected that R820 million will be spent by March 1972, and about R430 million in 1972-’73. These works are partly being financed from loan funds, while the remainder of the capital needs will be employed from the Railways’ own sources, such as the Renewals Fund, the Betterment Fund and so on. Sir, as far as I am concerned, if there is anything that is fine, that must be given due note, it is the fact that these persons are planning in faith and are not sitting on the scrap-heap. In fact, they are creating the right climate and furnishing proof that the turning point is near; and I think that the very position the Railways finds itself in today is our best proof that better days have approached.

This is the second occasion on which we have heard the hon. member who has just sat down addressing the House in this debate and now we can well understand why one must be satisfied that his days in Randburg are numbered. Now we can understand why Randburg has given the answer that it did recently, I do not think it needs any further comment. All that he has said satisfies me as well as another few thousand people in Randburg, that he cannot come back.

But I want rather to draw the attention of the House to a very important issue which was raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg North with regard to the Railway services for the large congregation of non-Whites in the Soweto complex of Johannesburg, a matter which was mentioned in passing again by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I would like to say that the seriousness of this problem cannot be satisfied merely by the hon. the Minister telling us, I think very sincerely, that a lot has been done in order to improve the services and that they will have different types of coaches and that the lines are going to be improved. I do not think that is the answer one expects to a problem like this.

Already the chairman of the non-European Affairs Department in Johannesburg has responded to what he has read as having taken place in this House, and he himself has said that it is essential that some technical body be established to investigate and to report upon some means of mass rapid transport of this congregation of people into the working areas where they are employed. We have this extraordinary situation of a township which we know officially numbers 760 000 people as at 31st June, 1971—and these are authentic figures—and which together with probably many others who willy-nilly find their way into that township will probably amount to nearly 1 million people. The workers have to be transported from one point only to the city, and not in a radial movement, along a rigid line into the heart of the city and from there they have to be dispersed to the various areas where they work. This is a problem which is not only peculiar to us. It is peculiar to us because this is the one sector where this problem is so vital, but it is a problem which has affected Great Britain and West Germany and Japan as well as many other countries. I mention these three countries because a tremendous amount of investigation is taking place there with regard to mass rapid-moving transport. I do not think it is sufficient to remain attached to a system which we have had for so many years without looking for some modern means of dealing with this problem in the highly modern technological world in which we are living today. In Britain, for instance, the hover train is being considered, and some R7 million has already been spent on research work on this matter. In West Germany, where the problem is as serious as it is in Britain and in any part of Europe, where roads are being clogged by road transport and where even the air transport in respect of short-distance flights between big cities is becoming difficult, some form of rapid mass transport has to be evolved. In Japan a considerable amount of money is being expended for the same purpose. With regard to Soweto, the hon. the Minister has unfortunately had some very sad experiences. Not only he had some very sad experiences, but we and the people of the country have had these sad experiences. There have been two serious occasions where deaths have been caused when railway bridges collapsed because of the hordes of people who rushed across the bridge anxious to find accommodation on the trains. They must get into the city to meet a certain deadline with regard to their employment. We have had unfortunate accidents which were possibly due to conditions, which have all come about because of the fact that we have four rails on which the transport of this enormous mass of people has to take place. The reason why I emphasize the fact that it is one point of exit from one specific point to the city is the fact that in order to reach their destination, these workers rise at about 3.30 to about 4 in the morning in order to get to the railhead where they have to embark on the train in order to get to the city. Furthermore, they get home late at night and all this creates frustration, irritation and conditions which have been described in the past as explosive conditions. I do not want to over-emphasize that aspect. My main appeal to the hon. the Minister is not to highlight the seriousness of the situation, but to highlight the importance of taking the necessary steps or to satisfy the House that some consideration is being given to this matter. All of us on this side of the House—and I am sure many members on the Government side of the House —were somewhat surprised and disappointed that the Minister dealt with this matter in a somewhat casual manner by merely referring to the fact that improvements were taking place. I do not think that is enough. We would like to know what is actually happening. Is serious attention being given to the importance of solving this particular problem? I do feel it cannot just be solved by the sheer system of improving the coaches and of improving the length of a train in order to get more passengers into the trains, or by satisfying us, as the hon. the Minister has tried to do, that only perhaps 85 per cent, or even 70 per cent, have made use of the trains on a particular date. The hon. the Minister knows well that every other type of transport is being made use of. People are using old types of taxis which are a danger to the road and buses which are congested to the hilt. Every possible form of transport is being made use of. Some people are taking lifts from other people in order to get to the cities and some employers even provide private transport in order to move the huge mass of people as rapidly as possible. I think the House should have some assurance from the hon. the Minister that he is well aware of the importance of technological research and that he is going to take the necessary steps, even if it is with the co-operation of State funds, and even if it is with the co-operation of local authorities. We would like the assurance that some steps are being taken in order to investigate, in order to analyse, and in order to seek some means of satisfying this very serious situation which is facing the country today.

The difficulty we will have to face over the years is that with the population increase, with a greater demand on the economy, with the introduction of more and more workers into our industrial area, this problem will continue to grow. Whilst we may only find it a problem as far as it concerns Soweto at the moment—and I do not know of any other part of the country where such masses of people have to be moved in such a short period of time—this problem will probably occur in the Durban area and probably in the Port Elizabeth area. However, it certainly will be a problem which will continue to grow. It is well for us in our country to make provision years ahead. It has already been pointed out by this side of the House that within a short period of another three decades our population in this country should be well over 40 million people. I think it is important that a big institution such as the Railways, should be in the position to set up a department to investigate a problem of this nature. I want to say further that in the city of Johannesburg, where this problem is concentrated and where it is a real factor, certain systems are already being investigated with regard to the most rapid transport of the White community in order to ease the congestion on the roads and especially the congestion caused by heavy-duty vehicles. They are considering these methods in order to increase the speed of travelling. One of the difficulties the countries of the world are faced with is to move the people in good time to get them to their destinations. Therefore, I say it is already not foreign to the thinking of the larger municipalities in this country. I would like the hon. the Minister too to give that matter some thought.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District asked me whether the elimination of level crossings could be speeded up. R5 800 000 is allocated for the elimination of level crossings for the next year. There are certain limitations however. Negotiations have to take place with the local authority if the crossing is within the confines of a local authority’s jurisdiction. Then there must be negotiations with the Provincial Council, because the Act provides that they must make certain contributions towards the elimination of level crossings. Then the plans have to be drawn, and then tenders have to be called for. There are therefore certain limitations, but the hon. member can be assured that I am as anxious as he is to speed up the elimination of level crossings and the standing committee is doing everything in its power to do that.

The hon. member spoke about that special flight with which he personally was concerned. It is not usual that a matter of this kind is raised across the floor of the House because the hon. member can get all the information if he merely writes me a letter. That will be quite acceptable, but seeing that he has raised it now I had better give him full information otherwise the House may be under a misapprehension in regard to what the position really was. I am quoting the telex I have received in this regard from the Management—

*As is his duty, because he represents that constituency, the hon. member for Maitland spoke about the proposed Kensington-Bellville railway line which will run through a part of his constituency, Milnerton. The hon. member accompanied a deputation which came to see me about the matter. As the hon. member knows, I said that various routes had been investigated and that this was the only possible route which was acceptable. For that reason, that route cannot be deviated from. I am as sorry as that hon. member that 40 houses have to be demolished, but it is unavoidable. The new harbour has to be served by this railway line and this is the only route that can be used. As far as the expropriation is concerned, I want to say that this is a matter for the Management and that I cannot give any assurance that those people will get some or other specific compensation for their property.

The hon. member also requested that a woman whose husband had died should retain her travel facilities. The travel facilities to which a widow of a deceased railway pensioner is entitled are the following: One free pass annually for herself, which is valid only on the South African Railways. One quarter-price concession annually, which is valid only on the Rhodesian Railways. One half-price concession annually, which is valid only on the Portuguese Railways in East Africa. For their children who normally reside with them and who are completely dependent on them, there are the following facilities : Children under 17 years are entitled to one ticket annually at half-price which is valid on the South African Railways, the Rhodesian Railways, the C.F.M. and the C.F.B. If they are 17 years and older, they are entitled on condition that they are full-time scholars or students, to one ticket annually at half-price, which is valid on the South African Railways and the Rhodesian Railways. This is all I have to say in respect of the travel facilities for pensioners’ widows.

Furthermore, the hon. member said that when a railway official retires, he should have the right to continue occupying his house. This cannot happen. There is usually a very long waiting list of railway servants who are still in service and would like to have houses. It would be unfair to those officials still in service if a man who has retired should continue to enjoy the privilege of living in such a railway house at that low rental. If the request of the hon. member were to be complied with, it would cause tremendous dissatisfaction among the railway officials. The hon. member for Carletonville asked what the possibilities were of reintroducing passenger services on that line where the sink-holes are such a problem. My technical officials say this will not happen in the foreseeable future. Those sink-holes are stabilizing themselves at the moment. This is the position. In the future the area may perhaps be perfectly safe again. Now and then a passenger train is sent over that route, but I can give no assurance that there will be a regular passenger service again in the foreseeable future. I agree that the employees have to endure considerable inconvenience, but as the hon. member himself said, the Railways have introduced passenger bus services in order to meet them. The hon. member asked whether there was any prospect of constructing a railway line across an area which is not a dolomitic one. Yes, but it would be so far from Carletonville that it would not satisfy the people there. The railway line would have to pass through Fochville, which is very far from Carletonville. The hon. member also spoke of the fresh fruit and vegetables transported by the Airways, and the other hon. members referred to it as well. As a result of the efforts and the actions of South African Airways at the international organization I.A.T.A., we have succeeded in obtaining extremely favourable tariffs for the transportation of perishable products between South Africa and overseas countries. The tariff from Cape Town to Johannesburg is not extraordinarily high. A minimum of 500 kg is transported over this distance at 13 cents per kg. From Johannesburg to London the minimum weight is 1000 kg at 40 cents per kg. This is an extraordinarily low tariff and I am sure that exporters can still make a very reasonable profit if they make use of the Airways and pay these tariffs. In this regard I received representations from the Boland Agricultural Union, and I gave them this same reply. Hon. members must bear in mind that the Railways are already transporting agricultural products to the value of millions of rands at a loss. This is not profitable for South African Airways either, but it is another service we render the farming community.

†The hon. member for Port Natal complained about the noise of the shunting in the yards. This complaint is a hardy annual and I can only give him the assurance that we intend introducing diesel locomotives. I have already announced in my Budget speech that it is the intention of the Railways to eliminate all steam locomotives, once we have these diesel locomotives in our shunting yards, the hon. member will have no more cause to complain.

Then you and I will both be popular!

I am popular, but I do not know if the hon. member is popular. The hon. member also spoke about the bad condition of our houses in his constituency. I will ask the Management to go into this matter, because these houses should be repaired if it is possible to do so. They should be kept in good order. In regard to the provision of more housing, I wonder if the hon. member realizes that there is no obligation on the Railways as an employer to provide housing for all its employees. There is some obligation on municipalities and on the Department of Community Development, and on the individuals themselves, of course. But in spite of there being no obligation on the Railways, I do not think that there is any employer in South Africa that provides so much housing for its employees as the South African Railways do. I think there are about 30 000 railway employees who have the privilege of staying in departmental houses with exceptionally low rentals. That is part of their “perks”. They would pay three or four times as much in rental for privately owned houses. Next year we are going to spend R6 million on the house-ownership scheme for the provision of loans, and on departmental houses and hostels we are going to spend R4,8 million, a total of R10,8 million, which is a considerable sum. I therefore think that we look after our servants very well as far as housing is concerned.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens raised the question of air freight in regard to agricultural products, but I have already replied to that. He talked about the air freight on perishable products from Cape Town to Johannesburg and from Johannesburg to Europe. He was not quite correct when he said that a fully loaded Boeing 747 can only take one ton of freight. If it is a through-flight and it is filled up with passengers and fuel, it can take three tons. If a Boeing 747 lands at Sal in the Cape Verde Islands, it can take 23 tons of freight. It all depends on whether they land en route or not. The hon. member also wanted to know whether I am allowing charter aircraft to operate between Cape Town and Europe. No charter company will send an empty aircraft to Cape Town merely for the purpose of transporting perishable products to Europe. They want loads both ways. Up to now, the South African Airways has been in a position to cater for all the freight offered and I have had no complaints from agriculturists, farmers or anybody else who exports perishable goods that the capacity of our aircraft is inadequate.

In regard to the inadequacy of the repair wharf in the Duncan Dock, I can only say that the Duncan Dock has certain physical limitations like the depth of the water, for example. Recently, a very large number of ships have been coming in for repairs, especially tankers. The repair wharf itself is not long enough, but we are giving attention to improving the repair facilities in Duncan Dock. I am afraid that the space in Duncan Dock is very limited.

*The hon. member for De Aar spoke about the branch line from Belmont to Douglas, and said that the farmers could not obtain enough trucks. It is true that there are times when a shortage of trucks is experienced. We cannot fob off some and assist others, because the wheat farmers are as anxious to have their wheat transported. But I may just give him the assurance that, seeing that a large number of trucks are on order again, especially in view of the new system of truck control, I am convinced that it will be possible to satisfy these farmers to a larger extent in the next potato season.

The hon. member spoke about the staff who appear in court and are then again charged by the department. This is the position. Throughout the years I have received complaints in this House about the so-called “double trial” but this is essential. It often happens that when an official appears in court, say on a charge of theft, he is acquitted on a purely technical point. But he has contravened the regulations and one cannot simply allow him to get off. He must be charged again in terms of the disciplinary regulations, because he has committed a breach of discipline. It often happens that he is convicted by the court and then has to be charged by the department as well. This has been the position all these years, and it is essential. He asked that firemen who simply do not turn up when they should, should be punished. Yes, they are punished. If, according to the timetable, such a fireman has to work on a certain train and simply stays away, he is charged in terms of the disciplinary regulations.

†The hon. member for Umlazi spoke about the sloppy dress and long hair of the staff at the ports and at the airports. I do not know which staff he is referring to. Is he referring to the porters who come on to the ships to take away the baggage? The only other staff officials who come on the ships are the customs and immigration officials, and these are not my responsibility. To me they always seem to be very neat. If the hon. member has any particular section of the staff in mind, I would like him to tell me who they are and I will have the matter investigated. The same applies to the airports. I do not know whether he refers to the Bantu on the apron. They always wear overalls. The other staff are the women—the air hostesses and receptionists. I do not think he will disagree when I say that they are very neat. They look very attractive. I think they wear a very nice uniform.

They are very nice girls.

As my friend here behind me says, they are very nice girls, too.

*The hon. member for Swellendam requested that a transport service be introduced from Touws River to Montagu and from Cape Town to Bredasdorp and Agulhas. I am always prepared to introduce road transport services, provided they are economically justified. Before a service is introduced, an investigation is usually made to see what the traffic potential is. If there is sufficient traffic to make the service profitable, it will be introduced. I doubt whether such a service will be profitable. But I shall ask the Management to examine the matter more closely and then to submit a report to me. The same applies to the route from Cape Town to Agulhas. There are no goods and it simply does not pay to transport passengers only. To have a bus service from Cape Town to Agulhas merely for passengers, will be quite unprofitable. If there were goods which could be transported, it would of course be a completely different matter.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove wanted to know what I was going to do with regard to the building of a tube railway in Johannesburg. I have nothing to do with that. It is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of the Johannesburg Municipality.

You don’t mind if they go ahead?

Of course not; I have no objection. Why should I? I have no objections to their trolley or other buses they use for the conveyance of the Johannesburg citizens. If they want to build a tube railway they can do it with the greatest pleasure in the world.

And connect that with your Railways too?

No, you do not connect tube railways with the Railways; it is a different matter altogether. They can build a tube railway up to the Johannesburg station and have a tube station there. If passengers want to go further they can then change to my trains. But it is their responsibility and their trouble is to finance it.

A tube railway will cost millions and millions of rands.

It may be necessary.

I think it is necessary. I think Johannesburg is already so congested and becoming even more so, that people simply cannot move. They will have to have a tube railway. An overhead railway is out of the question. I have seen one in New York. That is not a solution to the problem; but a tube is. However, it is going to cost a lot of money. If they can find the money and they want to build it they are welcome to do it, as far as I am concerned. I think it will be necessary, as a matter of fact.

I have replied to questions about the Soweto service ad nauseum and I can say very little more than that. The hon. member for Jeppes raised the matter again. I am well aware of the problems and of the necessity to improve those train services. There is no doubt about that. The hon. member spoke about mass transport. What mass transport can you have? The only mass transport system there is still in an experimental stage, namely the monorail. The monorail will never have sufficient capacity to transport thousands and thousands of passengers per day. Its capacity is limited. At the present time it is only in an experimental stage. There is one in Tokyo which is only a few miles long. There is one in Seattle on which I travelled for about two miles. But its use and capacity is limited and it will not be the solution to the problem. The solution is rail services. Their rail services will be and are being improved. Eventually those lines will also have to be quadrupled. I have already said that a line will have to be built from Faraday to Jeppes, but that line will have to go underground. It is going to be an expensive line. I think I will give in detail what we are doing now, because I still have a few minutes, so as to put it on record. Seventeen of the 11-coach train-sets have already been strengthened by one additional coach each, and all train-sets will be strengthened to 12 coaches each by 1974. Nine additional train-sets comprising 99 sliding-door coaches, earmarked for other areas, have been switched to the Soweto service, making a total of 39 sliding-door train-sets. By the end of 1973 all swing-door coaches on this service will have been replaced. These new trains each convey 800more passengers than the old swing-door type. Improved maintenance facilities for the electric train-sets to ensure the best availability, have been provided at Braamfontein. Additional safety and communication measures have been introduced, on which the Press have already reported. From 6th December, 1971, one of the trains scheduled to Faraday station was switched to run to Johannesburg station and an additional train was introduced from Naledi to Johannesburg. A new central signal cabin will be constructed at New Canada to improve operating efficiency to and from Soweto. Financial provision has been made in the 1971 Budget for 229 sliding-door coaches to replace all the swing-door coaches on the Soweto service. All train-sets operating on the Soweto service will consist of 12 coaches by the end of 1973, and additional staging facilities will be provided for this purpose. Sixteen staging roads, each capable of accommodating 14 coaches, will be provided at Naledi and 14 similar roads will be provided between Johannesburg and Germiston to improve train scheduling and timekeeping. Two additional lines will be built between Dube and Inhlazane and turn-round facilities will be provided at Phomolong and Ikweze. A by-pass road will be built at New Canada connecting the railway lines from Dube with the up-route lines to eliminate delays. Colour-light signalling will be installed between Lenz, Midway and Nancefield. Platforms at stations and halts on the sections Lenz-Pimville-Naledi-Cleveland and New Canada-Westgate-Faraday will be lengthened to accommodate 14-coach train-sets. Additional sub-stations will be provided and the overhead equipment over portions of the Soweto sections will probably have to be improved. As the hon. member can see we regard the matter as very serious. From our side we are doing everything possible to improve those services. I have tremendous sympathy with those Bantu having to get up early in the morning and arriving home late at night. What we can do, the hon. member can rest assured, we shall do.

*The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet spoke about railway camps. I must say I do not like the term “railway camps”. We must avoid it; it rather sounds as if it is a compound. Since I became Minister, I have tried to avoid using the term “railway camp”. I have seen to it that all the new houses that are built are spread out in the cities, so that the railway people can feel that they are part of the community. They are not segregated and isolated in a camp. Accordingly we should not talk of a “railway camp”; let us rather talk of a railway area. In regard to the waste-water drainage about which the hon. member complained, I shall ask the Management to investigate the matter. As regards a subway or an overhead bridge in order to eliminate the crossing of which he spoke, this is a matter which is the responsibility of the standing committee. If it is only for the convenience of the people on both sides of the railway line, the Management can consider it and report to me.

†The hon. member for Umbilo spoke about pensions. No provision is made for an increase of the supplementary allowances. There is no money and nothing can be done this year. I have brought about considerable improvement during the past few years, as the hon. member knows. In any case, for the improvement of pensions, I always rely on the recommendations of the Joint Management Committee, on which the staff are represented. As a result of their recommendations, a number of improvements were made in the case of pensioners and in the case of servants still working. In addition, the contributions were reduced.

As far as the non-Whites are concerned, I have not given any consideration to converting their savings scheme into a pension scheme. Again that would entail expenditure which I cannot afford at the present time.

The hon. member for Orange Grove must have made a slip of the tongue, because he spoke of the smoke from the tug Smoky Sue in the Cape Town Docks causing air pollution in Johannesburg. That smoke would have to go a long way! I realize it was a slip of the tongue; I make a mistake sometimes too. I do not think that the Railways are entirely responsible for the air pollution. I think air pollution is something really to worry about. When I travel to my office on Rhodes Drive in the morning, there is a black cloud over Cape Town on some mornings. The smoke, I think, comes mainly from the municipal power station. This smog settles over the city, and something will have to be done. My tugs are now being converted into oil burners so, as far as the tugs are concerned, the problem will be solved. There are very few shunting engines, and they will be replaced by diesel engines in the years ahead.

*In regard to that placard, I just want to say that I do not take any notice of nonsense. I as Minister cannot concern myself with a placard on Durban station; I have much more important work to do.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136.

Schedules put and agreed to.

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker I move—

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the receipts, custody and issue of Government moneys, the control over Government stores and the audit of Government accounts are regulated by the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act, the Financial Regulations issued by the State President in terms of section 61 (1) of that Act and the instructions issued from time to time by the Treasury in terms of section 61 (2) of the said Act. However, in section 2 of the Exchequer and Audit Act it is explicitly provided that that Act shall not apply to any Provincial Revenue Fund. As regards the control over provincial moneys and stores, there are as yet no such regulating provisions or instructions. Regulations for the guidance of provincial auditors do exist, but those regulations were promulgated as far back as 1911 and are to a large extent outmoded for present circumstances. Furthermore, in section 91 of the Constitution such an auditor is authorized to introduce a surcharge.

In the meantime attempts were made to promulgate, in terms of section 88 of the Constitution, uniform financial regulations for the provinces. A set of draft regulations for meeting their needs was prepared in consultation with the provinces and submitted to the law advisers for revision. However, the law advisers pointed out that, in view of the provisions of section 88 (2) of the Constitution, a large part of the proposed regulations would be invalid. The proposed regulations made provision for, inter alia, granting certain powers to an Administrator or an executive committee. Although, in the absence of enabling provisions, they do exercise those powers at present, such provisions in the proposed regulations would be inconsistent with the provisions in the Constitution. In the relevant section of the Constitution certain powers are granted to the State President only, whereas there is no provision to the effect that the State President may delegate any of those powers to an Administrator or an executive committee or a person in the employ of a province.

On closer examination it also became apparent that in practice the implementation of the existing statutory provisions would present many problems. For instance, to prescribe the form of provincial estimates by regulation, would be unpractical. Although the form of estimates more or less follows the estimates of the State, they are nevertheless not absolutely uniform. The provinces have to effect classifications and additions according to their own circumstances, as and when required. If the form of estimates were now prescribed by regulation, it would have the effect that in respect of any minor amendment, such as creating a sub-head or item, which a province might deem necessary, the regulations would have to be amended first. That would be quite unpractical.

Furthermore, it is obvious that it would not be practicable to prescribe by regulation what officers or other persons in each province shall receive, hold, issue, account for or manage provincial moneys, stores, stamps or securities. It should be possible for any provincial administration to effect such arrangements and control administratively, as is at present the position in practice.

I may just mention that although the provinces do not have their own financial provisions and instructions as yet, this position has up to now not given rise to financial chaos. The provisions, regulations and Treasury instructions with regard to the Exchequer have been implemented by them mutatis mutandis as an interim measure. However, the need and necessity for provisions, regulations and instructions of their own with a view to effective financial control, have been emphasized repeatedly by executive committees and provincial auditors.

I have already pointed out some of the problems experienced in implementing the existing provisions of the Constitution. In order to bridge over those problems and to bring about the financial regulation of the provinces in a practical and effective manner, it would be necessary to effect certain amendments to and incorporate a number of new subsections in the Constitution. Hon. members will undoubtedly agree with me that it would be quite inappropriate to use the Constitution for incorporating such additional administrative measures.

Accordingly it has been decided to prepare a separate Bill in consultation with the provinces, and you now have that Bill before you. Perhaps the proposed provisions contained in the Bill do not require much explanation. Some of them have been drafted more or less in keeping with existing statutory provisions which will now be repealed. Others have been based on provisions contained in the Exchequer and Audit Act. The rest of them mainly confirm existing powers, duties, procedures and rules with regard to the financial administration of the provinces. Therefore, no significant amendment to or interference with existing principles or practices is envisaged. The amendments proposed to be effected to the Constitution will also, if I may put it this way, clear the Constitution of provisions which do not belong in it.

The proposed provision in the Bill may be implemented by the provinces in a uniform manner. In clause 29 (1) additional provision will also be able to implement in a uniform manner. We have already made a great deal of progress in preparing the draft regulations.

Furthermore, provision is made in clause 29 (3) for a measure of flexibility with a view to the various circumstances and needs which may arise from province to province. Just as the Treasury has a power in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act to issue instructions for the guidance and control of Government Departments, every executive committee will be able to issue its own separate instructions to suit its own circumstances and needs. It may be expected that such instructions will to a large extent be based on the existing Treasury instructions.

Mr. Speaker, it is generally expected by the bodies concerned that by way of this legislation a long-felt need will be met, and it will therefore be welcomed by them. Accordingly it gives me pleasure to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

This Bill before the House deals with one of the most important aspects of Government, namely the audit of expenditure, in this case of the provinces. We welcome this Bill because it regularizes a number of somewhat unhappy aspects and brings under one Bill provisions of some three Acts under which the provincial auditors have been working in the past, and it incorporates a number of regulations, listening to the hon. the Minister, it really amazes me that the standard of auditing by the provincial auditors has been so high over the past years. I spent nine years as a member of the Sessional Committee on Public Accounts in the Transvaal, and I looked on many occasions at the audit reports of the other provinces, and the provincial auditors have always done a first-class job. I think this Bill is going to help them considerably in carrying out their duties. I think it is a Bill which is long overdue. I think it sets an example which can be used in other areas where we find pieces of legislation in a number of Acts dealing with a single item. Here they are all brought together so that we will have only one document, one Act to deal with. This will make things a lot more easier and more effective and will produce better control. We therefore welcome and support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to object very strongly to this clause.

It increases the penalty for the infringement of regulations and I am going to vote against it. The Act as it stands gives the Minister the power to make regulations or to authorize a local authority to make regulations concerning the use of the seashore, bathing in the sea, pollution and control of the sea and the seashore. That is the present Act as it stands. The penalty under the present Act for infringement of the regulations is a fine not exceeding R50 with no imprisonment at all. I can see no reason whatsoever for this really quite considerable increase in the penalty. The penalty is now being increased to an amount of up to R200 or imprisonment or both the fine and imprisonment. This can apply to any infringement of the regulations regarding the use of the sea-shore. This would also include infringements when non-White people happen to use the seashore set aside for Whites, or, indeed, where a Black nanny accompanies a White child on to the beach. She can be charged under this particular clause. Under the present circumstances in South Africa. I think it is ridiculous. I object to the whole principle, but I cannot discuss that at this stage. However, I would like it on record that I object to the whole principle of the setting aside of amenities as has been done. Under the present circumstances in South Africa, practically every White child is looked after by a nanny of a different colour, whether it be a Black nanny or a Coloured nanny. The fact that penalties are now to be imposed for infringements of regulations setting aside the sea-shore, beach, or bathing facilities for persons of one race only, is absolutely absurd. We will now get the situation where an officious policeman or beach attendant who sees a Black nanny in charge of a White child paddling on the beach, can in fact be run in for infringing these regulations. I am against this and I am going to vote against this measure. I do know, of course, that there is a penalty in existance under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, a penalty which is more stringent than the one I have already mentioned in that it allows for a penalty of R100 or three months’ imprisonment, or both. Even if one takes that into consideration, this clause increases the penalty for the infringement of regulations. I think the whole thing is absurd and I am going to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to state our view on this clause lest there should be any misunderstanding as to why we on this side of the House do not object to this clause. The hon. member for Houghton has chosen to deal with certain aspects in regard to which the penalty might apply for a contravention of the law. The regulations that are dealt with under section 10 of the Act are far wider and cover such matters as pollution of the sea, pollution of sea areas …

I mentioned that.

The hon. member mentioned that en passant, but talked as though the sole purpose of the regulations were to control Black nannies. Sir, they are to control pollution, to ensure the preservation of sea life and to prevent the removal of it as was pointed out by the hon. member for Albany. He pointed out what was happening along our sea coasts and referred to the removal of sea life, of oysters and bait and so forth. They deal with the general control of the seashore, to prevent the dumping of rubbish on the sea-shore and matters of that nature which relate to hygiene. The beach attendant to which the hon. member for Houghton referred, if he is capricious, can act now and arrest now and can bring charges of contravention against the Black nanny or any other person who might be transgressing separate amenity regulations. I also feel that it is wrong that there should be a fine of R200 for such a contravention. But apparently this is where we differ with the hon. member for Houghton. We have sufficient confidence in our law courts to believe that where there is permissive authority for them to impose a sentence ranging from a reprimand up to a fine of R200. in the cases the hon. member for Houghton has cited the penalties imposed by our magistrates whose sentences are subject to review and appeal will be reasonable having regard to the nature of the offence. We believe there is justification for the power to impose this high penalty because of the other matters I have referred to, namely pollution and so forth, which may occur as a result of contraventions of these regulations. I make that clear so that there shall be no misunderstanding. We on this side of the House are equally opposed to harsh and unnecessary penalties being imposed for minor infringements of the laws applying to separate amenities, but we do not anticipate that this maximum penalty will be imposed by the courts of law of South Africa for such minor offences.

Mr. Chairman, it is very helpful to the hon. the Deputy Minister to have the hon. member for Green Point explaining the clause for him. It must be very helpful indeed. I mentioned pollution in the same breath that I mentioned the rest of the clause. As far as I am concerned, the existing penalties are quite enough. But if the hon. member wants to make the penalty more severe for pollution, it is easy enough. Let him move an amendment to that effect and I will support it. I have no objection to people being charged for polluting the beaches, but I certainly have every objection to people who use the sea-shore and bathe in places which are set aside for certain races, being lumped together with pollution. I do not consider the two things to be the same at all. I consider deliberate pollution of the beaches to be something quite different from the use of our sea-shore given to us, I would say, by the good Lord, for everybody who lives in South Africa. I do not consider that to be part and parcel of pollution and I stick to my argument.

Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the hon. member for Green Point and his explanation because he is a practical man. The hon. member for Houghton spoke about pollution in passing, but her main problem is the people whom she represents here. These are definitely the people she has been talking about all the time since I became a member of Parliament. It is the only thing she can talk about.

They are closely related …

I do not want to waste time, because she will keep on interrupting. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point and I thank him for his explanation.

Clause put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading debate I raised a problem with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I now want to take it a little further in detail and relate it to this particular clause. In terms of clause 3 there is to be incorporated in the Act a new section 11 (2) which reads as follows :

Section 10 of the Act gives the Minister the power to make regulations to cover some six or seven different aspects. This power can now be delegated to the executive committee in respect of the sea-shore, which is the land between the high-water mark and the low-water mark. It covers also tidal lagoons and tidal rivers within certain definitions. It also covers the seabed and the sea for six nautical miles seawards. One can imagine that regulations which are brought into effect to cover that particular area, from high-water mark to six nautical miles seawards, may be completely nullified if those regulations do not apply to the immediately abutting land above high-water mark. Section 10 (3) (b) of the Act as it stands, states that the Minister may declare any regulation to be applicable to any State-owned land adjoining or situated near the sea-shore for the purposes of the application of such regulations. In other words, in terms of the Sea-shore Act as it stands, the Minister may apply a regulation of his to State-owned land. With regard to the coastline in South Africa, I indicated to the hon. the Deputy Minister that almost the entire coast of Natal, what is known as the “Admiralty Reserve”—a portion of land varying in width from 200 to 400 ft.—is reserved for the State. The State has full rights over that area. In the Cape, especially on the west coast, the Saldanha Bay coast, there, similarly, is a reserve which is of varying width and which is State land. I again want to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard today. I think he realizes the necessity of having control over that land if one wants to control the immediate sea-shore. If one wants to control the immediate sea-shore, one should have some control over that land. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he would be good enough to have this matter reviewed. I am not certain of the answer myself—perhaps he could refer it to his own legal advisers—as to whether, in the form in which this clause now stands, it will be possible for a regulation of an Executive Committee of a province also to be made applicable with the consent of the Minister to the adjoining State-owned land. Does this clause give that power or should there not also be written into the Act that the Minister may not only delegate to the executive committee of a province the powers conferred upon him by section 10, not only the power to make regulations, but also the power to make them applicable within the scope of section 10 of the Act as it now stands? My difficulty is simply …

Do you not think that it follows?

No, I do not think so. My problem is that he may delegate to the Executive Committee in terms of the proposed new section 11 (2) any power conferred upon him by section 10, but that it is dealing with the delegation of power, I should think, to regulate. I may be wrong. If I am wrong, then we can understand and the provinces can understand because it is a very real problem. When they approach this problem now they will have the authority to apply their own regulations to State land themselves. That is what worries me, namely that a province may not have the authority to make its regulations apply to State land which is not provincially controlled. I leave this matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think it is essential that it should be looked at, because the province does not control that Admiralty strip. That is what worries me. I ask for this to be done, because without that I believe that regulations—I am not talking about separate amenities now, but about any regulations in general to control the sea-shore—will be nullified. If there is a regulation that one shall not dump rubbish on the sea-shore, it does not help very much if it is dumped two yards beyond the high-water mark on the adjoining State land. I believe this matter must be co-ordinated and that the power must be there for provinces to have this delegated authority under this clause. I raised this during the Second Reading debate and I appreciate that it is a matter which does not normally fall under the purview of the hon. the Deputy Minister and that a provincial matter such as this does perhaps fall under one of the other portfolios of Cabinet responsibility, but I do ask him to have regard to this and if necessary, and on the advice of the legal advisers, to move some suitable amendment in the Senate when he deals with this particular clause, if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading Debate the hon. member for Green Point raised this matter and we had a look at it. From the highwater mark we have a strip of land called “Admiralty Ground” and the width of this strip varies. In Natal it is 150 feet throughout and in the Cape Province it varies up to 200 feet. It is no use having this thing if one does not have the power to control this admiralty ground for purposes of bathing, etc., and to change the regulations if necessary.

*We have a State Land Disposal Act which exists apart from the Sea-shore Act. The law advisers say that it is quite in order for the authority to be delegated to municipalities to apply the regulations there. Dealing with matters of this kind is complicated in an administrative sense by the fact that the Act did not provide for delegation in the past. This is why this amendment is now being introduced. Provision is now being made, therefore, for the Minister to delegate, under section 9, to the Surveyor-General and to other senior officials his powers in regard to the signing of relevant documents as regards the use of this land. I agree with the hon. member that if that is the way he interprets it, the local authority concerned has no say over that piece of land concerned, and that they cannot promulgate regulations in that case. I think we all understand what we have in view with this matter, and in this spirit we want to have the measure passed as it is. That is our whole object.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for what he has done. We can only wait for the first test case so that the necessity of the legislation can then be decided in that way, if a problem arises.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I was not present during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I believe that several questions were put to the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with this clause, and that in his reply to that debate he did indicate that it was his intention to bring under the control of the Act …

Take your hand out of your pocket.

After the rude remarks by hon. members behind me I can maybe continue with my speech. They should learn some manners some time.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Maybe I can continue in peace now. As I was saying, it appears that it was the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to bring under the control of the Act such persons as super market owners and others who would in one way or another assist the farmer to dispose of his produce.

Take your hand out of your pocket.

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

Thank you, Sir. I am very grateful for that protection from the Chair. If there are any particular reasons why the hon. the Deputy Minister feels that he must now control supermarkets and other points of sale of perishable agricultural products, I would be very interested to hear them. I would also be interested to hear what his ideas are in regard to the regulations which he would apply to such supermarkets and other places. It is well known to this Committee that I am the owner of a supermarket and I want to make my position quite clear right now. I do not sell perishable agricultural produce as defined in this Bill in my supermarket at all. I do, however, provide a place where farmers are permitted to come, for no charge, to sell their produce to the people who patronize this particular shopping centre so that there is no question of my being a commission agent in terms of any interpretation of the provisions of this Bill or the regulations under this Bill. I have no personal interest in this Bill whatsoever.

What does interest me is why the hon. the Deputy Minister is now taking control of further outlets of farm produce. I can accept that one has to control markets established by local authorities … [Interjections.] It is very difficult to carry on a responsible argument with this noise going on. It really is very difficult. Be that as it may, I can understand that we need control of public markets which are established by local authorities and of agents who act on behalf of producers, and so on. I accept all that, but where a contractual situation develops between a producer and a distributor which supplies direct to the consumer, I cannot see that this Government needs to interfere. If a farmer contracts with a supermarket to supply his produce under certain conditions and the supermarket owner then sells them to the best advantage, I cannot see that it is necessary for this Deputy Minister to control this sort of thing. I assume this is what he intends controlling by this clause and I wonder if he would answer some of the points I have raised, so that we can see whether it is necessary to discuss this point any further.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is quite right. It is precisely because we cannot exercise control at a chain store. It is a market with a market master and falls under the commission system applicable to municipal markets. But it is not a chain store. However, the matter will be adjusted. Where the man has a cash register and the type of business undertaking where he does not make out papers as is done at a market, it is not practicable to exercise the control. We do not want to create problems in those cases where a farmer does not supply directly to a chain store. That is precisely the intention, and that is why it is stated here— Accordingly provision is made for a possible departure from the prescribed procedure.

This is the case to which you are referring, and it does not relate to this case.

I accept what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, but I do not think he has quite grasped the situation as I see it. I did not quite follow his argument about not being able to issue an invoice. Why should an invoice be issued?

It is not necessary.

But where a contractual relationship is established, where a farmer comes to a supermarket owner and undertakes to supply him with cabbages, pumpkins and everything else he produces, obviously, from the supermarket’s point of view and from the point of view of the consumer and housewife, this is the ideal situation, because the goods arrive fresh; they are supplied fresh. All extraneous costs are cut out. They can be supplied at the lowest possible price. Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister want to control it? This is what I cannot understand. He makes provision for exemptions —I accept that—but until such time as exemption is provided all these other regulations which have been made will apply to a supermarket owner. If I did happen to contract with a farmer to supply to me the fresh produce for sale in my supermarket, I will be subject to all these regulations. I must mention some of them. In terms of paragraph (f) the Minister prescribes that a return shall be furnished by the dealer, the supermarket owner. He has to sit down and furnish returns to the Minister of how many bags of cabbages he has purchased, etc. He has to submit at what price they have been purchased.

Do you know what a commission agent is?

As I read it, these regulations will be made applicable to all supermarket owners and other distributors of fresh produce, unless specifically exempted by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I would save time by telling the hon. member that this is merely an enabling provision. We are not going to apply it at the moment, but as matters develop it may perhaps become necessary later. The hon. member will understand—at the moment, for example, 90 per cent of our potatoes are sold on the municipal markets. There are very few farmers who have fixed contracts with chain stores. But the other farmer who supplies to the fresh produce market pays a levy of 1 cent per bag.

Now we are getting it.

I said that there was no invoice system at a chain store so that one may exercise control. In the rural areas in particular the farmer supplies to the shopkeeper and then one does not want all the extra trouble. That is why the provision has been omitted. But as matters develop we may eventually find that the position is the very reverse. For example, 90 per cent of the farmers would supply direct to the chain stores, but because it is a product over which you must have control—there is the Potato Board, for example—it is in actual fact a surplus reduction or removal scheme. It must have R2 million or R3 million in its pocket if something happens as at the moment. It must have funds. But at the moment it is no real problem, and we do not want to handicap a farmer who has an outlet in this way. The Citrus Board has an arrangement on a voluntary basis in respect of the farmer who sells along the roadside, in terms of which it tells him, “We accept your word; we give you permission to sell oranges along the roadside, but you must send us the levy of two cents a pocket every month.” The department cannot check how many pockets that man has sold along the roadside; we simply have to take his word for it. But in the case of the municipal market the invoices are there and you can determine on the basis of these what amount the agent must pay to the Citrus Board for its levy fund At the moment this is not the position in the case of chain stores, and for the present I cannot see that it will be necessary, viewed in the light of the volume of business that goes to chain stores. We are speaking the same language. The hon. member must not be concerned that another handicap is being introduced here. If he views the matter as a whole, he will see that he is quite right; it is not applicable and it is for that reason that exceptions are or may be made.

Sir, I can now follow why the Government has introduced this. May I make just one last appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister? Will he please, as soon as this becomes of force and effect, exempt all those who are dealing with products to which no marketing scheme applies? I can see the necessity for this in the case of potatoes and the citrus industry, for instance, where there are marketing regulations and control and where such levies are payable. Certain farmers and certain agents are escaping the payment of the levy. I therefore accept control in the case of those products; it is an accepted principle in this country. But I plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to issue a general exemption to all those people who are dealing particularly with fresh vegetables, so that they will not be affected by these regulations as they have been promulgated.

Mr. Chairman, at the moment that is so. You can go and deliver cabbages, cauliflower or beetroot at Warwick Webber’s Cash Store without paying any levy. That is the situation at the moment.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister give me the regulations?

Yes, I can give them to the hon. member.

Clause put and agreed to.

I just want to put a few questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with the application of this Act in South-West Africa. When we amended the Dairy Act here last year to provide for the manufacture of yellow margarine, the Deputy Minister said that as far as the manufacture of this product was concerned, a certain quota would be allocated. If this is made applicable in South-West Africa, is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to allocate a special quota for the manufacturers there, or is the quota which is allowed for the Republic of South Africa going to include a special share for South-West Africa? I think this is important, since a difference of opinion exists outside the House of Assembly at the moment about whether there is sufficient margarine in the country and whether or not the quota is going to be increased. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should just explain to us whether he is going to make applicable in South-West Africa the provisions of clause 3, as regards quotas for the manufacture of margarine, yes or no.

Sir, South-West Africa exported butter in the past, but the position has changed to such an extent that South-West Africa now has to import butter from the Republic. The Dairy Board of South-West Africa has agreed to the manufacture of margarine being allowed in South-West. Consequently there will be no problem. The hon. member is quite right. Our quotas here are too small at the moment, and to be able to meet the requirements of South-West Africa as well, we will have to allocate a separate quota for the requirements of South-West Africa, without affecting the Republic’s quotas. The hon. member raised the question of whether there is a shortage of margarine. There is no shortage of margarine. There is far too much margarine, because there is white margarine lying on the shelves which nobody wants to buy. This is merely a psychological aversion, because one cannot taste the difference between the two. You only have to close your eyes and you will not know whether you are having white or yellow margarine. It has now been decided that the manufacturers may make yellow their unconsumed quotas of white margarine— approximately 6 000 tons. This request came from them and the Dairy Board agreed. We undertook always to consult the Dairy Board in allocating additional quotas. But the hon. member must remember that there are many thousands of cream producers in this country. One cannot throw those cream producers to the dogs. Our consumption of butter has dropped by 38 per cent. Why? When you walk into a shop you keep hearing the house-wife being recommended to “buy yellow margarine”, because it is subject to a quota. The housewife who came to buy a tin of shoe polish then decides to buy yellow margarine as well because she is afraid that it may not be available tomorrow. America took the point of view that if you threw open the yellow margarine market and allowed people to eat it from morning till night the novelty of yellow margarine would soon disappear. This story that the housewife has to buy yellow margarine because there is a quota is merely a sales stunt. Many of our cream producers are aware of this. The shopkeepers advertise the fact that there is a quota for the very reason that they want to sell their margarine. The position as regards the hon. member’s question is that there will be additional quotas for South-West Africa; they will not come from the existing quotas of the Republic.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has made some rather interesting statements here. He started off by saying that the hon. member for Newton Park was right in saying that there is a shortage of yellow margarine in this country, and then he went on to say that there was a surplus of white margarine. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is possible to produce white margarine of the same quality, the same texture and the same taste as yellow margarine. Is it possible?

Can you tell the difference between yellow and white margarine if you are blindfolded?

Yes.

On bread?

This is the whole crux of the argument of the housewives who want their yellow margarine as it is produced today and as it is sold in the shops, not only because of the colour— and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that I am right …

It is psychological.

No, it is not only the question of colour; it is also a question of quality, texture and flavour. The point I wish to make is that even in South-West Africa, where we are applying this now, it is quite possible for the margarine manufacturers to make margarine of that quality, texture and taste and to bleach it white. There is no need for it to be made yellow; this is the point that I wish to make to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Do you want it white or do you want it yellow, or do you want it both?

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister accept that while margarine can be made so that it has the same quality, the same texture—which means that it will not melt all over your kitchen if you take it out of the fridge, and that it is not so hard when you take it out of the fridge that you cannot spread it—and has the same taste, with the added salt and other additives to give it the flavour of butter? [Interjections.] Very well, let me put the argument a different way. Are the ingredients in yellow margarine and in white margarine the same?

They can be.

That is the whole point, Sir. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister use the power which he has to dictate to the margarine manufacturers that white margarine shall be the same quality as yellow margarine and that white margarine shall have the same ingredients as yellow margarine, with the one exception of colouring?

It is not necessary.

Why is it not necessary? I disagree with the hon. the Deputy Minister when he says that it is not necessary. It is necessary because the quota of yellow margarine is perhaps running out, or has run out.

It has been increased already.

Sir, this is an interesting statement. It has been increased already.

Yes, we had a discussion this morning.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us by how much the quota has been increased?

I will tell you just now.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister tells us by how much this has been increased, I wonder if he can tell us also in what way he is going to protect the dairy industry. Has the Dairy Board accepted this? And, most important of all, will he compel the margarine manufacturers to make white margarine of the same quality as yellow margarine and with the same ingredients as yellow margarine, with the exception of the colouring? Because I feel that this is important, and another very important question I must ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is this. Before he took this decision, which now appears to have been taken, was the Deputy Minister satisfied that the whole quota had been produced of yellow margarine, the whole quota of 12 000 tons?

Yes.

Because the first shortage of yellow margarine we had was in the middle of January this year when manufacturers threw their hands up and said they had no more yellow margarine to sell and they wanted to increase their production. [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister must not interrupt here, because I deal with this stuff and I know that my quota was cut from 25 cases to two cases per week because they said there was no yellow margarine.

The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Did you pay?

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to say that the hon. member did not pay?

It was only a point of information.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

My quota was cut because of the shortage. The position is that a quota of 12 000 metric tons had been allocated to the manufacturers of yellow margarine in this country. Now the Deputy Minister tells us that none of this is going to South West Africa and that all of it is going to be sold in this country. Now he tells us that he has granted an increase in this quota over and above the 12 000 tons. I ask whether he is satisfied that all the 12 000 metric tons have been produced, before he grants an increase in the quota. Because in terms of replies to questions I put to the hon. the Deputy Minister, as at the end of January nearly two-thirds of the quota had been produced and at the rate at which they were producing it, as at the end of February only in the region of 10 000 tons out of the 12 000 tons would have been produced. Now there is something wrong somewhere, and I think this is where the hon. the Deputy Minister was so right earlier on when he commented that the housewife walks into the supermarket and buys yellow margarine because she knows it is on quota. A campaign has been waged in this country, a psychological campaign, directed against that hon. Deputy Minister and the Government.

The hon. member must come back to the clause.

With respect, Sir, we are now discussing the provisions regarding the production of margarine for South-West Africa and my intention is to warn the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must not fall for the same trap in South-West Africa as was set for him here in the Republic, and I must explain what that trap is. The trap is that a psychological war has been waged against the hon. the Deputy Minister by the margarine manufacturers who started talking about a shortage and their quota being finished long before they got half-way through using up their quota, and it was done with two objects, firstly to sell margarine, and secondly to pressure the Government into increasing the quota and once again, for one reason only, and that is for the purpose of making money. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister has promised interesting replies to my questions and I hope I will get them.

I said the other day that it would be bliss to be on the Opposition side and that I would put up a much better show than that hon. member did to get a few votes among the housewives. He expressly asked me whether we were going to increase the yellow margarine quota. When I said “Yes” he immediately shrieked: “But what about the dairy farmer?” That was his immediate reaction. If I had said “No”, he would have said “What about the housewives?” Now I ask you, Sir! Whenever we talk about the Dairy Act the hon member drags margarine into the discussion. Now I just want to tell the hon. member he is quite right. White margarine does not have the qualities of yellow margarine because it was formerly used mainly as cooking fat. It does not have the texture, but it can be made the same.

Will you force them to do so?

Why should we force them to do so? Yellow margarine does have those qualities. But on one point the two of us agree, that there is a psychological effect, and if something is on quota you particularly want to buy it, and we want to get away from that and the Dairy Board agrees. Now the hon. member asks in what way we are protecting the dairy farmer. We found in January that these people would exceed their quotas of 12 000 tons, which were to have been for a period of nine months, and then we told them not to think that they could use up their quota and then run to the Press and say that the quota had been used up and that the Government does not want them to have a larger quota. Our butter sales dropped by 37 per cent, and we are building up surpluses. I then said my duty was to protect the farmers.

That is exactly what they did.

Then they said that they would spread it more evenly in future, hut they had already sold too much. They immediately abandoned their advertising campaigns. You saw the card in the letterboxes of flats which said that if you took ten you would get five cents discount on a specific brand of margarine. It sold like hot cakes. We also want to produce cheap food, but all the same we cannot allow an industry in which thousands of farmers produce butter to be ruined. We then said that we would keep the quota as it was. But the pressure came and they came with a request that white margarine should no longer be sold as it had been in the past. Just as butter sales dropped, the sales of white margarine also dropped. And those manufacturers did not lie. You say we should try to ascertain whether they were sold out in January. In terms of what they should have produced pro rata until the 12 000 tons had run out, they had overproduced, and so we decided this morning, after consultation with the Dairy Board— and I want to emphasize very strongly that this matter was decided after consultation with the Dairy Board and that it has their full support—that the existing quota of 6 000 tons of white margarine may now be made yellow. But, Sir, I should just like to know whether the hon. members agree with the clause, or what are we talking about now?

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has come to the attention of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that certain farm feeds, agricultural remedies and stock remedies which for some or other technical reason could not be registered in the Republic have in fact been registered in South-West Africa. Manufacturers have apparently made use of this opportunity because the relevant Ordinance has not been applied so strictly, mainly as a result of a lack of the necessary technical knowledge. The matter was taken up with, inter alia, the South-West Africa Agricultural Union, which requested the department to make the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act of 1947 applicable to the territory of South-West Africa as soon as possible in order to bring about the necessary uniformity. This request is gladly acceded to in order to protect the agricultural industry there. As soon as certain preparatory work is completed, the Seeds Act of 1961 will also be made applicable to the territory of South-West Africa in order to close certain loop-holes which may arise as a result of the repeal of the Ordinance concerned.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to this legislation being passed, and since it is virtually impossible to have any new discussion which is of any importance in regard to this legislation, as it has been discussed before, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we support the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) to revert to clause 1; and
2. (b) to consider the advisability of making provision in the definition of “agricultural land” that the Minister of Agriculture may declare the land referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition to be agricultural land for the purposes of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970.

The reason for this motion is the fact that a ruling has been given that an instruction is required for the purposes of such an amendment to clause 1 of the Bill. I may add that this motion was discussed with the Chief Whip of the Opposition beforehand.

Instruction put and agreed to.

Before the Committee continues with clause 4 of the Bill, I want to convey to the Committee the resolution which has just been adopted by the House.

Clause 4 (cont.):

Mr. Chairman, other speakers on this side of the House have indicated some of the reasons why we cannot support the proposed amendment to section 4. I would like briefly to add some comment to what has already been said. The effect of this amendment is that if the Minister is prepared to grant an application for subdivision, he will now be able to include conditions as to the purpose of the subdivision which he is about to grant and the manner in which the subdivision of land may be used. If the purpose for which the subdivision is being granted, is another agricultural purpose, there may be something to be said for a Minister of Agriculture to state the purpose for which that smaller area of land may be used, but even in such instances, it can be argued that the Minister ought not to have such a power. But, Mr. Chairman, I can see no justification whatsoever for the Minister of Agriculture to lay down that a subdivision which he is about to grant, may be used for a non-agricultural purpose, such as township development, and then proceed to lay down conditions for the development of that land. The proposed amendment gives the Minister of Agriculture precisely that power. He seems to have suggested to the House in the Second Reading debate that he wanted such a wide power, because, referring to clause 4, the Deputy Minister said—

That is subdivision. He continued—

Then he goes on to refer to a possible restriction on the distance of a dwelling from a river such as the Vaal River. I want to deal specifically with the first part of the sentence, namely “What is contemplated here is the number of dwelling-houses on any specific piece of land”. With due respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and his department, what do they know about township development? In fact, what have they to do in this sphere? Surely, this is entirely a misuse of their powers and functions. In fact, when they are dealing with a matter of this sort, they are wasting their time. They should be dealing with agricultural matters. What, may I ask, does the hon. the Deputy Minister want a power of this sort for? Surely, if he grants a subdivision for the purpose of township development or incorporation within a local authority area, then under such circumstances there is no justification for him having a power to state the manner in which that land should be used. Once he has granted a subdivision for a non-agricultural purpose, surely it should be out of his hands and should go into the hands of a body which is competent to deal with land development, such as the provincial authorities or a local authority. I would like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister why he requires the power, as he stated in his Second Reading speech, to lay down the number of dwelling-houses which shall be erected on a specific piece of land in respect of which he has granted permission for subdivision. We can see no justification for it. Unless we have a satisfactory explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister, we must oppose this proposed amendment.

I do not think the Opposition can take it amiss of us on this side of the House if we accuse them of not being consistent. As far as clause 4 is concerned, it was not at all acceptable to that side of the House. Then there was an amendment by the hon. member for Albany to amend it in some small measure. I do not see the amendment here any more. But in his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister gave a very clear example, which is not acceptable to the Opposition now. However, I want to refer to what appears on the Order Paper for tomorrow. There is a private motion by the hon. member for Albany which reads—

This is precisely what the hon. the Minister is asking this House, in order to be able to plan. He has mentioned, inter alia, the example of the distance at which a certain building, or a group of buildings such as those which the hon. member referred, may be erected from the river. I suggest that we support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down could not have read the private motion of the hon. member for Albany at all because that motion has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill before the House. It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with clause 4.

But this clause deals purely with planning.

It deals specifically with the question of damage by flooding. What has that to do with this Bill?

This is planning to combat it. There may also be subdivision adjacent to a river.

The hon. member must not jump into the debate without knowing what it is all about. I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with the question that I have raised, because I submit to him once again that this is a matter of considerable importance. With great respect, I emphasize to him and his department that they are involved in agricultural matters, not in any other matters, especially not in township development. I can see no reason whatsoever why, if the hon. the Deputy Minister grants permission for the subdivision of agricultural land for a non-agricultural purpose, such as township development, he should then proceed to stipulate how many dwelling-houses should be erected on that land.

Order! The hon. member advanced that argument in his first speech.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will be obliged if the hon. the Deputy Minister would reply, so that I can then take the matter further.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Musgrave is using the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech, in which he spoke, inter alia, about the number of houses that may be erected on a specific piece of land after it has been subdivided. In actual fact this concept has nothing to do with township development. It deals with the subdivision of land in rural areas for purposes other than agricultural purposes. We stated the example very clearly last time. I do not think the hon. member was present then.

Read the Deputy Minister’s speech in column 717.

If, for example, the Minister were to allow subdivision to take place for a specific purpose, as requested, he would not have the power, in terms of the present Act, to say that a small piece of land which is, for example, cut off from a big farm of 1 000 morgen, may be used for a specific purpose, such as the establishment of a grain silo, a quarry or something of that nature. He has no power to do this, and this clause only empowers him to say that he is prepared to have these pieces of land cut off for a specific purpose. Then that land must be used for that purpose. If the land is not used for that purpose, it automatically falls back for agricultural purposes. This is briefly what the whole of this clause amounts to. As far as I am concerned, the development of townships is not involved here.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard some fresh arguments this afternoon, but of all the fresh arguments I have heard the most ridiculous is that of the hon. member for Bethal, who has just sat down. He says that this clause has nothing to do with township development. [Interjections.] It is all very well for the hon. member for False Bay to react like this, but let me ask him if he believes too that this clause has nothing to do with township development.

I shall reply in a moment.

I believe he is a member of above average intelligence, and I want to ask him if he believes too that this clause has nothing to do with township development. If he is going to answer just now, it is fine. I am, however, sure that if he is going to use the intelligence God gave him, he is going to agree with us that this clause has everything to do with township development. You have a third body that is now going to control township development. What is the object of the subdivision which this hon. Deputy Minister is now trying to stop?

Order! That argument has already been used by the hon. member for Musgrave.

Which argument is that?

About township development. The hon. member should abide by my ruling.

I abide by your ruling, Sir, as I always do, but I am trying to put the point to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the whole object of the Act which we are now amending is to control the subdivision of land which is being subdivided into uneconomic units in an agricultural sense, or when it is subdivided for the purposes of the development of townships. Following on from that, this now becomes the third controlling body that we have on this question of the subdivision for township development.

Order! That argument has already been advanced by the hon. member for Musgrave.

About the third body?

The hon. member must abide by my ruling. He must proceed to a new point.

The question I want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister is which of those three bodies is the one who decides first. What has been happening in practice is that the province says that they will not consider an application until the Minister of Agriculture has given his decision.

That is only in Natal.

It might be only in Natal. When we go to the Minister of Agriculture and ask his permission, he says that he will not do anything until he hears what the province says. If we happen to decide to start with the Minister of Planning, if an area happens to fall within a proclaimed area, he replies that he first wants to hear what the Minister of Agriculture says or what the province says. This is the whole point. This is what is happening now. We will now have a trilogy of controlling bodies. One cannot get any sense out of any one of them. The point that we have made over and over again is that it is unnecessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to have this control. He himself admits that he knows little about township development. He knows nothing, so why …

When did I say that I know about township development?

You said it last time we were discussing this matter. He admitted that he was not interested in the smaller subdivisions. In terms of Act 10 of 1944 the provinces already have the power to control the purpose for which land shall be used and the manner in which it shall be used for subdivisions of more than 25 morgen in extent. These are the subdivisions which are the first steps towards township development. As these powers are already exercised by the provinces—and I believe that they are freely exercised and that they do a good job of work—I do not see why this hon. Deputy Minister …

Order! The hon. member is now back on township development and I do not want him to argue that point again.

I am dealing with the power which the hon. the Minister is now asking, namely to make conditions as to the purpose for which or the manner in which the land in question may be used. I am dealing with subdivisions of less than 25 morgen, or 50 acres in Natal. The hon. the Deputy Minister wants to control this too, however, despite the control that is already exercised by the provinces. The other day I also asked the hon. the Deputy Minister about larger subdivisions, because this clause does not only apply to the smaller subdivisions which could go towards the development of townships. If a man has a farm of 10 000 morgen in the Karoo and he wishes to subdivide it between his two sons and wants to give each son 5 000 morgen, in terms of this clause that hon. Deputy Minister has the power to say to that farmer that he can subdivide that land, but on certain conditions. He can for instance say that on this half you shall only farm with sheep. He can then go further and tell the farmer how he shall farm with his sheep, that he must dose them three times a year for some disease, that he must shear them once a year, and so on. I am being extreme, because the hon. the Minister is asking extreme Dowers of this Committee this afternoon. That is why I am being so extreme. At the same time that the Deputy Minister makes those regulations on the one half, he can make completely different regulations on the other half.

You are exaggerating. You think they are hearing you in Oudtshoorn.

I have no interest in Oudtshoorn at this stage. I know what the result in Oudtshoorn is going to be. There are going to be gains for the United Party, and we are very happy about it. We are not worried about Oudtshoorn, but it is quite obvious that the other side is very worried about Oudtshoorn. These are my questions. Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister want these far-reaching powers? I believe that we on this side of the House have made out a case that there is already sufficient control of the manner in which small subdivisions can be used. All this leaves me with only one conclusion, namely that the hon. the Deputy Minister wants this power to apply to larger subdivisions, i.e. those that are beyond the scope of Act 10 of 1944. It is for that reason that we oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think the problem which the hon. member for Musgrave has, is that in assessing clause 4 he is misinterpreting the motivation of the hon. the Deputy Minister when he explained the clause. In referring to what was said by the hon. the Deputy Minister, one finds in his speech in Hansard that he said there were certain deficiencies in the existing legislation which he would have liked to cover. At the time he used two examples as motivation for the amendment to section 4, which is also being considered here at the moment. Inter alia he used the example that he wished to remove a building from a river. In the second place, the hon. the Deputy Minister referred in his Second Reading speech to the number of houses one was permitted to build on land which was the subject of the application for subdivision. To my mind hon. members are wrongly trying to deduce a principle from this explanation which was given by the hon. the Deputy Minister for the motivation of the clause. The principle which both hon. members are deducing from it, is that it now gives the hon. the Minister the right to control township development, whilst township development is the function of the local authorities and of the provincial administrations. Surely, that is not the correct inference that can be made from it. I think hon. members are forgetting that in considering clause 4, one should do so within its context. The original Act, the amending Bill under discussion and this clause in particular, were introduced in order to deal with specific situation from an agricultural point of view. I am saying this in all earnest. I can imagine—I want to be quite reasonable now—that hon. members opposite can, if they wish to do so, read something into the hon. the Deputy Minister’s proposals which is not to be found in them. Jt would perhaps be proper if I explained this example. Agricultural land forms the subject of a particular application lodged with the Minister’s department. The purpose of the application in question for cutting off a small portion of that land, is that the person may build a holiday house for himself on it. The Minister may now say that the cutting off of a morgen or two of land will not prejudice the economic value of the total piece of land, as an economic agricultural unit, from which that small portion is cut off. If this does not prejudice the economic agricultural unit, then I say that one may cut off land in order to build a dwelling on it. This does not concern township development at all. It goes without saying that the provincial administrations can control township development in terms of their legislation, this means the development of the township, and it also means control over any evasion of the provisions of the ordinance, where one develops a township without undertaking proper planning. These two things are not on the same level at all. Therefore I want to tell hon. members that, as a result of a provisio laid down by the hon. the Deputy Minister, they should not infer from the specific section that he wants to become a third authority over township development, and, secondly, that he wants to remove the functions of other levels of administration. The hon. member for Newton Park will grant me this. In regard to this particular clause he made the statement that when the 1944 legislation was introduced, it was done under a specific set of circumstances. He conceded at once that the set of circumstances which existed at the time, was being controlled effectively at present by way of legislation other than the 1944 legislation. I think he will concede that. But even in 1944, when that legislation was passed in order to control a a specific set of circumstances, for a specific purpose—I am using the hon. member’s own argument now—township ordinances which could deal with this specific situation were already in force in the various provinces, but that legislation sought to achieve an object different from that of the township ordinance. Hon. members must in all fairness agree with us that controlling authorities for township development do already exist, but in spite of that legislation which exists today, there is a need for this legislation from another point of view, i.e. from the agricultural-economic point of view. In a case where the Minister is convinced that an application for a minor subdivision should be approved, he will assess it in the light of the purpose for which the applicant wishes to use that land. If the applicant says, “I want to build a holiday house for myself,” or, “I want to build a granary for myself,” I cannot see how we can find any fault with the fact that the Minister will, in accordance with the applicant’s application, impose restrictive conditions on the subdivision in approving the application. I just want to repeat the point that at present it is possible for the provinces to control the subdivision of land into units smaller than 25 morgen in extent; the basic function of the provinces is township development and town planning, but we have nevertheless granted them the right to apply in point of fact a different norm, in terms of a power different from those normally vested in them, to deal with a situation. We have granted them that power, and that power still exists today, but the situation no longer exists. The hon. member for Newton Park said that we should not only read what is provided in the Act; that we should also go back to the motivation. In all fairness I now ask him this question : Is it not possible for us to get this clause in its perspective and then to reduce it to the object of the legislation? If this is done, I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that their objection will fall away.

Sir the hon. member expects me to reply to him. I can only agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for False Bay. Last week we discussed, down to the minutest detail, the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District in regard to the establishment of townships. The hon. member referred to a person with 10 000 morgen. If that person wants to cut off one morgen for a drive in theatre, then we cut it off, but it is subject to a condition, and that is what he is feeling unhappy about. That person may cut off that one morgen, but then we impose the condition that the land has to be used for a drive-in theatre, for a quarry or whatever it may be. Mr. Chairman, let us get down to the fundamentals. Hon. members opposite want to go to the farmer and to the public and say, “See what drastic measures this Government is using.” I now want to ask the hon. member for Walmer whether they, if they should ever come into power in the remote future, would repeal this Act? Would they say, “You are welcome to cut up the land as you please, to your hearts’ content.” This they would definitely not do, but for the present it is very handy for them to put up this performance. Sir, we have no ulterior motive; a good government is a government which has the courage of its convictions and which says, like a man, “You are making a mess of this piece of land by cutting it up into small pieces, and we refuse to allow it.” By doing so one is taking a firm line, not for the sake of the small number of township developers who want to make money, but for the sake of preserving the soil and the future of this country. I cannot see how we can argue about this matter any longer.

Sir, I am disappointed that the hon. the Deputy Minister has adopted the same attitude as the hon. member for False Bay. In fact, he did not even try to deal with my argument at all. He merely referred me to what the hon. member for False Bay had said. What the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side must appreciate is that there are two important changes being made by the amendment introduced in this Bill before the House. Whereas before, when granting a subdivision of agricultural land, the Minister had no power to define the purpose for which that subdivided land shall be used, now in terms of these amendments these two important changes are being introduced. Sir, we often hear in this House, when the Government presents certain amendments to this House and we point out to the Government what the effect of them will be, that that is not the intention. We keep pointing out to hon. members on that side that this legislation will have the effect which we maintain it will have. It is not denied that the clause is as wide as we contend. The hon. the Deputy Minister, however, simply persists in saying that what we contend is not intended.

The hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for False Bay are doing exactly the same thing once again in regard to clause 4. They do not deny that the clause as it is worded is as wide as I have contended, namely that it does enable the hon. the Minister in granting a subdivision for a non-agricultural purpose, for the purpose of township development, to lay down the conditions under which that land shall be developed as a township. There can be no doubt about it.

Order!

I will not pursue this any longer, Sir, if you will just permit me to round off my argument. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for False Bay have conceded that the clause is wide enough.

I did not concede that at all.

Yet they contend to the House that it is not the purpose to do this because they do not wish to transgress the present authorities who deal with this matter. Now, if that is the case, then we say that they must present legislation which will have the effect that they want and that they will not go beyond the effect that they want, and as this clause does just this, we cannot support it and we will certainly vote against it.

It is astonishing that the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg District and Musgrave are arguing about clause 4 at this stage and, in doing so, are only using the example mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister in his Hansard, without considering the section as printed in the Bill. That is essential. On looking at clause 4 and in looking at this specific amendment which we have before us and also at the specific Act which this Bill is amending, we see that everything is concerned with agricultural land only. If one wishes in any way to interpret an Act, be it as a lawyer or as a general dealer, it is absolutely essential that one should at least consider every section within its full context in the Act, and we cannot read clause 4 without reading it together with section 1 of the Act. I want to put it this way: The objections raised by the hon. members for Musgrave and Pietermaritzburg District would simply fall away if they took a look at section 1. Section 1 disposes of township development and that is that, and clause 4 simply deals with nothing but agricultural land. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that he should take the Deputy Minister’s speech and read from the beginning what he said about clause 4. As the Act reads at present, only conditions as to consolidation and joining may be imposed. That is the Act of 1970, the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, and those are the only conditions which were incorporated in that Act and which the Minister and his department may impose. Now, it has become very apparent that as far as agricultural land as such is concerned, we cannot content ourselves with those two conditions only.

What is agricultural land?

It is not my fault if the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District does not know what agricultural land is. I can only tell the hon. member to take a look at the definition in the previous Act, and then he will see what agricultural land is. I do not wish to repeat arguments which were used by the hon. member for False Bay and the hon. the Deputy Minister and to which reference has already been made by the hon. members. I myself also had a problem in this regard. For instance, take the case of the erection of a grinding mill. A certain piece of land has to be added in order to enable the miller to use that land productively—if the hon. member for Turffontein would give us a chance, we shall talk. In such a case it is essential for the Deputy Minister or the department to have the power to be able to say, “This is agricultural land, and we want to make it available for a specific purpose and in a specific manner.” The hon. members have now been running away with the example mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I want to elaborate on it by putting it this way: This is so essential to us in the rural areas where we are dealing with agricultural land, as was referred to by the hon. member for Bethal, that we also want to refer to it in another context. In cases where agricultural co-operative societies have to erect houses on agricultural land, the Deputy Minister or any Minister may not simply allow those cooperative societies, which have to provide their people or their Bantu with housing there, to erect any number of houses on such land. I think it is only a good Government which can understand legislation such as this measure. The hon. members do not want to understand this legislation. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District only started to understand this legislation when he took his hand out of his trouser-pocket.

The hon. member for Durban Musgrave views this whole matter simply and solely from the point of view of a person living in an urban area. He cannot imagine what the situation can be in the rural areas in regard to this type of problem. I want to conclude by saying that we should not read clause 4 on its own. We should read it together with clause 1 and together with the Act which we passed in 1970 already. If we do that, we will already have solved all these matters.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot understand what the arguments are about that have been raised here, arguments about pieces of agricultural land wanted by agricultural co-operative societies, about grain elevators, and so forth. Where did these pieces of land come from and where did these grain elevators come from before this legislation was presented to this House? Surely, there was no difficulty? Just after the previous session, during the recess, I read in Landbounuus that the hon. the Deputy Minister had opened grain elevators at Kempton Park. How had they acquired that land? Is it necessary for this …

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member? Is the hon. member prepared to answer questions?

No.

No, he is not prepared.

Why are you so scared?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I simply cannot understand how this argument can be put forward in connection with this clause, for these facilities were available in the past. It has always been possible to build grain elevators, it has always been possible to acquire land for the buildings of a co-operative society, and it has always been possible to acquire land for building a warehouse for a cooperative society. There has always been legislation to permit this, but now these arguments are advanced in order to justify this clause. I simply cannot understand it.

Clause 4 put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5.

Mr. Chairman, clause 5 seeks to amend section 6 of the principal Act, to which we were opposed originally. And because we are still not satisfied with the amendment being proposed here, we on this side are going to vote against this amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister too.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, as we indicated at the Second Reading of this Bill, this is one of the clauses that we do not like. But in the light of other clauses that have been passed previously, this clause becomes in fact largely consequential. Therefore, other than record our opposition, we will not oppose this clause.

I should like to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister briefly to a consequence which is probably not intended and to which he could perhaps give his attention at a later stage. This clause refers to the registration of servitudes. In order to register a servitude, the servitude itself must be surveyed by a surveyor and a servitude diagram has to be prepared and presented to the Surveyor-General for registration before it goes to the Registrar of Deeds at all. In the case of a subdivision, the 1970 Act made provision for this situation. I should like to refer to section 2 of that Act. Section 2 (d) states—

In other words, in the case of a subdivision of land, the main Act provides that where a survey had been completed and the diagram had been lodged with the Surveyor-General prior to the commencement of the main Act, that particular land was exempted from those provisions. That is fair, because quite a lot of money would have been spent in obtaining a survey and preparing the diagrams, and presenting them to the Surveyor-General. No similar provision is included in this amending Bill, in the case of the registration of servitudes. I believe that the House will want a similar provision to be included, because the same circumstances would apply; the persons concerned would have spent money obtaining a survey of a servitude and having a servitude diagram prepared, which would then have been lodged with the Surveyor-General. The House will appreciate that it is only after the servitude diagram has been passed by the Surveyor-General that it can be lodged with the Registrar of Deeds. It is only at that stage that the Registrar of Deeds can examine it with a view to seeing whether it amounts to a subdivision in effect, in which case he can throw it out. I do feel that it is fair that a similar provision should be made to apply and it seems to me that probably the only way in which this will be possible, will be for the hon. the Deputy Minister to introduce an amendment in the Other Place to section 2 of the main Act, by adding a new paragraph (f), which I suggest should be made to read—

This will have the effect of exempting from the provisions of this amending Bill those surveys that have reached the stage of completion of the survey and the completion of the preparation of the survey diagram.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite correct in saying that servitudes which have been approved by the Surveyor-General and the Registrar of Deeds will then not be applicable to subdivision. However, there may be some servitudes which have already been entered into. We do not make provision for that in this clause. We shall go into the matter to see whether such an amendment to section 2 of the Act will be necessary; we shall discuss this with the law advisers. Our attitude is that we do not want to waste people’s money. If a person has entered into a servitude prior to the commencement of this Act, we want to be reasonable as far as that is concerned. However, there are some servitudes which are ipso facto, where no oil pipeline registration has to take place. This does not create any problems. But if a person wants a servitude of 100 morgen, it really is a subdivision and then it is lodged with the Registrar of Deeds and with the Surveyor-General in any event. As I have already said, we shall consider the hon. member’s proposal and see whether we have to effect an amendment in the Other Place.

May I just put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In the case of a province having taken these powers prior to the commencement of this legislation and applying them with retrospective effect will it be possible to adjust the position by means of this legislation so that those people do not suffer losses? This has happened in Natal.

Yes, it will be possible.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 8 put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, we have indicated clearly on the Order Paper our opposition to this clause. The principle involved here has been debated under clause 4 and in the Second Reading. We object to it.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, on a previous occasion we have already had a discussion concerning the amendment of the 1944 Act. In this clause the hon. the Deputy Minister is deleting the words “into portions of which any one is of an extent of less than 25 morgen …” from section 1 of the Provincial Powers Extension Act, 1944. In other words as I read this clause, it means that the provinces are now relinquishing their power in such cases. But, as I read it, there is another alternative, and that is that the provinces may have a say also in the event of a person wishing to subdivide land into portions which will be larger than 25 morgen in extent.

Smaller.

No, the hon. member for False Bay is quite wrong.

No, if they wish they may subdivide land into portions of 50 morgen too.

Sir, I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us a full explanation of this. In the past, if I wanted to subdivide land into portions which would be smaller than 25 morgen in extent, I had to go to the Provincial Council to obtain its approval. If the provision in respect of the 25 morgen is to be deleted now, it will mean that if I want to subdivide land into portions which will be larger than 25 morgen in extent, I shall have to go to the Provincial Council as well. In that case I want to ask the hon. gentleman why this is necessary? Because this hon. Deputy Minister does have the power now in the case of agricultural land. Is there any reason why he should give the Provincial Council a further power in this connection? I hope the hon. gentleman will explain this to us before we shall be able to advance any further arguments in this regard.

I should like to finish before 7 o’clock if it is possible to do so in practice and if the hon. member just accepts my explanation. After the establishment of the guide plan committee it was decided that certain land was to be withdrawn from agriculture. I put this frankly to you. A single case will be when the province and the Department of Planning decide that there is a need for areas of 26 or 50 morgen. These are withdrawn from agriculture. But according to the guide plan committee it is planned to give people in the area of Johannesburg, Krugersdorp, as far as the Hartbeespoort Dam, the right to establish week-end farms. Anything can happen in the future. One morgen, two morgen, 10 morgen, 25 morgen or 50 morgen may be withdrawn, depending on circumstances. But it is no longer within the discretion of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to take a decision in this regard from the point of view of agriculture. Section 1 of the Provincial Powers Extension Act of 1964 is not affected by this Bill. It merely gives the province the right to indicate needs. This flows from the very request of the hon. member for Mooi River, i.e. that there is a need for holiday farms at Mooi River. The Department of Planning said that was practicable. Now we are just making provision for that.

We follow the argument concerning the request of the hon. member for Mooi River. Surely the position in the past was that if one tried to subdivide land into portions which would be smaller than 25 morgen in extent one had to have approval to do so. Now, however, if that is deleted, if the area has been set aside and I want to subdivide land into areas which will be larger than 25 morgen in extent—this is my whole argument—I may anticipate that the provincial council may restrict me in this regard. Before it could restrict me only if I wanted to subdivide the land into areas which would be smaller than 25 morgen in extent. But now, if this clause is deleted, it may also restrict me if I want to subdivide land into areas which will be larger than 25 morgen in extent. In other words, this will mean that whereas the provincial councils used to have a restricted power over my subdivision of land, their power in this regard will now be considerably more. Now I should like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on this side cannot see the necessity of why this should happen in this case. The previous provision was good enough, and everybody accepted that it was. It was our Act of 1944 which gave a man the right to subdivide if he wanted to subdivide his land into portions which would be more than 25 morgen in extent. For that reason we are going to object to the passing of clause 10.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.