Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned last night, I was sketching to the hon. the Minister the background in regard to the bus boycotts which have taken place at East London and Mdantsane. I stated that although the Railways had run some form of passenger service to Mdantsane, this passenger service was not used to a very great extent. I also want to say that when the bus boycott occurred the Railways did attempt to alleviate the position by the introduction of additional services so that the people from Mdantsane could get into East London. However, towards the end of December or the beginning of January the Railways decided to withdraw these particular services and it was as a result of the withdrawal of these services that the Government was forced to move in another direction. The whole of this situation could have been obviated if the Government had taken heed of the warning that had been issued by the hon. member for East London North some years back to the effect that this very bus service was going to prove inadequate, that it was not going to be adequate to serve the needs of Mdantsane. In fact, he suggested to the then Minister of Transport that a loop line should be built around Mdantsane, this great, big, growing city of over 100 000 persons, in order to serve the people and to ensure that there would not be a breakdown in the availability of labour as far as the industrial areas of East London were concerned. Of course, there was no planning at that time. As I understand it from the debates that took place at that time, the hon. the then Minister indicated that he would not be prepared to move unless the contract with the bus company had been cancelled. Obviously the bus contract had to run for ten years and nothing was done. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he seriously consider the building of a loop line around Mdantsane in order to prevent a similar situation occurring again. Secondly, he must bear in mind the fact that this area is definitely going to become a large industrialized area, not only East London itself but also the Berlin area which lies 20 km from this big city of Mdantsane but in another direction. As a passenger service, this loop line could then serve both East London and the Berlin area. The XDC has in one year been forced to pay just on R8 million in order to take over this bus service whereas, if they had gradually planned this line, the Railways would have been able to build a railway line and give service to the people who are living there at far less cost.

I just want to mention briefly to the hon. the Minister that I think that the people of East London are very disappointed at the answer he gave to a question put to him in this House on 7 March. The question that was put to the hon. the Minister was: Whether he had been informed of the findings of the Maritime Court at Hamburg to the effect that the safety of the East London harbour entrance was in question? In point of fact, his reply was that he had not been informed. A report in this regard appeared as early as 19 February, some three weeks before the date on which this question was put to the hon. the Minister. This newspaper report stated—

My question to the hon. the Minister is this: Does he believe that this is a serious allegation? If he believes that this is a serious allegation, then surely he or his department should have made immediate inquiries in order to get the full text of the findings of the court of inquiry so as to ascertain the facts upon which this finding was based? I believe that the people generally in East London and all shippers who use the East London harbour should be acquainted with the true facts. I believe that the entrance to the East London harbour is infact safe, but in the light of this report, this fact is called in question. I feel that the hon. the Minister should take steps immediately to find out the true facts and to correct the impression which this report gives. I wish to ask him now—and I hope that he will reply to this this afternoon—what steps he has taken in order to discover exactly what the findings of this particular court of inquiry were. I also believe that the whole question of the grounding of the Oranjeland and the whole matter of the entrance to the East London harbour, in fact the whole question of the suitability of the East London harbour, must be put before the public immediately in clear and unequivocal terms.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member said. I say this particularly in view of his reference to the Oranjeland, something which is symbolic of his party today. I should like to raise two matters, if time permits. In the first instance. I should like to discuss the salary structure of the top management of the Railways and, if there is any time left, in the second instance exchange a few ideas concerning the improved benefits of the Sick Fund.

When one considers the salaries of the top management of the Railways in this present Budget, one has to project them against a specific background in order to be able to put the entire matter in the correct perspective. In the first instance, I believe that we have to look at the magnitude, as such, of the Railways as an organization. Perhaps it would be of help to take a brief look at certain statistics, statistics that will give us an overall picture of the situation. There is the fact that the capital investment of the Railways has increased to R3 700 million and that the expenditure on the capital account already amounts to R866 million. Then, too, there is the expenditure on current account of R1 800 million. It should also be taken into account that there are 239 000 people in the service of the S.A. Railways today. One should also take cognizance of the fact that the Railways transports 120 million tons of goods and almost 6 000 million people annually. The Railways is an enormous organization because it incorporates all forms of transport in South Africa. Furthermore—I think it is very important for us to take note of this—the Railways, with the tremendous scope of the manufacturing and maintenance process in its workshops, occupies a position, practically speaking, within the country’s industrial set-up. In the nature of the matter, this fact must play a very important role in determining the Railways’ staff structure.

The Railways is doing a great deal to attract staff these days and it does just as much to retain its staff. The proper remuneration of its employees is not the least facet of this. The most recent example is to be found in the fact that the salary structure of the artisan staff and other related grades has been adjusted recently to compare well, to say the least, with the average emolument paid for comparable work in the private sector. The same goes for the medium level group in the service of the Railways, namely the administrative and professional officials. Now salaries compare reasonably well with the average salary outside the Railway service.

Unfortunately, seen against the background I have tried to sketch here, I am not convinced that the salary structure of the top management is good enough to retain the best talent among our young up- and-coming men within this widespread organization. In case there is any doubt about this statement, we can look at a few examples, of which I want to mention two. According to my information, the head of a semi-State undertaking—e.g. Escom, Sasol, or Iscor—receives a salary up to 60% higher than that of the General Manager of the Railways. It should be borne in mind that the nature of the work is more or less the same, although the scope of the activities of the Railways is far greater in comparison with that of undertakings of this kind. Then, too, there is the example of the chief pilots of the S.A. Airways, who are officials of the S.A. Railways. Their salaries—so as to compare with conditions in the rest of the world—are approximately equal to the salary of the General Manager. Our chief pilots could not, therefore, qualify for salary increases without their salaries exceeding that of the General Manager. I only mention these two examples to you because, if one were to look at the top management in the private sector, one would get the impression that the situation there was in fact such as to be in an entirely different class. As far as the Railways are concerned, we are in an exceptionally fortunate position today in the sense that the people under the leadership of the General Manager, the top team he has around him, are people who do not work for salaries only. There is general agreement that these people in the top management of the Railways are idealists who work with dedication because they do not work for salaries only, but also because they regard it as a calling. But, Sir, I think that we dare not fail, for that reason, to ensure that all this good talent will be available to ensure the necessary planning for an efficient Railway service. We shall have to ensure that the great programmes for expansion, such as those that appear again in this year’s Brown Book and those which must necessarily follow upon them, will be carried out properly. Sir, I want to make an earnest plea today for sufficient attention to be given to the remuneration of the top management of the S.A. Railways. This will ensure that the promising young men who are now moving up—and I want to tell fou, Sir, that there are many highly qualified officials in both the administrative and the professional section—will see an attractive future in their own organization and that they will not easily be enticed away by good offers made by the private sector as is the case today. At the moment the Railways has almost 700 bursary students at various universities studying in various disciplines, and in my opinion it is only right that we should create that ideal future for those young people, for that fine future source of labour for the Railways, in order to ensure the future of the Railways as such.

Sir, in the one minute that is left. I should like to say, with regard to the Sick Fund, that we are pleased about the new adjustments that have been made as a result of the recommendations of the Conradie investigation committee and which incorporate many new benefits for the railwaymen. I want to go so far as to say that the Railways Sick Fund is probably the best of its kind, not only in. South Africa but certainly in the world today. If it is not, then it is most definitely close to being one of the best. Sir, one can talk to various trade union leaders in the Railways. Last week, for example, I talked to a trade union leader who had instituted an international investigation into this situation, and his own conclusion was that nowhere in the world was a comparable fund to be found. He said that the English National Health Scheme, for which taxpayers pay an enormous amount, did not compare with our Railways Sick Fund and that the men of the Trade Union Councils acknowledged this. The same applies to the Americans’ Railway Sick Fund. It cannot in any way compare with the Sick Fund of the S.A. Railways. Sir, I do not think that there is any sick fund that has paid R5 000 in compensation to a single patient in the course of one year. This may perhaps have been by way of an exception, but it is almost a general rule that as much as R3 000 is often paid. The Sick Fund of the S.A. Railways is undoubtedly the best fund there is, with the best administration, but that does not mean that we do not have difficulties in regard to the Sick Fund. Basically, I think our problem is that owing to extremely large panels in the past, certain of the doctors who have contracted into the Sick Fund have not given their patients the necessary attention; that their care of their patients has declined at the cost of the members of the Railway Sick Fund. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Tygervallei mentioned the Oranjeland when he began his speech and likened this party to that ship. I must say that when we look from where we stand today at South Africa steaming out of the Nationalist Party laager into the fresh new seas of Africa and when we look at the mob that we have to control at the wheel of our ship, we wonder whether perhaps we are not going to land on the rocks. I must say, Sir, that it does not give us a great deal of confidence.

Sir, I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister a matter which has been discussed across the floor of the House during the last couple of days, and that is the question of delays in the harbours of South Africa and the surcharge that has been raised because of those delays. I have been asked by the hon. member for Durban Point to ask the Minister to make it quite clear in this House this afternoon what exactly the delays are in terms of days in each of the harbours in South Africa so that the public and we will know exactly what the position is in every single harbour which is used by the Conference Lines. There appears to be a dispute, and we would like some authoritative statement from the Minister so that we can know exactly what the position is.

It changes from day to day. For what day do you want it?

The hon. the Minister can give us the latest figures for yesterday. We will be quite happy with yesterday’s figures.

I will give you the figures for the day before yesterday.

I will accept that offer.

I wish to raise the question of show cattle with the hon. the Minister. Every farmer who has an interest in agriculture will support me when I ask the hon. the Minister to consider reinstating the rebate which was allowed in previous years on cattle being sent to the agricultural shows. I want to motivate his by saying to the hon. the Minister that as we stand today in South Africa, going out, as I have already said, into this new Africa, the agricultural show is not only the show window of the South African farmer. It is also an earnest of what we are trying to do and what we are trying to prove, namely that we in South Africa, the White people, are intent on making our contribution towards erasing the timeless scourges of Africa— hunger and poverty and squalor. We, in our agricultural shows, are able to show to the world that we are a highly organized and highly efficient group of farmers who are able to produce food, in consonance with our idea that food is power, and that we are able to bear our burden in Africa and offer leadership and guidance for the production of food in other countries. The agricultural show is absolutely vital to maintain standards, to provide competition and to keep flowing into the agricultural industry and the show industry young breeders who are able to breed cattle and to win ribbons and establish themselves as worthy competitors with the old names who have deen in this show business for cattle for many years. I believe that the hon. the Minister can quite easily afford to re-instate the rebate which, if my information is correct and if I remember it correctly—I have been trying to get the figures from the previous Minister for several years— amounted to 50% of cattle or any sort of livestock railed to agricultural shows. These animals are not railed there for fun, Sir. They are not sent backward and forward for their health. Indeed, in many cases it can be quite injurious to their health, but they are sent there for the purpose of establishing the name of the breeder and to make apparent to the world the standard of livestock which we as farmers in South Africa produce. I think the hon. the Minister could quite well reconsider the re-instatement of that rebate. There are many big shows, but I do not ask it only for the big shows, I also ask it for the little country shows which are the local shop window for the local people who again in their respective areas set standards for all the farmers to compete. I wish to make a most urgent plea to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this request.

Then I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to help me. I asked a question last year in connection with the station at Howick. I asked whether he was going to build a new station. The answer was that they would begin building it in July 1975 and that it would be completed in August 1976. Now, I have looked in vain through the Brown Book for any funds or amounts being allocated for this purpose. I want to say that as far as Howick station is concerned I have a very great personal interest in it. It was opened by my great-grandfather in 1904 and the dear old corrugated iron buildings which he opened, are still there, nestling under the various colours and shades of the sort of paints that the PWD puts on station buildings. Sir, I want to say that I have seen strong men in their pick-ups screech up to the Howick station and run into that little building there which says “Ladies—Dames” and “Gents— Here”. They run into he building, have one look what is inside and then run out again, and then one sees them disappearing into the bushes near the falls. I wonder how many of them come back. But I do make the most urgent appeal to the Minister to see to it that Howick station is given the recognition which a place like Howick deserves.

With water-borne sewerage.

That is right. We want water-borne sewerage. The falls are right close by. I should like the hon. Minister to tell me. I know he is going to do it but I should like to know whether he has savings under some other head or where he intends finding the money to pay for this station which he proposes to build.

In the few minutes that are left to me, may I again draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention the amount which has been allocated this year to the completion of the work at the sale yards at Mooi River. I want to say that I am grateful for that. The Farmers’ Sale Association at Mooi River has for the past several years held sales with a turnover of more than R1 million per year. Not ten miles away the Nottingham Road Sale Association does the same thing. These are tremendous sale-holding associations. I wonder whether the department has undertaken any research into the problems of loading cattle into trucks. Every time cattle have to be loaded the trucking officer has a tremendous job. Sticks, whips, electric prodders and all kinds of things have to be used. Surely there must be some easier way of getting cattle into trucks. Perhaps this could be done by means of a moving floor, or perhaps the trucks could be painted green on the inside to make the cattle feel more at home. I must, however, warn the hon. the Minister not to paint a fence across the other side of the truck, because some cattle breeds we know would try to jump over that fence. I do want to ask the department to consider this problem. There must be a better and easier way of getting cattle into trucks, a method which is safer for the cattle and which will consequently lead to fewer losses on the part of the farmer.

Perhaps they could use “boerbokke”.

Well, I am talking about cattle now. I have heard that they use “boerbokke” to get sheep into the trucks, but I do not trust them at all.

Mr. Chairman, it is always pleasant to listen to the hon. member for Mooi River. He usually makes a very constructive contribution and this afternoon he again showed that he is a person who is able to think progressively, because he does not want to cling desperately to that station which his grandfather opened at the start of the century.

Sir, in the few minutes at my disposal I should like to discuss a few local matters. Firstly, I want to refer to something that is often raised in this debate, namely the question of the noise of shunting. I refer specifically to the noise of shunting at the Bayhead shunting yards in my constituency. In these times the Railways is still making use of steam engines in the Bayhead shunting yards. My friend, the hon. member for De Aar, waxed very lyrical about these steam engines earlier this week. He told us about five million people all over the world who could wax quite nostalgic about steam engines and who could become so nostalgic that they were prepared to travel thousands of kilometres for the privilege of travelling in a steam propelled train at De Aar. Out there in the wide open spaces of the Karoo, where the air is blue and wide and open and where the smoke and noise can disappear into that blue air—I hope the hon. member does not think I am lacking in reverence when I talk about noise in connection with steam engines—one can probably still be captivated by a steam engine, but in a densely built up city like ours it is not quite so enjoyable. Three o’clock in the morning when one is trying to sleep, is not the most suitable time to wax nostalgic about a steam engine. When one is trying to sleep and the thing is whistling and steaming and huffing and puffing, it is decidedly an experience in which there is no place for sentiment. I think the hon. the Minister assured the hon. member for Gezina yesterday that in his constituency, where he, apparently, has a similar problem, there would be conversion to diesel engines in the shunting yards in 1980. When I heard that, my heart bled for the hon. member for Gezina, and I hoped that a similar lot would not befall me. Ï do not know how high or how low Bayhead stands on the hon. the Minister’s programme for dieselization, but I want to ask him in a very friendly way that if it is going to inconvenience no one else, whether he could not put us a little higher on the list. I want to assure him that it would gladden the hearts of my voters tremendously if this could be done. It would mean a great deal for their peace of mind and their sleep. Much worse, even, than the noise of the locomotives, is the fly-shunting (losrangering) as I think it is called in English. Sir, has that sound of steel on steel ever woken you from sleep? It is a deafening, bloodcurdling sound capable of waking the dead. It disturbs a hundred houses in my constituency and the sleep of the people there suffers. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister that for the sake of the peace of mind and the sleep of our people there, the shunters be instructed to shunt a little more quietly.

I want to pass from this cacophonic to a more ethereal subject, namely flowers, to be specific, the export of flowers. This is a matter in which the Department of Agriculture and the export promotion section of the Department of Trade have an interest. I am told that there is a tremendous demand for South African flowers overseas. I understand that Israel, which specializes in the export of flowers, earns about R40 million in foreign exchange annually through the export of flowers. They are only a few hours closer to Europe by air than we are. Now there are some of our flower exporters who complain that flowers arrive in Europe in a wilted condition. They pack those flowers in accordance with internationally accepted standards and deliver them to the airport in refrigerated trucks. The Airways have been accommodating enough to allow those people to drive on to the runway and load the flowers from there. However, when they are re-loaded at Jan Smuts, it has occurred that the flowers have stood in the sun for an hour or longer and have arrived in Europe in a wilted and unfavourable condition.

What kind of flowers are you referring to?

To khaki bush!

Now I should like to make a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, to investigate whether a more effective means of transport cannot be found for these flowers.

A third matter which I should like to touch on in the few minutes at my disposal is again a matter involving two departments, namely the transport of goods to decentralized areas. I want to refer specifically to Site be on the route between Durban and Empangeni. Sitebe is an industrial growthpoint in the KwaZulu homeland and is about 100 kilometres from Durban and is consequently just outside the exemption area for road transport. I am speaking on behalf of an industrialist there, an acquaintance of mine, who assembles extremely sophisticated engines. He uses about 1 500 to 1 600 components for those engines and those parts are sent by rail from Durban. Owing to delays on the part of the train service, he has had to wait up to three weeks for parts in the past, with the result that his production comes to a standstill during that period. Durban is only a few hours’ drive by road from Sitebe, but this man has necessarily to make use of rail transport. This industrialist applied to the Road Transport Board for a permit to transport these parts by road. In spite of the fact that the Railways opposed that application, the Road Transport Board was so sympathetic to his request that they granted him a permit. Thereupon the Railways appealed to the Road Transport Commission who upheld their appeal and withdrew the permit. I now know of an industrialist who is no longer so enthusiastic about decentralization. I am concerned that other industrialists, too, may become discouraged as a result of this person’s experience. We are, of course, aware of the necessity to save fuel, and we know that we do not want our roads crowded with trucks as is the case in certain countries overseas. If one weighs these things against the necessity for decentralization, then we know that we shall have to decentralize on a larger scale and if we do not impart momentum to the decentralization programme—something is really amusing the hon. member for Bryanston—and I know that future generations will be able to reproach us when they are saddled with social and political problems that have become too big for them. This afternoon I want to make a plea to the Minister that the Railways should adopt a more flexible attitude and be more lenient and that they will not be so quick to oppose applications for road transport to decentralized areas. Perhaps they should display a greater degree of discretion. In my opinion the hon. the Minister might do well to conduct discussions with the Decentralization Board in this connection so that a formula may be found to accommodate the industrialists in decentralized areas as far as transport is concerned.

I have only mentioned a few of the snags. There are also very fine and major things in the Railways Budget which one could praise if one had the opportunity. Yesterday the hon. the Minister replied very effectively to the ridiculous statement by the hon. member for Durban Point that this was a colourless Budget, lacking in imagination. The word “dynamic” has been much used. This Budget attests to a dynamic approach on the part of our Railways.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow the last speaker. I think that the noises he described coming from Railway sources during the night are known to most South Africans who have slept anywhere near a railway line. I want to refer in particular to a speech which was made by the hon. member for Losberg last night. It was a pretty verkrampte speech in which he said that he did not believe me when I told this House that there were employees on the Railways who would be quite happy to have the work that they were doing at the present moment done by Black people. In the particular instance I quoted the employee concerned felt that he was being held back in a subordinate position in the job that he was doing, because there were no Whites available to do the job and he suggested that it would be a good idea if Blacks did it. The hon. member for Losberg says that he does not believe this. I want to tell the hon. member that he is much out of touch up there in Losberg. Things are happening. There are thousands of people in the Railways who have the brains and ability to realize that not only they themselves but also the Railways and South Africa are being held back because of the lack of hands of any colour to do the work that has to be done. I think that the hon. member made quite a disgraceful speech. It was full of paternalism and selfishness. The muddle-headedness he displayed was unbelievable. I would like to quote some of the classic phrases that came from him—

We never suggested that everything should be given to the Black people. At any rate, what paternalism! It is quite unbelievable. The trouble with the sort of person that the hon. member for Losberg is, is that they always take things to extreme. I would like to continue with this quotation. He said—

I want to tell the hon. member that if he looks around him in any part of South Africa he will see that it is not just White South Africa, but has every colour. If he walks down Adderley Street, if he goes anywhere, he will see that there are various races in South Africa. He also said—

It is very big of him, I must say. He said further:

Pretty good, isn’t it? He said:

I did not say anything about giving all the highest posts to Black people. I just suggested that it would be a very good idea if Black people were brought into the Railways at a faster rate. I just want to say to the hon. member that he must remember that South Africa is a country with a population of over 20 million people and not just a couple of million Whites. The Railways belong to all those people and not just to the Whites. Also South Africa belongs to all those people and not only to the Whites The sort of exclusiveness that he puts forward just has no place in the fourth quarter of the twentieth century. I would like the hon. member to bring himself up to date and to realize that we are not living in the 1800s.

Leaving the hon. member for Losberg and his verkrampte speech, I want to say that I think it is important that no Railways and Harbours debate should be allowed to go by without somebody expressing the opinion which has been frequently expressed in the past from this side of the House, i e. that harbour operations should be separated from the railways under a separate Department of Marine and under a Minister of Marine. I believe very strongly that this is a necessity for two reasons. Firstly, I believe, that the S.A. Railways and Harbours organization has grown too big and too unwieldly. Secondly, I believe that marine matters are neglected, because apart from harbours themselves, no one department seems to handle marine affairs. At the moment harbours fall under the Railways while sea fisheries fall under the fisheries branch of the Department of Industry. In other words, fisheries fall under the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I read in the Press that the new clubhouse in Grainger Bay and the new yachting base are being sponsored in part by the Department of Sport and I think that facilities for many of the small boats of fishermen in the Peninsula have been held by the Cape Divisional Council. I should like to say that there are thousands of small-boat anglers, particularly so in the Peninsula, who do not have adequate launching facilities and who really do not know what department to go to. There are many other coastal operations which would be far better served by a marine department. Take for example the National Sea Rescue Institute, which is largely a private organization but which still receives Government help. Coastal pollution and seawater pollution should also be handled by such a department. I have no doubt at all that there are thousands of people in South Africa who are concerned with the sea. I believe that they would be far happier if a special department were to concern itself with their activities. There are hundreds of pressing every-day problems. Recently I read about the poaching of fish within the three-mile limit of False Bay. I believe that interests such as these would be better served by a Department of Marine than they are being served at the present time. There will always be need for co-operation and co-ordination between harbours and railways, especially right now in regard to containerization. All departments of Government always have to co-ordinate their activities very closely. I say again that the Railways have just grown too big and harbours would be better served by a separate department. The hon. member for Durban Point was a member who raised this matter last year.

On the matter of harbour congestion at the present time, I believe much has been done and that the situation has improved incredibly. I know that delays are still occurring, especially when shipping documents are not presented on time. Perhaps the Administration should consider increasing the penalty for late submission of shipping documents.

Then there is another matter which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister and that is in regard to the difficulties which are being experienced by some of the stevedoring companies with regard to African labour. They are finding it very difficult to get enough labour and like so many other industries in South Africa, have been forced to employ African labourers illegally. I believe that many of the companies that are trying to do a vitally important job are being harassed by the arrest of these employees. On this point I find myself completely at odds with the hon. the Minister and the Government. Here is a job of work that needs to be done and here are the people who are needed to do it, the employer wants to employ them and they want to work but absolutely stupid laws based on ideology throw every feasible stumbling-block in their way. How can our economy hope to prosper when things like this happen? I would ask the hon. the Minister please to do what he can with the co-operation of his colleagues, the Ministers of other departments, to ensure that the stevedoring companies are able to get the labour they need and require so desperately.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. member refer to “stupid laws”?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I should just repeat for the benefit of the hon. member that I believe that this is a stupid law. However, I am sure the hon the Minister will look at the situation and I hope he will be able to do something about it because it really is not helping the stevedoring companies to straighten the whole labour position in the harbours. It contributes to harbour congestion when they cannot supply an adequate labour force for the unloading and loading of ships.

Moving to another point, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister for agreeing to have another look with other Government departments at the question of school concessions on the Railways. I am very pleased that he has agreed to do this and I am sure that this consideration will bring much relief to those people who have been very hard pressed indeed by the removal of those concessions previously.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Natal referred to the bloodcurdling nocturnal noises in his constituency. I want to say that listening to the diurnal noises of the hon. member for Orange Grove is enough to give any true South African—and I underline “true South African”—high blood pressure. That hon. member is absolutely naïve. Unfortunately I do not have a great deal of time at my disposal; consequently I shall leave his soapbox speech at that.

The matter I want to discuss actually concerns the Southern Cape. I know that earlier this week the hon. member for Simonstown had the train stop at Mossel Bay and stayed in the Southern Cape for a while. I want to invite the hon. member to board the train again during the next election and bring along some of his party colleagues, because we are quite fond of elections in the Southern Cape. I do not know whether he will put the Reformists, too, on the same train. If permissible we shall pay their return tickets, but there is one thing he must not do and that is to bring along any of those Reformists who get the willies. The matter I want to touch on this afternoon goes back to about the year 1926, when representations concerning this matter were made for the first time. To be specific, it concerns the construction of a railway line between Leroux Station and Beaufort West, in other words, the linking of the Southern Cape, and the Mossel Bay harbour in particular, with the outside world. I refer, therefore, to the link with the main line to the north. It is true that there is a link through Klipplaat, Graaff-Reinet, Noupoort, Bloemfontein and Kroonstad. It is also true that there is a fast main line service in the direction of Rosmead, but according to the report of the auxiliary committee of the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council for the South Cape Region —a report that appeared in 1973—a direct link with Johannesburg is regarded as being a fundamental need. I refer to page 15 of the report. It is very clearly stated in that report that if it were possible to construct such a link it would be of great economic value for the region, particularly in view of possible agricultural development that is being proposed in the region.

As far as agriculture in the Southern Cape is concerned, we are faced with restricting factors. There are two in particular. The one is water, and the other is a lack of the necessary rail facilities. Constant attention is being given to the former, namely water, and we hope to be able to eliminate the bottlenecks in time. However, when this has been done, when the farmer has delivered his products there, we are faced with the deficient rail facilities. We are constantly hearing complaints on the part of the farmers and industrialists about the existing state of affairs. I believe that the existing railway lines in the area cannot be regarded as a network. There is only one line running right through the region with a detour to the north, and there are no fewer than four railway terminals. This really tends to give one the impression that one is in a cul-de-sac. I might mention Touws River to Ladismith, and Oudtshoorn to Calitzdorp. There is no link between Calitzdorp and Ladismith, a distance of about 48 km. I want to refer, too, to the narrow gauge railway line from Port Elizabeth to Avontuur through the Langkloof, but there is no link between this line and the existing through-line. This is a distance of only 45 km; in other words, a link between the stations of Avontuur and Barandas. This incomplete network and too, this inadequate link with the outside world results in a relatively slow and unsatisfactory service. It has come to my attention that as far as traffic requirements in the area in question are concerned, the Railways do not intend to construct any new line or any new link and also that the envisaged railway line between Leroux Station and Beaufort West, over a distance of 144 km, is not regarded as economic. I am convinced—I may be wrong—that an in-depth investigation into this region and its rail facilities has never been carried out. I am aware of the Southern Cape Development Association that has called in the aid of experts and has compiled reports. I refer, inter alia, to the “Vervoerprobleem van Suid-Kaapland” by Prof. Verburgh. However, nothing has come of this. There has been no success worthy of mention in this regard.

Now it is true that over the past two decades we in the Southern Cape have experienced tremendous development. I could mention to you this afternoon that there are now towns which have sufficient water and electricity to enable them to attract industries. This afternoon I could emphasize the sufficient amount of labour, the fruit industry which is well-established and which continues to progress. I could refer here to tourism, which is capable of attracting thousands. I could refer to the ostrich industry, which is well established and earns a great deal of foreign exchange for our country. I could refer you to the three existing airports and the new one under construction at George. There is a fine future for this region, but then I should also like the S.A. Railways to develop accordingly. I seem to get the impression that they have run out of steam somewhere along the line. I know that years ago, it was said in the House that the Badenhorsts are of the tribe of Levi. I am not quoting the Levites to the hon. the Minister. This afternoon I am only pleading in the way that priests of old pleaded with the people. I am really pleading and in my plea I should like to mention that the overall improvement of the rail system of the area would mean a tremendous amount to the region, particularly for the agricultural and industrial sectors, and particularly, too, for the harbour of Mossel Bay. I also want to plead that the future socio-economic development of the region be borne in mind.

In the light of the above, therefore, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in a very friendly spirit this afternoon whether a move could not be made by the Railways with, regard to the Southern Cape, which could take the form of a penetrating and detailed investigation of, firstly, the Leroux station/Beaufort West link and, secondly, the Avontuur/Barandas link and, as an alternative—I am putting it no higher than that—the Calitzdorp/Ladismith link.

Mr. Chairman, in my under-19 days the hon. the Minister and I played rugby for the same club here in Cape Town. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not kick off for us in the Southern Cape in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, both in the Third Reading debate of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation and in the discussion of the Tourism Vote during the previous session, I stressed the importance of the Mossel Bay harbour.

It was, therefore, with the greatest attention and interest, and appreciation, too, that I listened to the very sympathetic approach adopted by the hon. the Minister in regard to the Mossel Bay harbour, as was evident from his reply to the Second Reading debate. I am grateful for his assurance that whenever it should be evident that there is sufficient cargo to justify an extention of the existing facilities at the Mossel Bay harbour, the necessary attention will be given to the extension of the harbour. Sir, I take the liberty of thanking the hon. the Minister in advance for the extension that will occur.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who has just resumed his seat, pleaded for an improved network for the Southern Cape, a plea which I wholeheartedly support in the interests of the Southern Cape. But, Sir, the logical destination of any such rail network is necessarily the Mossel Bay harbour. The fact is that the Mossel Bay harbour is the key to any development of and in the Southern Cape, since any development of and in the Southern Cape is dependent on the harbour and the harbour facilities at Mossel Bay. This is also the finding of an auxiliary committee of the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council, arising out of a regional study carried out a few years ago in the Southern Cape.

The Southern Cape Development Association and other bodies have been advocating the development of the Mossel Bay harbour for years. Although R3 million was spent on the development of the harbour at Mossel Bay a few years ago, the harbour facilities are still hopelessly inadequate. This is because the extensions mentioned did not provide for berthing facilities for deep-sea vessels, while coasters can in fact be moored at the new quay, but to make this possible, other boats had to be removed from the commercial area of the harbour and had to find a refuge outside the harbour because no place could be found for them inside the harbour.

As far as the fishing industry is concerned, Mossel Bay is a so-called closed harbour; in other words, the number of fishing boats that may operate from the harbour, is limited. Even for this limited number of fishing boats, the existing facilities are inadequate, and as a result, the great fishing potential of Mossel Bay cannot be utilized to the full.

The expansion to which I have already referred did not make provision for the necessary refrigeration facilities either, with the result that the Mossel Bay harbour is largely unserviceable as regards the handling of fresh products. In view of the production of red meat—and may I just point out that the hon. the Minister said that the Railways prefers to handle frozen meat rather than livestock—and in view of the development of the dairy and vegetable farming industry in the vicinity of Mossel Bay, this lack of refrigeration facilities at the Mossel Bay harbour is a very serious deficiency.

It is true that at present, the Mossel Bay harbour handles less than a quarter per cent of the average annual total harbour traffic of South and South West Africa, while during the period 1973 to 1974 there was in fact a drop of 14,4% in the cargo handled at the Mossel Bay harbour, in comparison with the previous year. At first glance these facts seem to indicate that the expenditure of the amount of R3 million on the harbour extensions at Mossel Bay a few years ago was unjustified, but the fact of the matter is that the reason for the expenditure in question not paying the desired dividends was precisely that it was modest and inadequate. The argument that there is insufficient cargo to justify an extension of the harbour facilities, does not quite hold water either. It can hardly be expected of producers and others to make use of the Mossel Bay harbour when they are in fact fully aware that the necessary facilities are lacking there.

According to the above-mentioned report of the Auxiliary Committee of the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council, the Southern Cape possesses, in general, a well-developed infrastructure, while the agricultural land of the Southern Cape has never been utilized to its optimum extent. It is clear, therefore, that if the Mossel Bay harbour were to be developed extensively—and I stress extensively—and the necessary facilities were to be established, full use would be made of those facilities and the share of Mossel Bay harbour in the annual traffic would show a spectacular increase. Consequently it is merely a question of priorities and of confidence in the potential of the Southern Cape.

But the development of the Southern Cape and of local interests, is not the only factor with a bearing on the development of the Mossel Bay harbour. The extension and development of this harbour would undoubtedly also be in the interests of the Railways and Harbours Administration and of South Africa as a whole. In this debate mention has repeatedly been made of the congestion of shipping at the bigger harbours of the Republic. My information is that about 50% of the ships calling at the Cape Town harbour do not call there for the purpose of handling cargo, but to take in supplies and fuel—supplies and fuel that could just as well have been taken in at Mossel Bay, where the basic infrastructure for this already exists. All that is necessary, is that the harbour itself should be made more attractive through the provision of the necessary berths and other facilities. I believe that the lines concerned would then themselves realize the benefits of shipping supplies at Mossel Bay, and would utilize these facilities.

If we take into account that steps that have already been taken, and are being taken, to deal with the congestion of ships at the bigger harbours—whether the congestion is more, or less serious—and if we then take into consideration that in point of fact, a degree of congestion still takes place, then it becomes clear that we simply can no longer afford not to utilize the potential of Mossel Bay in this regard.

In the light, then, of the hon. the Minister’s very sympathetic attitude, I want to express the confidence that we shall soon see the implementation of this, because I believe that the potential is there and the cargo will come once the facilities are established there.

Mr. Chairman, we are of course all very pleased to hear people talking about progress in this country and one cannot blame hon. members for punting their own canoe, but we are now in the dying stages of the Committee Stage of this Bill, which started yesterday at about 4 o’clock …

Half past four.

Mr. Chairman, that is typical of the Nationalist Party; they cannot even tell the time. Sir, I have listened with great attention to this debate and I am still waiting for the pearls of wisdom to come from that side of the House. I honestly feel very sorry for the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is a very fine fellow and I have a very high personal regard for him, but when his deputy resigned a few weeks ago, what happened? He did not get anybody to assist him. Do you know why, Mr. Chairman? It is because there is nobody on that side fit enough to take over the post of Deputy Minister. That is the secret; they do not have anybody to take over. And, Sir, the hon. the Minister is new to the job. It is not as though he has had the portfolio of Railways for years, as his predecessor had. He only took it over in August or September last year. I congratulate him in what he has done so far and I hope he will carry on in this way but, as I have said, I feel sorry for him because there is nobody on that side who is fit enough to become his Deputy Minister. Even the hon. member for Witwatersberg was being shunted out to one of the High Commissionerships. But he said he did not want to leave the atmosphere of this House. He said that he was truly a part of this House. Anyway, congratulations also to the hon. member for Witwatersberg. By the same token, Mr. Chairman, every positive point which has been raised in this debate has come from this side of the House.

Surely you do not believe that?

I believe every word I say because I am a truthful, honest South African. I do not claim to be a politician.

There are one or two points I should like to raise. Firstly there is the question of pensions. We on this side are truly grateful for the improvements that do come about, as was so eloquently and ably stated by my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, who made a sensible plea for better pensions for the older railway pensioners. We know that there have been improvements, but the Minister knows as well as I do that this is not the end of the story. Although these pensioners are grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table and for whatever infinitesimal improvements may be brought about to the pension structure, they will never be satisfied until they feel that they are receiving their just dues. Why is this so? Why do they feel this way? I realize that everybody is getting tired of this, but the reason is the escalating cost of living. When these people were serving members of the Administration, they thought that they would be able to retire to a modest but comfortable life. Today, however, they find that the escalating cost of living is playing havoc with their savings. The depreciation in the value of money has also made in-roads into their earnings. Persons who go on pension today are reaping the rewards of the sacrifices that their old comrades and counterparts made in the days when South Africa was not so strong financially and when benefits were not so easy to come by as they are today. Those people bore the heat and burden of their day, and surely we owe something to these old pioneers—that is the word I would use to describe them—who have helped us to attain this wonderful position in which we find ourselves today. When one talks to these old pensioners and others one can easily see the trend of the requests which are going to be made to the Minister, namely that pensions be based either on the last year or the last month of service. That is an old sort of claim, not only in the Railways but also in other Government departments. There will also be the claim for a higher annual percentage increase plus the adjustment allowance to ensure that the monetary value of a pension does not decline with the rise in the cost of living. These claims will have to be met. All these factors are embodied in the second leg of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point during the Second Reading debate where it says “to compensate pensioners in the light of the ever-escalating cost of living”.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Durban Point in his amendment stated inter alia that the Government failed to appreciate the role of the South African Railways as the dynamic in the development of South Africa and Southern Africa as a whole. That amendment has been ably supported by hon. members on this side of the House. I stress “this side of the House” because everybody on the other side was too busy thanking the hon. the Minister. They all want their jobs and do not want to be made High Commissioners or ambassadors.

I want to come to a parochial matter, and refer to the Durban complex of the Railway system. The implementation of Nationalist Party ideology has hamstrung the planners and the executive of the S.A. Railways. I say this in all honesty. If one looks at the Durban complex going from north to south —I am going to confine myself to more or less the municipal area of Durban—there is in the south the spur that runs east/west from Reunion to Umlazi. Further north we have the spur which goes from Merebank to Crossmoor. The Reunion/Umlazi spur is for commuters who live in the Bantu township of Umlazi and for those who come in from the Umbumbulu area, a homeland. The Merebank/Crossmoor spur is for the exclusive use of Indians who are housed in Chatsworth, although it runs slap bang through the middle of a White township, Yellowwood Park. Then we have what we call the new main line which branches off at Booth Junction and goes on to Cavendish, Shallcross and then joins the old line at Cato Ridge. Then we have the old main line which branches off at Rossburgh and goes on to Sea View, Bellair, Hillary, Pinetown and then on to Cato Ridge. Further north, outside Durban itself, you have the spur from Duff’s Road to Kwa Mashu. All these spurs run in an east-west direction. There is nothing connecting them at all. There are thousands of people living to the west of Durban who work in places just outside Durban and who have difficulty in travelling there. One wonders whether the time has not come for the Railways to investigate the feasibility of a parallel line to the existing line which, even if it has to go through Durban, would form a kind of outer ring. We have one line going to the Bluff, but that only serves the Bluff and the Bluff complex. Whilst they are about it, instead of thinking about trains that only serve one race or colour, the time, I think, has also come, since these trains run through various localities, that certain of them could be made multi-racial trains instead of mono-racial ones. The hon. the Minister must realize that I have not touched upon the transport of commuters in the urban areas, because that is another matter altogether. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I actually want to tackle the hon, member for Maitland about the egg-dance he performed here in respect of the employment of non-Whites with a view to cutting down overtime. Before doing so, however, I want to address the hon. the Minister of Transport in regard to item 173 in the Brown Book, viz. the alteration at Olifantsfontein Station, for which an amount of R1 141 300 has been voted and has already been agreed to by Parliament I have had appeals from my constituency, from various local industries there which would like to expand, but which are hesitant to do so at this stage since the additional facilities at the station in question are not yet available. As I did last year, I want to address the hon. the Minister again, in all humility, and ask whether there is a possibility of a start being made on the actual work of construction as soon as possible.

In the second place, I should like to know what the Railways Administration is doing in the interests of our youth. As members of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours it was our privilege to visit, inter alia, a youth hostel in Durban. We have in mind, too, institutions like Esselen Park and bursaries which are made available for university training in engineering, surveying, pharmacy, etc. I think that at the moment there are about 2 300 students with full bursaries for university training, young people, therefore, who want to find their future and their calling in the Railways. I was tremendously impressed by the discipline and strong character traits displayed by the inhabitants of the hostel in Durban. This is still an institution where young men know what to do with their cigarette butts, and that is definitely not to put them out on the floor. These young men maintain a high standard of neatness, to the extent that one would not be deterred from eating off the floor if one wanted to. The kitchen facilities compare exceedingly well with those of the best hotels in the country. I did not see young men having their meals there in the traditional casual dress—worn clothes and oily hair. They have a self-service system there that impressed me tremendously. The supervision of the hostel superintendent and matron also indicates tradition and character. I think that I am speaking on behalf of thousands of parents in South Africa, fathers and mothers whose sons have been entrusted to an Administration like that of the Railways for their training and education, when I say that parents are greatly indebted to an institution such as this.

Reference has been made here to renewal, but what we have here is a continuous process of renewal. We have here young people who are being initiated into the employment opportunities of the Railways and are being prepared in a way that does the Railways credit. An institution like Esselen Park, with its short courses and training in the trades, is an institution that can compare very favourably with the best in our country. We are grateful for this. Day after day a contribution is quietly being made towards involving our young people in this institution, namely the Railways. In my opinion it is necessary in this regard to convey our thanks on behalf of ourselves and on behalf of the parents of the young people concerned who enjoy these facilities. This is a privilege which we did not have at all in our time. We hope and trust that in this regard, too, developments will take place enabling the greatest demands to be met in future and enabling this process of renewal within the Railways as far as the young men are concerned, to be maintained.

I now cross to the hon. member for Maitland. After his egg-dance yesterday I was given the impression that we were dealing with a man whose Reformist wife had deserted him. Now he is terribly angry and upset and for that reason he kicks the cat. That is the logic and the kind of argument we have had from the United Party supporters in this debate. The hon. member created the impression that he was not a proponent of the total abolition of overtime.

You cannot.

I now want to remind the hon. member of his words which I have before me. The hon. member spoke about the economy and appealed to the Minister to spend the saving in salary of R57 million on the appointment of 15 000 non-Whites. The hon. member went further and said (Hansard, 10 March)—

If words mean anything, this advocates the total abolition of overtime. He said that the Minister should say: “I will be prepared to appoint non-Whites to do this work.” I quote a further extract from the hon. member’s speech—

The hon. member did not qualify that. I quote further—

Once again the hon. member did not qualify this, nor did he only mean it in part. He talks about the economy and about the appointment of 15 000 non-Whites who could work at a lower salary. That is no secret. How, then, does the hon. member want to increase the salary of Whites? The hon. member’s plea to the Minister is that these people be appointed for the sake of the economy. If words mean anything, then surely that means saving; it means that that money paid out in overtime can be saved. The hon. member states that the doors must be thrown open. If the hon. member is angry at the Reformist wife, he must not kick the cat. The hon. member must discuss and think about these things more circumspectly and in a more controlled manner, particularly in a place like this. In my opinion the hon. member was extremely irresponsible and now that he has burnt his fingers, he wants to kick the cat, the workers of the Railways. I think that this is unreasonable and also short-sighted. I do not believe that the hon. member has done his party a service. Surely that is why the hon. member is here.

I want to conclude by making an appeal to the Minister. I must request him to consider carefully those whom he invites on these inaugural flights in future. With reference to my symbolic description of the flight to the moon and the passengers we should be able to carry there, it will perhaps be the custom, one of these days, to undertake an inaugural flight there. Notwithstanding the appeal we have received, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to think twice before sending an invitation to the hon. members for Durban Point, Umlazi and Maitland. There is an idiomatic expression used when someone talks nonsense. It goes like this: “Go and tell it to the man in the moon.” I am afraid that we should affront the man in the moon if we were to arrive there with those three. But perhaps, if one bears in mind the physiological make-up of the hon. members for Umlazi and Durban Point, it would be more convenient for the United Party if they were to display their profiles to us on the moon. Then we could refer in all fairness to the United Party supporters by saying; “Go and tell it to two of your ex-members on the moon.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal I want to refer to two matters. To one of those I want to refer rather briefly because it has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Umbilo and by the hon. member for Umlazi. Earlier this session I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Transport (Hansard: Questions, Col. 191):

The hon. the Minister’s reply at the time was, and I assume it still is today, that consideration had been given but—

That is a reasonable response but I want to ask if the hon. the Minister could reconsider this position again. It seems to me that there are at least 40 000 pensioners, to put it rather conservatively, many of whom are old pensioners, who feel that they have no voice and no representation while as they have a case to put, they would like to have representation on some body so that they can also be heard. I shall not dwell on this matter at any length because we have been assured by the hon. the Minister that he will be replying in this debate to the whole question of pensioners. Consequently, I shall take the matter no further.

There is another matter which was also raised by the hon. member for Port Natal and possibly by other members as well in this very long debate. I refer to the whole question of discomfort or noise which affects so many people today. Naturally, in the age of progress one simply has to make many sacrifices but I wonder whether we have given enough attention to the people who are affected by developments on the railways and harbours in our own country. I refer to a letter written to me very recently by Mr. McClure of 1, Sunnyway, Pinelands. Obviously, Pinelands is a very Progressive part of South Africa …

What was your majority?

I am here; that is the main thing. One only needs a majority of one for that. I want to make the point that Pinelands is a garden city. It is tranquil and beautiful and is a very lovely part of the world. Yet there are many factors which are disturbing the tranquility of that garden city now. I want to quote at some length from a letter written to me at three o’clock in the morning: “This is the third sleepless night we have had in a row.”

You are lucky they write to you; they telephone me.

Not at three o’clock in the morning, I hope?

Oh, yes.

The writer, Mr. McClure, goes on to say that he has been living in this part of the world for a long time and wants to stay there, but that a number of factors make it almost impossible for him to survive. In the first place there was the building of a powerhouse on a site near the houses between Pinelands station and Oude Molen station. He says the structure itself is not pretty. Obviously, not everything can be pretty as railways are built and developed. However, there is now some form of automatic transmission in that powerhouse which, according to a member of my constituency, goes off “like a bomb” every few minutes. Well, I suggest it is very difficult to sleep when you have bombs exploding around you all the time. Then the writer refers to the toolsheds and tin shanties which were moved from behind a screen of trees on the Cape Town side of Pinelands and are now displayed in full view. This is an eyesore, and it seems to me that, with better planning, something could be done about this. The writer goes on to talk about the surplus refrigerator trucks which are left on a branch line which runs parallel to Pinelands boundary. He says that lines of forty or more rusty trucks stand idle for weeks on end on this line. I am hoping that, having made representations to the System Manager, something has been done about this already. There is also the question of the replacing of the rails on the Cape Flats line. So great is the noise level in this regard—this is an important factor because it affects people’s health as well their disposition and their comfort—that they cannot even hear the radio in their bedroom while this shunting and other work goes on. They find it simply impossible to live in that house.

There is also what he described as an enormous and hideous advertising hoarding. They see the back view of this hoarding. The writer is well aware that the Railways need income. However, must these great and hideous hoardings be erected right alongside a very select and lovely suburb like Pinelands? Could this hoarding not have been erected in some open area where it would not affect anyone? It would still then have the benefit of advertising in respect of the people who are moving to and from the various centres in our country.

The last point I want to make in relation to this particular complaint is in regard to the arrival of the ballast tamper in the siding. I do not have a clue what that is but I am sure that the hon. the Minister knows what it is. It seems that a direct result of this is that this man is going right up the wall of his bedroom. He simply cannot take it any more. [Interjections.]

To be very serious, this is only one letter. I am sure that every hon. member in this House receives letters like this. The hon. member for Durban Point has told us about the telephone calls he receives. I hope they keep waking him up. The point is, however, that there are thousands of individuals, of homes and of families who are being affected by the very necessary progress taking place in South Africa in regard to the development of the Railways and Harbours. One does not want to ask for the impossible but one wonders whether sufficient attention is being given to the question of noise pollution in our land.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the observation that the previous speaker was apparently raising matters which affect his own constituency very intimately. After his fervent plea on behalf of this one particular voter, I almost expected him to propose that all train services to Pinelands be cancelled, for they are so much in the way in Pinelands. The possible alternative is that the Railways should expropriate the house of this particular person, and do something else with it.

The Railways is our national conveyor. It has to render services to the entire country and the public as a whole. Everyone in this country relies upon these services being available. There is in fact a kind of cold-blooded approach on the part of the general public in respect of Railway services. It is simply accepted that if a specific industrialist, merchant or body requires transportation, these particular services will be available to him. It is frequently accompanied, if I may put it in this way, by a tendency on the part of the public to be a little critical of the services which are in this way being rendered to the public. Sometimes very critical remarks are made in respect of the standard of the services which are being rendered by the Railways. This criticism, which one hears in particular from certain industrialists and certain business circles, does not take sufficiently into account the fact that the Railways, in my opinion, is the largest undertaking in South Africa, a giant among giants with its 235 000 employees and with its enormous Budget to which the hon. the Minister referred yesterday as the second largest Railway Budget in the world. I almost want to address this challenge to the private sector: If they had had to tackle the same kind of undertaking, would they have been able to do so in the same efficient manner in which the Railways is doing at the moment? But, Sir, that is not the point I really want to make. I just want to say that the general attitude to the Railways is that it is a public service which has to be rendered, and if it is not done well enough we adopt a very critical attitude to it and we all want to make certain remarks in respect of the services.

Sir, certain observations made by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech in respect of the actions of the General Manager in Mozambique and certain developments in Africa, compel me to say that we should regard the Railways not only as a conveyor, not only as a public service, but that we should also take cognizance of the strategic role which is being played by the Railways in Southern Africa. Its services have international political significance, and its infrastructure, which it has created and maintained over the years, has a strategic significance in Southern Africa. Sir, I can draw your attention to the fact that there are certain other railway lines in Southern Africa which have very definitely acquired international political significance. We need only think of the Tanzan railway line which most certainly creates alarm in the minds of many people. We can think of the railway line to Beira which is of cardinal importance to some countries in Africa. We can think of the new Rhodesian railway line which has been connected with Beit Bridge and which is of strategic importance to South Africa and Rhodesia. One can think of the significance to Zambia of the railway line to Lobito. It so happens then, Sir, that railways, not only here in South Africa, but throughout the world, apart from its public role as conveyor, also has a specific strategic value and significance for the country which it is serving.

I would say that it has a threefold significance, firstly in the infrastructure which it creates for a strong economy, secondly in the infrastructure which it creates for successful international trade relations, and thirdly in the foundation which it lays for international co-operation in regard to the supply of railway services.

If I may take these three points just a little further, then I want to deal first with the idea that it forms the foundation for a strong economy. In a pulsing, modern industrial country an efficient transportation service is essential, and next to a nation’s morale it is the driving force of its economy and its industry which is a guarantee against external onslaughts, whether in peacetime or in wartime. It is the strength of its economy which determines to what extent it is able to supply the products which it needs in peacetime or in a time of confrontation, and at the basis of a strong economy lies the network of transportation services which exist in a specific country. In this respect the S.A. Railways has developed tremendously, a tremendous network has been established and it is already fulfilling the role which is expected of it.

In the second place I said that this is the foundation for international trade. Quarrels do not occur easily with good trading partners. Sound and growing trade relations are an unassailable counteractant to political alienation and boycotts. Here, once again, the Railways plays a strategic part in this sense that it ensures that the trade products which are exchanged between countries, are delivered to the harbours and flow through the harbours. In this regard as well the Railways has already fulfilled its proper role in South Africa, has already steeled itself for what is to come, and is already making all the necessary adjustments to comply with a growing demand in this regard in South Africa.

But if I may return to the actions of the General Manager in Mozambique, to which the hon. the Minister has already referred, I want, in the first place, to congratulate him and his department, on his timeous and effective but yet diplomatic actions in restoring the traffic along the line between Komatipoort and the Lourenço Marques harbour. His actions there, and the actions of South Africa in this regard, testify to good neighbourliness and are a demonstration of the ability of the S.A. Railways, as the workshop of Southern Africa, to keep the wheels of the entire South Africa turning. This good neighbourliness could give rise to bilateral understandings in respect of transportation matters developing between us in South Africa and our neighbouring states. For that reason we must praise the actions taken so timeously and so neatly by the Railways in this regard. This has confirmed once again that the Railways is playing a strategic part in South Africa, and shall continue to do so in future.

Sir, I am sure we all agree with the speech made by the hon. member who has just sat down. It is a pity that we cannot also agree with the speech made by the hon. member for Witwatersberg, but I do not have time to elaborate on that now.

†Sir, we on this side of the House are not ungrateful or unappreciative of the efforts and the achievements of the S.A. Railways over the past year. On the contrary, we wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his General Manager and his staff on what has been achieved. Some of the things that come to mind are very impressive, such as the use of alternating current units now on the electrification, the crossover bogies, the computerization of traffic control and the containerization which is being so ably implemented. Sir, I may say that this is only to be expected with a General Manager who is an engineer and not a clerk. The last clerk we had on the South African Railways as a General Manager who was any good was in my opinion Mr. Marshall Clark. Now we have a very good manager once more with a very good staff.

There are some things, however, which cause us disquiet when we go through this very comprehensive report. First of all, one notices that there has been an increase in the purchase of diesel locomotives as opposed to the use of steam, which is being cut down. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain why this should be so in view of the fuel crisis, and why it should be thought wise to keep on buying more and more diesel locomotives. The other point that worries me is this. I see in the Brown Book, on pages 151 and 152, the terrific cost of strengthening the under-frames of wagons. 438 third class suburban coaches have to have their underframes strengthened. I can hardly believe that this has to be done because these coaches have to carry a heavier load. You can hardly overload a passenger coach. The strengthening of the underframes of the bogie wagons is perhaps easier to explain. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us why this is necessary, because over R1 million is to be spent on strengthening the chasses of wagons.

We also wish to congratulate the Administration on the steps they have taken to make use of non-White labour where White labour has not been available. I am puzzled, however, as to why the hon. the Minister has not answered my letter to him about the problems in the Harding area. I wrote to the hon. the Minister, pointing out that the Harding Farmers’ Association was complaining about the shortage of trucks. They interviewed the Railway officials, and the officials blamed the shortage of trucks on absenteeism amongst the staff. There were no drivers and firemen available at certain periods, with the result that they could not move the trucks into the area where they were needed. These same Railway officials suggested that it would perhaps be possible to use non-White firemen, or learner firemen, or probationer firemen, whatever you like to call them.

Coalmen.

Yes, now they are apparently called coalmen. At any rate, the hon. the Minister never answered me on this matter and I should like to hear from him what the problem is, particularly in the case of Harding, which is a terminal line. It runs into a dead end, it is a narrow-gauge line and it carries no passengers. The only difficulty I can foresee is that with his new policy the hon. the Minister might find it difficult to fit three persons, a coalman, a fireman and a driver, on to the footplate of a narrow-gauge engine. Perhaps that is the reason.

Another problem I should like to raise is in connection with road transport services. It has been said in this debate that all railway servants are happy. Most of them are happy but, being an old railwayman myself and having lots of railway friends, I know that there is a lot of unhappiness in the RMT services. The RMT services in South Africa in my opinion leave a lot to be desired. Something which has happened in my own area and which, I am sure, is going to happen all over South Africa, is the closing down of the road motor transport agencies. In Margate, for instance, the chamber of commerce has just been told that a directive has come from the General Manager that the road motor agency there is to close as from 1 April. This means that nobody can hand in parcels to be conveyed or collect them unless they have a ledger account. This cuts out all private people. This is a great hardship in cases where there is no rail service and no alternative way of sending parcels. We know that the Bantu people are fond of sending the occasional bed, mattress or bag of potatoes. The only way they can send these items is by RMT. If these people cannot hand in or collect these goods from an agency, how are they to get their goods delivered or carried? If the Railways wish to hog all the RMT services in South Africa—which they do; they hold the monopoly—then they must either provide the services or provide an alternative.

The trouble with a big service like the Railways—and it is very efficient to a certain extent—is that there are often glaring deficiencies in respect of services which are not easily noticed in such a big concern. I would just draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a few of the things which go on and which I think are due to thoughtlessness or a lack of planning or supervision, which occur to the normal user. As an example let me take the journey which I undertook to Durban last week. I know I should not criticize the Airways here, because this is not a transport debate, but it is all tied together. In the queue at the airport in Cape Town there was an American tourist waiting for an aircraft. They would not change a traveller’s cheque in dollars for him. He went to the bank and they refused to do it as well. This man was unable to buy cigarettes or a newspaper as he had no South African money. Fortunately one of our own members gave him a rand and, this enabled him to do so. But this seems wrong at a big airport like Cape Town. The aircraft left on time, but for some reason or other was delayed on the way and arrived in Durban late. The Airways never notified the connecting service in Durban that that aircraft was going to be late and the other aircraft departed before our aircraft arrived. Passengers were therefore not able to cross over. Surely this sort of thing can easily be eliminated. When I got to the airport I wanted to find out about the train timetable from Durban to the South Coast. I went to the airport office and they sent me to the lady at enquiries. I asked her, but she said that she did not have one and that I must phone the station. On asking her to phone for me she informed me that she did not have an outgoing line. This sounds cockeyed to me. I telephoned the Railways central exchange from a telephone box.

It is still ringing.

No, it rang allright, but after I told the girl what department I wanted there was dead silence. I had to put in another 5 cent piece, got through to her and told her that she had not been very good to me and I asked her to put me through again. Again there was a dead silence. This exercise cost me 10 cents. I then went into Durban and asked the people at the airport terminal whether they had a S.A. Railways timetable. They said they did not, but that the S.A.R. Travel Bureau next door would be sure to have one. But they did not have one either. What is more, the person there had the cheek to tell me that I should walk down to the station and find out when the next train would leave. I had to go down to the station to find out when the next train for the South Coast would be departing. Surely these are things which should not happen in a big concern like the S.A. Railways. How must this impress a tourist who may be in my position and who is caught in the same way? This goes especially for the S.A. Railways Travel Bureau who can fix you with a flight from Durban to anywhere in the world, except for a trip down to the South Coast.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast who has just resumed his seat, inter alia had problems with the idea of how one could have a driver, a fireman and a coalman all together in the cabin of a locomotive. However, I think there is always reason to be grateful. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes what problems there would have been if the driver was of the size of the hon. member for Durban Point, and the fireman had the body of the hon. member for Umlazi. This afternoon, and yesterday as well, reference was made by various hon. members to the noise problems in shunting yards where steam locomotives are still being used. We want to assure those hon. members that we have a measure of sympathy with the inhabitants of the areas in the vicinity of shunting yards. However, I also feel certain that the hon. the Minister was referring to priorities during his Second Reading speech. When we look at the availability of these diesel locomotives, I want to advocate that the priority of eliminating veld fires through conversion to diesels be given preference to lack of sleep on the part of some people. The hon. member for Port Natal referred to his days in the ministry. I can give him the reassurance that in the days when I was still attending Sunday school, we learned an old tune called “Steeds arbeidsaam elke stonde” and that this will always be a comfort to his people who live in the vicinity of shunting yards. We shall always appreciate the productivity there.

I do not think there is a clearer demonstration of the importance of the role being played by the S.A. Railways in the national economy than the discussion here during the past few days has in fact been. It is very clear that the establishment of a new line is automatically associated with progress and development. The replacement and improvement of station buildings must in many cases represent or illustrate the progress or growth, of a community. The establishment of amenities must be a sign of a rise in living standards. But I think that in many cases we fail to see the problems which follow as a result of this development. Frequently the major problems are in fact to eliminate the problems which go hand in hand with the establishment of amenities and of new lines. Therefore I should like to convey appreciation this afternoon to the hon. the Minister and the department for the elimination of two level crossings on the route between Bloemfontein and Bethlehem. The one level crossing was near Bethlehem, and in the past a few fatal accidents occurred there, and the other level crossing is just outside the town of Senekal. I think that for the first time now there are no level crossings in the Free State on the main route between Cape Town and Durban. If my memory serves me well, there is at present only one level crossing between Cape Town and Durban. I think there is still one level crossing in the Karoo and then there is one in the vicinity of Estcourt on a siding which is no longer being used. We want to tell the hon. the Minister with gratitude that it is an achievement to have only one level crossing on this long route between Cape Town and Durban. We want to advocate that, if possible, it should also be eliminated.

When we see what has already been done by way of the elimination of level crossings, we find that since 1960 a total of 496 level crossings have already been scheduled. Up to and including September 1974 214 of these had already been eliminated, inter alia, by means of 166 bridges, 20 subways, one rail diversion, one road diversion, nine link roads, four footbridges, four pedestrian subways and one yard remodelling scheme. A total of 32 bridges, five subways, one footbridge and two link roads are under construction, giving a total of 255. Of the total amount of R38,5 million which has already been allotted to the Elimination Fund, an amount of R35,5 million has already been utilized, and I think that this is also an achievement. In spite of the fact that the elimination of the level crossings is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible, one still finds too many accidents taking place on these level crossings. I think that we in this House could also to a large extent make an appeal to our people to apply greater self-discipline. This applies in particular in respect of organizations concerned with bus transportation, for the casualty rate in bus accidents is alarmingly high. We could also request the transportation companies to follow the example of the S.A. Railways Passenger Bus Service. I do not know of one accident which this service has ever experienced. To eliminate unnecessary costs, I want to advocate that provision should also be made for fly-overs or subways by means of timeous planning when roads are being constructed. At present there is one major road under construction in my constituency. This is between the Witzieshoek homelands, Qwa-Qwa and Harrismith. Two roads are being planned, one between Golden Gate and Qwa-Qwa, and one between Kestell and Qwa-Qwa. Since we have reached the stage where a rail link with the Qwa-Qwa homeland at Witzieshoek has become quite indispensable, we want to advocate that attention be given to this matter at this early stage. At the present stage thousands of Bantu workers are already being conveyed between Qwa-Qwa and Harrismith. Within the foreseeable future as many as 5 000 passengers will have to be conveyed daily between Qwa-Qwa and Harrismith. It is also a fact that it will apparently not be possible for the Qwa-Qwa homeland to become self-sufficient as far as food production is concerned, but will instead become an industrial area. For the development of entrepreneurs in Qwa-Qwa we want to advocate that the department give very serious consideration to a rail link from Harrismith to Qwa-Qwa, and if possible from Qwa-Qwa through the Golden Gate uplands to Bethlehem.

Two years ago I asked in this House for the use of the Drakensberg train on a route between Durban and Cape Town. That route has been introduced, and one has appreciation for this fact. I think that if it were possible for the Drakensberg train to steam or to be electrically drawn through the picturesque Golden Gate uplands, it would arouse appreciation among the passengers. If there are problems in this regard, a link with the station Afrikaskop would be of as much value.

I conclude by saying that we are not only experiencing problems, we have also received a great deal for which appreciation has been expressed. At the request of the municipality of Harrismith, we should like to convey our sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister and the department for the replanning to accommodate Harrismith with siding facilities. Initially the calculated cost of the establishment of siding facilities in the vicnity was R½ million, but with replanning and incorporation in the normal development of the Railways, that amount was reduced to a total of R37 000. However, may I advocate the expedition of this essential service. I do not think hon. members can realize what such a concession means to a rural community. We want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that Harrismith will make use of this concession, just as we shall ensure that the rail link between Harrismith and Qwa-Qwa will be used effectively.

Mr. Chairman, this year’s Brown Book is the thickest I have ever seen and the thickest I have read through. It is quite apparent that the Administration is prepared to spend vast sums of money on the transport system throughout our country. I want to deal with local matters concerning my area, East London. As yet I have not had the opportunity of discussing these matters with the hon. the Minister himself, but I want to raise these matters during the dying stages of this long debate. I notice from the Brown Book that an amount which has increased by 44,6% is estimated for the East London harbour. This is very welcome indeed. As far as East London is concerned, a reasonable amount is to be spent on the provision of facilities for the handling of containers. We have had many problems in dealing with containers in East London harbour. This is caused by the very nature of the harbour which is a river harbour. We have had problems and we are still faced with problems when we deal with containers. I note under item 1427 that a large sum of R552 300 is to be spent on facilities for coastal container traffic in East London harbour. Of course, this scheme has now been dropped altogether as the type of vessel which would be operating in this port cannot operate where the facilities are of the type which is provided for by this scheme, namely a stub jetty which would have been situated at the end of the harbour. I have always doubted the feasibility of building a stub jetty in the East London harbour. I have always believed that it would not be suitable for the large vessels as they would not be able to use this jetty for two reasons. The first reason is that there is insufficient turning area in the harbour. The second reason is that the depth of the water would be quite inadequate. For those reasons the scheme has been dropped, but I only hope that the hon. the Minister will not drop the amount of money, namely the R552 300 which was to be spent there. I hope that this money will still be spent in the development of our harbour, which needs development very badly. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to make a note of this. The harbour can well do with further development.

Another matter which concerns East London in particular and which has almost become a hardy annual is the problem of wool-handling in the East London port. Apparently the Wool Board is engaged in its final examination of wool handling, particularly in regard to the future requirements in that field. As part of their examination someone was invited from Australia to give his comments on certain procedures followed in South Africa. This genteleman stated—

He was wrong, of course. It is regrettable that he should ever have made this statement. Very clearly this comment on East London was fed to this Australian gentleman. If the port of East London is not to be a container port, this is going to be a real factor in the final analysis made by the wool producer and the wool people in general. The hon. the Minister knows, or I believe he should know, that, although East London will not be a terminal container port, it will in fact be a container port. This we know. Yet we have had this adverse comment from a visitor from as far afield as Australia. There will be no additional charges levied by the shipping lines in the movement of containers from East London to other ports or other destinations. This matter is of extreme urgency, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to take this matter of containerization up in the strongest possible way. Hon. members will realize the implications that this will have on certain people who are directly responsible to the Government.

My time is just about expired. I have just one minute left to ask the hon. the Minister if he could tell me what type of tug—in East London we are particularly interested in the tugs and dredgers—is to replace the Schermbrucker. I only hope it will be of the Voith-Schneider type because this appears to be the most satisfactory type of tug for use in restricted waters.

Mr. Chairman, in my constituency there is a township called Salvokop which belongs entirely to the Railways. The people living in Salvokop are people employed in all branches of the Railways. Administrative staff live there, but for the most part these are what are called “foot-plate staff”. These people say they are “on the wheels”. These people who are “on the wheels”, and who live there, are people who have to work long and irregular hours. My father was a Railwayman and one of these staff members, and in all the years that I lived in my parents’ house, I cannot remember two days when he went to work at the same time or came home at the same time. In other words, for the Railwaymen every day is different to the previous day. In the nature of these circumstances the domestic life of these people must be subject to a considerable amount of strain. I think that for that reason I am entitled to say today that those Railwaymen are entitled to very good housing. Up to now, living conditions at Salvokop have been poor. The houses are old, poor and worn-out, and the circumstances in which these people have to live, are not of the best. It is, of course, true that because the housing there is very cheaply provided by the Railways, there is a tremendous demand for that housing. From time to time one hears the argument that because many people are prepared to go and live there, this is not the time to effect adequate improvements there. If we were always to give effect to that argument, it would mean that we in South Africa would not bring about improvements and heightened standards. We made representations to the hon. the Minister last year to review this whole matter with regard to Salvokop. One of the reasons for my speaking today is to convey my thanks and appreciation of the way in which the hon. the Minister reacted to the representations we addressed to him. I want to convey my special thanks to the hon. the Minister for the assurance we had from him that he had appointed a committee or taken steps to revise the planning of the re-development of the Salvokop area. The Railways has a great deal of work to do and we know that this, in particular, is a place where the Railways can undoubtedly still find much to do to improve the lot of its people. But while I say this, we must also take into account what the Railways is in fact doing for its employees as far as housing is concerned. I do not think there is any other employer in the country that does so much and spends so much money on good housing for its employees. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power to expedite the replanning of Salvokop. I also want to ask him to do everything in his power to have this replanning executed as speedily as possible. In this regard I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that directly opposite the street where the Salvokop area is situated, viz. Potgieter Street, is the area of another Government department, the prisons area. Virtually every week I receive telephone calls or letters from the people of Salvokop asking why they should have to endure these conditions, while the conditions across the road at the other Government department are so much better. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, if at all possible, financially or otherwise, to give his urgent attention to this matter of Salvokop that has been outstanding for so long and to ensure that the conditions at Salvokop are improved.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, it goes without saying that it is not possible for me on this occasion to reply to every subject which was discussed here. I should like to give hon. members the assurance that we are studying everything that has been said here. As we have also done in the past, we shall where necessary, with reference to the matters which have been raised here, address the necessary correspondence to hon. members and furnish them with the necessary information.

There are in fact a few subjects which I should like to discuss now. The first is the question which was again raised during the Committee Stage by the hon. member for Jeppe, and which was discussed further by the hon. member for Wonderboom. There is also the question of pensions which was raised by the hon. member for Umbilo. Before I come to that, I want to say that a question was put to me by the hon. member for Mooi River, and also by the hon. member for Durban Point, in regard to ships and the harbours. I must say that I was a little disappointed last night when the hon. member for Durban Point tried to create an impression here in this House and failed hopelessly in the attempt, viz. that he had allegedly discovered something in regard to which he wanted to claim for himself a measure of credit. If the hon. member thought that there was something we were trying to conceal or which other people knew nothing about, then I think he was completely ignorant. The hon. member subsequently admitted to me that he knew about these things. However, he then came forward with the defence that not everyone outside had known about them. For that reason it was necessary for him to say that there were certain things which we wanted to conceal here, although he himself knew about them. Why did he not tell the people outside about these things, if he thought that they did not know about them? To state it briefly, we have this agreement with the shipping lines, of which the hon. member is aware.

Was it a secret agreement, a confidential agreement?

No, it was a public agreement. I extended the agreement with the shipping lines, and everyone knows about it. It is no secret agreement. We cannot dispute the fact that there have been delays in the harbours recently, nor can we dispute the fact that those delays entailed additional costs for the shipping lines. As a result it is only fair that there should be a levy to compensate them to a certain extent for the delay which is occurring there. It was only by way of explanation that I told the hon. member here last night that although there is a levy, it will make no difference to South Africa when the agreement with the shipping lines is terminated. That is in fact all I tried to explain. What I did not say last night was that this levy is not a permanent measure. When the position in the harbours improves or returns to normal then it goes without saying that the levy will either have to be reduced or abolished.

The hon. member put a question to me in regard to the delay of ships in the harbours. I already had the information last night, and for that reason I said earlier today that I would furnish the day before yesterday’s figures. The day before yesterday the position was that the average delay of ships outside the harbours was six days; for all ships it was 2¾ days. The delay the day before yesterday, in the case of the ship which had to wait the longest, was 14 days. I have just received figures again, in regard to the position today in so far as it is applicable. I want to furnish these figures separately for Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London. Firstly I am taking the ships which are waiting outside the harbour: In Cape Town one, in Durban 31, in Port Elizabeth none, and in East London two. The longest delay in terms of days in Cape Town is a half day; in other words the position in Cape Town has returned to normal. In Durban the longest delay is 16 days; in Port Elizabeth there is no delay, and in East London the longest delay is seven days. The average delay in respect of ships which are waiting—and I should like to emphasize that this does not refer to all the ships including those which are in the harbour, some of which do not wait at all—is as follows: In Cape Town a half day, in Durban 6½ days, in Port Elizabeth no delay, and in East London five days.

Is there not a drop in traffic?

In so far as there is a drop in traffic, this will of course entail that the delay periods are reduced, but if the delay periods are reduced, this could also be as a result of more efficient handling of the goods in the harbours. I just want to say, in addition, that the average delay for all, i.e. for ships waiting outside the harbour as well as for ships which are berthed in the harbour, will be approximately half the time I have furnished here for ships which are waiting.

Do you not have the figures?

No, unfortunately not. In the case of Durban, I think that it would be reasonable and fair to say that, while the delay for ships waiting outside the harbour is 6½ days, the average for all will be in the region of three days. This brings us again to approximately the figure which I mentioned here last night.

And three days is normal.

No, three days is not normal.

You said so last night.

What does the hon. member mean?

No one can expect better than three days.

No, I did not say that last night. I said that I wanted an improvement on three days. I did not say that three days is normal.

Three days is the average waiting period, not the normal waiting period.

Is an average waiting period of three days reasonable?

No, Sir, I think there is a misunderstanding. If the average delay for all the ships is three days, then I want an improvement on that; it goes without saying; look at the many days some of the ships still have to spend waiting outside.

Sir, if you will permit me to do so, I now want to proceed to the next subject, and this was the matter which was raised here for the second time by the hon. member for Jeppe. I then wondered why it was that the hon. member for Jeppe was so concerned about this matter. After all, this is not in his constituency. This is another city entirely. It is not in Johannesburg, where he is. [Interjections.] I then wondered where it came from. The reason for his concern is the same we see so frequently in the Opposition, viz. that the newspapers give them certain subjects for discussion. [Interjections.] I then established that in Hoofstad on Wednesday, 5 March, a long article appeared under the caption (translation) “Railways dragging its feet on project”. A day later, on 6 March, what I could almost term an ugly leading article appeared in the same newspaper. I am putting it in this way because this newspaper report and this leading article denoted a total ignorance of the subject under discussion.

Surely it was not mine.

I know you did not draft it, but you probably saw it. I shall quote only one paragraph from the leading article (translation)—

This matter was raised two years ago.

I think we shall simply leave it at that; we shall leave the newspapers at that. This is probably a cross we shall have to learn to bear.

And what about the reply which I raised? [Interjections.]

Considerable time has now been spent on this matter, and I have been able to make myself fully conversant with the circumstances and the maps, and what should be done in that regard. It appears that it was only in 1970 that there was sufficient clarity in regard to this scheme, or a scheme of this nature, to enable the Railways to commence its planning. This was only in 1970. Prior to that time there was no clarity. Even at that stage, i.e. 1970, there was still a measure of uncertainty as to the removal of the Bantu, as to what townships they would reside in, and the numbers of Bantu for which provision had to be made, and many other considerations which had to be taken into consideration in the technical planning of a scheme of this nature. Consequently the Railways was the body which suggested that a direct route should be followed from Mabopane to Winternest. There were other proposals from other bodies, that the route should be a circuitous one, touching on at other places, but eventually it was decided that the railway line would be built from Mabopane to Winternest and that further provision would then be made on the existing railway line up to Wolmerton, where a station would then be built at which the passengers would be able to alight, this part is being regarded as the first part of this entire project. This in itself is already a major scheme. From the nature of the case, because it is the first part of this project, it will mean that from Wolmerton the passengers will then have to be conveyed further by means of buses, but I am coming to that in a moment. I said a moment ago that there have been various proposals as to what form the project should take. I have that report of the Railway Board as well; the Railway Construction Act was piloted through this House in 1973. But I now want to give you a description of the circumstances and of the problems involved in implementing an undertaking such as this. Subsequently it had to be decided where the station was to be situated. There was a major difference of opinion in regard to the Belle Ombré station, near the Zoo, from which pedestrians must now make their way to within Pretoria. The hon. members from Pretoria will perhaps support me on this. I should like to tell you, Sir, that only recently, in December of last year, changes were still being proposed by other bodies with regard to the planning of this station. But despite these differences of opinion a decision has now been taken. In fact, the differences of opinion concerned the situation and the functions of the station, for what purpose the station would be built—to link up, of course, with the main station of Pretoria, for the train touches on at Belle Ombre station and then carries on to Pretoria station. I want to emphasize that as recently as December of last year there were further proposals in regard to possible changes in the situation of this station. Between 1970 and 1974, i.e. since the programming and planning of this scheme was commenced, suggestions have on many occasions been made as to what will actually be necessary in view of the numbers which will have to be conveyed along the railway line. As a result of the projections which were made, and the expansions and requirements, as calculated, it was then decided that the railway line between Pretoria North and Hercules would have to be extended from four to six lines. I want the Committee to realize that this project will be situated within the municipal area of Pretoria, but at least not in the business centre. As far as the railway line runs through the area of Pretoria North/Hercules, it will be in a municipal area. This is a very complex municipal area for roads and fly-overs are also being constructed by other bodies. The report to which the hon. member for Jeppe referred, was then hurriedly referred to this House in 1973 and the Railway Construction Act was passed. This is according to my information, for I did not at that time occupy the position I occupy at present.

Legislation was passed in that regard.

To eliminate certain bottlenecks in regard to the conveyance of goods through Pretoria itself it was decided, and approved in principle by Parliament, that a railway line would be built east of Pretoria to link up with the new shunting yard which is to be built at Bapsfontein. This railway line will bring a large measure of alleviation for the goods traffic which has to pass through Pretoria. I want the hon. member to bear in mind that such a railway line will be built to by-pass Pretoria.

I have already said that this stage of this project will entail the railway line from Mabopane to Winternest. At Wolmerton the passengers will then have to alight from the train, to be conveyed further by bus to Pretoria. It will constitute this measure of alleviation that although all passengers at present have to be conveyed by bus over the same route, it will be possible in future to convey them from Wolmerton via various routes to the various parts of Pretoria. We expect the first portion to have been completed by 1978. This will indeed bring about a substantial improvement.

I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the work on the passes through Wonderboompoort and Daspoort is tremendously complicated. Although it is possible to proceed with the construction of the railway line and the building of the station at Belle Ombre, it will be expedient to wait until the other railway line east of Pretoria to Bapsfontein has been constructed before the actual work in the pass is carried out, for if this is not done the traffic through the pass will be such that it will make the activities there extremely difficult. We expect that the bypass line east of Pretoria to Bapsfontein will have been completed by 1980. It will then be possible for the final activities in the pass to take place.

I want to emphasize that the estimated costs of the scheme are only provisional, as is consequently being indicated in the Brown Book. The estimated cost amounts to R51 million. This is a tremendously complex scheme which will require a great deal of planning and close co-operation with other bodies.

This is the full story, the facts of which I set out briefly last night. I have now tried to state the problems we are experiencing to the hon. members in simple terms.

The second point I should like to deal with is the question of pensions.

†I should like to say to the hon. member for Umbilo that I would prefer to tell my story in Afrikaans because that is my mother tongue. If there should be anything that he does not understand properly, I should like him to interrupt me because I know he is keenly interested in this subject.

*I have certain problems in this regard, particularly as far as the minimum income levels for pensioners are concerned. I should like to leave them with hon. members so that they may, at another appropriate time or in another manner, comment on these. At the outset I want to say that since last year, when an improvement was announced in respect of pensions, I have begun to give attention to the question of the minimum income level which is payable on certain Railway pensions. There are certain problems which one has to bear in mind. The minimum income level must have a bearing on what is regarded as the income on which a person can subsist. A minimum income level is paid to enable a person or a family to subsist. The purpose of an increase in the minimum is to ensure an income on which people can live. An ordinary pension is related to a person’s contribution to a pension fund. Our problem on the Railways is that there are so many pensioners who made no contribution to the Pension Fund or who were not in the service of the Railways long enough to entitle them to the payment of a reasonable basic pension. I have a great deal of sympathy for the railwayman who has devoted a reasonable portion of his productive life to the Railway service. But when I come to the person who has rendered perhaps 12 or 13, or 15 years’ service and I find that his contribution to the Pension Fund, and the pension to which he is entitled on the basis of that contribution is inconsiderable and forms only a small percentage of the minimum income level which we lay down, I must inevitably ask myself whether it is the task of the Railways to undertake that kind of national welfare work by supplementing his pension with allowances to assure him of the minimum income level. After all, a person is not in that case being paid in accordance with the contribution which he made to the Pension Fund, or that to which he is entitled. He is being paid far more than that. Then one wonders—I want to put this to the hon. members—whether it can be said that it is the task of the Railways to make that kind of contribution. When we made an analysis of the period of service of people who were being paid minimum income levels, we found that 85,9% of those who were without dependants had had less than 16 years’ service. I regard 25 years or more of a person’s lifetime in a specific trade or occupation as the better part of a man’s life. A total of 85,3% of the pensioners with dependants, who were receiving the minimum income levels, had had a service period of less than 19 years, while 86,3% of the late husbands of the Railway pensioners’ widows had only been in railway service for 15 years or less. A total of 85% of the late husbands of the Railway pensioners’ widows had had 18 years or less service on the Railways. All the examples which I have now mentioned indicate that my problem is the fact that such a large percentage of the people who are today receiving a minimum income level only spent a small portion of their lives in the service of the Railways. And now the Railways has to pay them a minimum livable income. A railway worker must have been in the service of the Railways for 28 years before his pension exceeds the minimum income level. That is precisely my problem. He must have been in the Service for ten years before he can qualify for a pension. But I have another problem as well. We lay down, when a person enters the service of the Railways, and is older than 53 years, that he may not participate in the pension scheme. However, it may happen—and it does in fact happen— that a person may enter the service of the Railways at the age of 50 years. At the age of 60 he then qualifies for a pension. He may remain on in the service of the Railways until the age of 63 years, but this will have no effect whatsoever on the pension which he is ultimately going to receive, the minimum pension. The result is that the person retires at the age of 60 or 61. He receives the minimum income level although he could have rendered fruitful service for a further year or two. I am mentioning this example to indicate the problems which we are experiencing. I have an idea that the Public Service is experiencing the same problem. In any case, the position as I have described it above, is as we are experiencing it.

In view of this I ask myself whether it is not correct that a distinction should be drawn between the official who spends only a small portion of his life in the service of the Railways, and another official who spent a relatively large portion of his life in the service of the Railways. Then I ask myself as well whether it is not the duty of the Railways to make a contribution by way of welfare work to bring his pension up to the minimum income level, something which the official is not entitled to upon retirement. I admit that the Railways have a responsibility to its officials who retire, but—and this I want to emphasize again—it is those officials who have devoted a major and relatively valuable part of their productive life to the Railways whom the Railways should look after. I think that hon. members will agree with me when I say that we should give special attention to this problem. This is my reply to that part of the speech made by the hon. member for Umbilo pertaining to minimum pensions. Whatever the case may be, we are giving attention to the matter and we shall see what we are able to do in future.

The hon. member referred in the second place to the pensioners who retired from service prior to 1 December 1973. There I again have the same type of problem. In December 1973 we introduced an improved pension scheme. It increased the pensions of Railway workers who retire on pension considerably, viz. by 33⅓% and 25% in the case of pensioners and pensioners’ widows respectively. This, however, went hand in hand with an increased contribution to the pension fund.

But the others were also paying a higher contribution.

No, the contribution to the pension fund was only increased from 4% to 6% with effect from December 1973.

Previously it used to be 8%.

Yes, but that is not a comparable position. As far as that 8% is concerned, the circumstances were completely different. Let us now give our attention to the 4% which was applicable immediately prior to December 1973. It is now being advocated that the positions of these people be equalized, but the basis of this pension is not the same as that which is being used in the determination of the minimum income level. The basis of this pension is not: “What does the person require to subsist?” The basis of this pension is: “To what pension fund does the person belong, and what contribution did he make?” For that reason I think it is fair to say that the person who paid the increased contribution with effect from December 1973, is more entitled to an increased pension than the person who made a smaller contribution prior to December 1973.

But the person who made the smaller contribution is in fact the person who previously made a contribution of 8%.

That is not comparable; it is a completely different subject. I say again that as the pensions improve from time to time, we make adjustments to compensate people for the rising rate of inflation. We did this last year, and we shall do so again as and when it is expedient. We are in fact experiencing these problems, which we must of course deal with. The hon. member for Umbilo, and I think the hon. member for Pinelands as well, made a request to me that pensioners should also serve on the Sick Fund Committee, the Joint Committee for Pension Matters and other committees. This pension fund is maintained by the people who contribute to it, and as one hon. member said this afternoon, the people who serve on this pension fund committee are nominated by the staff associations. We can find no justification for these pensioners, who are in fact the out-going part of the old staff, to serve on the pension fund committee while the people who are serving on it today are being required to give attention to the state of the fund itself. For that reason I personally think that it is the correct policy to allow the officials who are still in fact in the service of the Railways to serve on the pension fund committee so that they can ensure that matters proceed smoothly there.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does the hon. the Minister not feel with me that people who are at present in the service of the Railways will obviously have the interests of their own group in mind and that those who are now on pension can so easily be forgotten unless they have some representation?

I do not think it works that way. As the pension fund grows stronger and circumstances for the people contributing to the pension fund improve, the people serving on the Joint Committee also look after the interests of the people who are drawing pensions. I do not think that that is any argument.

Then I should also like to refer briefly to the other speeches which were made here. The hon. member for Pretoria Central referred to Salvokop. I should like to tell him that I paid a personal visit to Salvokop. I made a short tour of Salvokop, and I must say that the need for improvements there is a matter of deep concern to me. However, we have certain problems. Although many hon. members think that the houses are dilapidated and no longer fit for occupation, they are nevertheless walls, and roofs under which people can still live. If one demolishes these houses, it would mean that there will no longer be any dwellings, and these are difficult to find. At the same time the rents for those houses are low. For that reason it is not so easy to demolish the houses and build new ones. Apart from that, finances are always a consideration. I should like to tell the hon. member—he knows about this because he said so himself—that we are giving special attention to this matter.

The hon. member for East London North asked which tugs would be used. According to the best information at my disposal it will be the Voith-Schneider type of tug which will be used. We agree that this type of tug will be the most serviceable tug. Containerization at East London will not be the same as at other harbours. There will in fact be coastal containerization. In any event, container ships will still call on there.

The hon. member for South Coast asked me why we were still purchasing diesel locomotives. I should like to furnish him with a reply on the matters which he raised. It is not feasible to electrify everywhere. Apart from that, the hon. member will also realize that electrification requires a tremendous capital outlay. On certain railway lines the traffic on those lines does not justify the cost in any case. For that reason we must have other tractive power in the meantime. Diesel traction when one is hauling long trains is a great improvement on steam locomotives. There are other advantages as well to diesel tractive power, which I do not want to elaborate on now. Although we are trying to convert to electricity whereever we can, and although our electrification programme is being expedited, we shall in the meantime probably have to continue to use diesel power for a long time to come, for the reasons which I have mentioned.

The hon. member asked why the chassis of certain of these coaches are being reinforced. I should just like to explain. It is the old third-class coaches which we are having to reinforce for reasons of safety. I just want to furnish an example of why the coaches have to be reinforced, although it is not this particular incident which gave rise to this. The hon. member for East London City referred to the case of the Mdantsane bus problems which we experienced in East London. When the buses were no longer running there, the Bantu used these coaches in such numbers that the chassis of the coaches bent, and in some cases the batteries were being dragged along the railway track. It is difficult to believe, but it is true; it really happened. Because these people fill some of our coaches in such numbers that the load is too great, we have decided for reasons of safety to reinforce the chassis of some of these old coaches.

The hon. member also had problems in regard to the Airways. He also asked why we were not using non-Whites at Harding. I explained to the hon. member yesterday that the coalman has nothing to do with the operating of the locomotive or the train, but that we are using them only for shunting work. In the case to which he referred one naturally requires a person who is able to give the necessary attention to the operation of the train as well.

The hon. member for Bellville referred to our activities in Mozambique. I can only say that those activities went off very successfully and smoothly. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to a letter which he received, in which an objection had been made to the noise in Pinelands. Other hon. members also raised the question of noise. The hon. member for Port Natal also got hot under the collar about the noise problem. I am afraid that wherever railway lines run, one will have to put up with a little noise. As far as the board to which the hon. member for Pinelands referred is concerned, I should like to tell him that if there is positive objection to the presence of a board, such objection may be submitted to us. We could then remove such a board.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg referred to Olifantsfontein. I see in the Brown Book that there is a cash provision for this year of only approximately R20 000. Consequently we will simply see what we can do in the case which he raised. The hon. member for Umlazi also discussed pensions, to which I have already replied. In addition he furnished an elucidation of certain matters in Durban. The hon. member for Mossel Bay discussed Mossel Bay harbour. I appreciate his interest in Mossel Bay. I should like to tell him as well as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn who pleaded for a connection between Le Roux Station and Beaufort West and another connection between Calitzdorp and Ladysmith and one from the Langkloof as well, that I am very fond of and am very interested in that vicinity because my for-bearers conveyed goods from Mossel Bay to Beaufort West by means of a donkey cart. However, I think that one should allow oneself to be guided by economic circumstances. The hon. member who pleaded for expansions to the railway system will realize that one cannot simply construct a railway line. It is the policy of the Railways that we do not build a railway line until such time as we are certain that it is economically viable. The necessary guarantees must be furnished in every case, so that the Railways does not undertake or maintain a railway line which is not an economic success. These are the problems which we have with regard to the request made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, as well as to a large extent as far as the harbours are concerned. However, as I said yesterday, I am very sympathetic towards Mossel Bay, and if the circumstances justify this in future, we must definitely give these matters our attention.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred again to the separation of the harbours.

†I think we discussed this matter sufficiently last year. I did not think it was necessary to discuss it again this year. However, the hon. member must have thought that at least somebody should raise it this year.

*Under the circumstances I do not think we should discuss it any further today. My own personal opinion is that these are so closely integrated with the Railways that the position will be worse if they are made an entirely separate department.

We have you a long way on the road towards separate administrations.

Well, if the hon. member is more satisfied I am also pleased.

He is only less dissatisfied.

The hon. member also mentioned the shortage of stevedores. I do not think that it is incumbent on me to reply to that.

The hon. member for Port Natal also referred to the flowers that wilted. I should like to tell him that we now have large airfreight sheds which have been constructed at the Jan Smuts Airport. I do not think it need any longer be necessary for flowers, or anything else for that matter, to lie in the sun. I am almost unable to believe that such an article as flowers could be left lying in the sun for an hour on the Jan Smuts Airport. However, if anything of this nature and the circumstances could be brought to our attention so that it could be proved, I would be very pleased. I also want to inform the hon. member that Bayhead, to which he referred, is also on the dieselization programme. This will not happen immediately, but will in fact happen within the reasonably near future. [Interjections.] Then the steam locomotives will no longer be there, although I am afraid that the clashing noise of steel against steel will always be there as far as shunting work is concerned.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked me to reintroduce the rebate on show animals. I am quite satisfied to organize and to administer this. However, I think that the losses which we suffer in this regard will have to be reimbursed either by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture or from some other source. If the hon. member for Mooi River is able to persuade the Department of Agriculture to reimburse this rebate, I am quite prepared to undertake the necessary administrative work in this connection.

Howick station will definitely be built during the present year. I should like to refer the hon. member to item 724 on the Brown Book. The heading is “Replace wood and iron station buildings”. I can give him the assurance that that work will commence during the present year.

The hon. member for Tygervallei referred to the top management as we call it, of the Railways, I can only agree with him. If we consider that the Railways is such a major organization with such an important and tremendous responsibility—particularly if one takes into consideration the financial extent of this organization—then one can say that it cannot be compared with the private sector, and probably not with the semi-Government corporations either. We on the Railways are very fond of our work. There are certain other advantages as well. The hon. member also referred to the Sick Fund. At the same time I also want to refer to the speech made last night by the hon. member for Krugersdorp in regard to the Sick Fund. We have now introduced an entirely new scheme in regard to the Sick Fund which gives additional benefits to the members of the Sick Fund in respect of dental services, confinements and ophthalmic services. The hon. member for Krugersdorp commented on this a little yesterday, but I think that we should give this new scheme a chance to see how it operates. We cannot do everything at once. The hon. member suggested certain improvements, but let us first give the new scheme a chance to see how it operates.

Sir, the hon. member for East London City referred again to the judgment of the Hamburg Maritime Court. I have asked for a copy of that judgment, but I have not yet received one. This matter falls under the Department of Transport, and the hon. member may, if he wishes, raise this matter again when we discuss the Transport Vote; it does not fall under Railways. I have been informed that the East London harbour is a completely safe harbour, and that in reality there are no fundamental problems there. The hon. member also referred to the Mdantsane bus service problem, which we had a little while ago. I just want to tell him that this is a tremendously complicated subject. For weeks I lived with this problem, and I would be able to discuss the problems for hours and tell you very interesting stories about it. With reference to that, the hon. member then asked for improved Railway facilities.

For a railway line.

The present railway line runs down to East London station, and from there to the harbour. At present we are engaged in an investigation of the possibility and the viability of a railway line which will cross the river to the southern or western part, and then in the direction of the industrial area. This is being investigated at present.

Sir, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg discussed the question of smoking and nonsmoking on aircraft. This is such an interesting subject that I would gladly have liked to discuss it, but it seems to me my time is running out. A while ago I sent the following message to the Management and I think that the non-smokers in this House would perhaps agree with me; I am reading the message as I sent it to them (translation)—

That is what I told the Airways, and they have now submitted certain proposals to me.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Why is it not possible to ban smoking altogether in planes?

There you have another manifestation of this verkramptheid.

I assume that it is not impossible, but I am afraid that we will have a great deal of dissatisfaction.

Will it not be possible to hold a referendum on it?

Sir, I am quite amenable to something of that nature. I can easily get along without smoking because I do not smoke. The Airways then put certain suggestions to me; I have plans of all the aircraft here, and all the proposals amount to the first approximately eight to ten rows of seats in the various aircraft having to be set aside for non-smokers: in the 747, the first-class seats, the first three rows, and in the economy class approximately 12 rows from the front. But, Sir. I should not like to cause the passengers any inconvenience. I have the problem in this connection that we usually allow the Cabinet Minister and other important persons such as members of the House of Assembly to sit in the first rows of the aircraft and this means that Ministers and members of the House of Assembly who smoke will now have to move to the back rows. I wonder whether we should not allow the seats along one side to be set aside for non-smokers only; the smokers can then sit on the other side of the aircraft I do not want to elaborate any further on this matter. I just wanted to report on what progress we have made thus far.

And after this, will you have planes for men only?

I must make haste. The hon. member for Heilbron referred to agricultural produce and to the farmers. We are always sympathetic in our approach to the rural areas.

The hon. member for Sunnyside raised a matter in regard to which I should like to say a few words. He discussed the capital structure of the Railways, During the Second Reading debate various hon. members also discussed this matter. The hon. member for Bloemfontein East made a very fruitful contribution to the Second Reading debate. Inter alia he suggested that we create a capital reserve fund. Well now, I do not want to go into any details, but if you were to glance at the documents, Sir, you would see that we are already financing a substantial portion of our capital expenditure from our own resources. We are trying to make more and more progress in that direction, so much so that this year, in the coming year, we anticipate paying R30 million more into the Renewal Fund than we did last year. In this current year it is R40 million, and we intend increasing this in the coming year to R70 million. All this is intended to enable us to provide our own means for capital expenditure. The hon. member’s problem was in fact that we are not making redemptions. Well now, to the extent to which we already have authorization to negotiate loans, and are in fact negotiating loans in our own name those loans are being redeemed. Only the loans which are being made available to us by the Treasury are not being redeemed. It is in fact an open question whether or not this is the right thing to do. The fact of the matter is that it may not seem to be the case at first glance, but I think that if one has done everything necessary in the way of renewal and replacement then those funds—for example we are already using all our write-offs viz. the funds which are made available by means of our write-offs on our capital investment—may immediately be used again to be invested as capital. If one continues with that process to a sufficient extent one need never obtain an imbalance, no matter how long one continues to do so. Then one need never have an imbalance between one’s burden of interest and one’s earnings. And if on has a balance between one’s burden of, interest and one’s earnings, one can always continue on a sound basis in future. But I have simply been expressing my own few ideas. This is a subject on which very interesting discussions could take place.

I do not think there is very much more I need reply to. The hon. member for Eshowe referred to Richards Bay, which is located in his constituency. It is my intention to visit Richards Bay later on in the year to see how the work there is progressing. I hope that if it is possible for the hon. member to do so, he should accompany us on that occasion. The hon. member for Somerset East referred to certain mess buildings, which ought to be renovated and improved. We shall give attention to that matter. I have already disposed of the points raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. The hon. member for Wonderboom discussed the Winternest/Mabopane matter.

I think I have more or less come to the end now.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to a certain bus service, and because it is creating somewhat of a problem, I have to say a few words about it. The hon. member himself said that that bus service had, over a period of six months which recently expired, conveyed only 33 Whites over the route in question. We feel that it is not justified to retain facilities for the conveyance of such a small number of people over such a period. I think the hon. member agrees with me. We shall look into this matter once again. The hon. member made a plea for people who have no other means of transportation. I should like to help, and I have asked the Management to see whether some or other arrangement cannot be made in accordance with which we shall be able to accommodate those people.

I think this more or less brings me to the end of my reply. I should like to thank hon. members for the fruitful discussion which has been conducted, and emphasize once again that to the extent to which I have not replied to everything, the hon. members may be assured that nothing will go through to which the Management and I will not give the necessary attention.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

If this amendment is accepted, the new section 45 will read—

This section replaces the existing section 43 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No. 56 of 1955. It does differ, however, in some material respects. First of all it provides in paragraph (a) that if the person concerned consents to the search, then the policeman may, without a search warrant, carry out the search. In other words, it gives a further ground to the policeman for conducting a search without a warrant. I think this is a reasonable and practical procedure and in that respect the proposed section is better than the existing section 43. The proposed section 45 provides further in paragraph (b) that if the policeman believes on reasonable grounds that a search warrant will be issued to him and that the delay in obtaining such warrant would defeat the object of the search, he may carry out the search without a search warrant. This provision differs from the existing section in that it inserts the words “on reasonable grounds that a search warrant will be issued to him”. The existing section provides that if a policeman believes on reasonable grounds that the delay in obtaining a search warrant would defeat the object of the search, he may search, but it does not include a provision which states that he must believe on reasonable grounds that a search warrant will be issued to him. Now he will not be able to act on the mere suspicion that a search warrant will be issued to him; he must believe it on reasonable grounds. We believe that these two improvements are to the good and we support them.

But then we find that the proposed new section 45 has left out the provision which the hon. member for Houghton wishes to insert again, namely that any search, should, as far as possible, be made during the day-time and in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the search is made. The hon. the Minister will recollect, although I doubt whether he was the Minister of Justice at that time, that when a new Criminal Procedure Bill was introduced in 1973 this matter was discussed up to a certain stage when the Government withdrew that particular Bill. The discussion encompassed a clause which was on all fours with the proposed section 45 which we are now discussing. In the Committee Stage the hon. member for Jeppe introduced an amendment along exactly the same lines as the amendment now being introduced by the hon. member for Houghton. After discussion the amendment was withdrawn. The reason given by the then Minister of Justice was to the effect that the Police had found extraordinary difficulty in practically applying this particular proviso to the section. It was withdrawn and the clause was agreed to. The hon. member for Houghton, who was present during the debate, made no objection thereto. We would like to know why it is that she is now re-introducing it.

Dealing with the amendment which we move, we believe that this procedure of giving a policeman the right to search without a warrant is a drastic procedure. We believe that it should be examined very carefully and that there should be a balance effected between the rights of personality and the interests of the community. We believe that the powers of the Police should be balanced against the interests of individuals and that both the powers of the Police and the interests of individuals should be subject to certain restrictions. Sometimes, in fact, even the interests of innocent people have to give way to the interests of the people taken as a whole. We believe that the majority of the people in this country would accept that a balanced approach to the application of this type of law should be adopted. After all, we do impose legal limits on the Police in the exercise of their functions. Police power should be controlled and confined in certain cases so as not to interfere arbitrarily with the personal freedoms of the people of the country. We find that the proviso that it should be done during the day-time and in the presence of two people has been done away with. We believe that the present form of the proposed section is rather too wide and that there could possibly be a misuse of power. We believe that the individual’s interests and privacy are too sacred to be exposed in such a way to this type of Police action. In the interests of justice the Police should have the right to search, but certainly not in respect of petty and minor offences. That is why we suggest that the clause should be amended by inserting “in respect of suspected offences listed in the First Schedule”. The First Schedule to the Act deals with offences in respect of which arrests may be may be made without a warrant Where we are being asked here to give the right to the Police to search without a warrant it is equally right that we should restrict those powers in the same way as we have given the right to peace officers to arrest without a warrant. Therefore we suggest—and we hope that the hon. the Minister will agree with, us—that this proviso should be inserted. The offences which are listed in the First Schedule are incredibly extensive, and the only restrictions that will really apply will be in respect of minor and petty offences mainly resulting from statutory provisions and regulations arising out of Acts. We believe that this small protection will allow people’s rights of personality and privacy to be protected. Where you have petty and minor offences, it will be quite competent for a police officer to approach the relevant authorities in terms of the proposed new section 44 and apply for the issue of a search warrant. Invariably in those types of cases time is not of the essence and a policeman will be able to obtain a search warrant without loss of efficiency.

Mr. Chairman, although I agree with certain of the sentiments which were expressed by the hon. member for East London City, I do not agree with the amendment that he proposes. The point that he makes that there must be a balance between the public interest and the individual, was very well made by the Hon. Mr. Justice Botha when he reported on the question of criminal procedure. I would like to quote from this sentence from his report—

I think that this is an aspect, a circumstance, which was very clearly canvassed in the 1973 debate. Something which obviously escapes the subjective mind and the prejudiced approach of the hon. member for Houghton is the principle that it is equally in the public interest that the guilty should be convicted as that the innocent should be discharged.

*In the first place I should like to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe. The hon. member referred here to two cases, the Cine Film case and the Pullen case, to substantiate the argument that the section should be amended so as to require the alleged offence to be defined in the search warrant. In the first place it did not appear in either of these two cases that the applicant had been inconvenienced purely because the alleged offence had not been defined in the search warrant. I know that it has been made very clear in these cases that because this constitutes statutory encroachment on the private rights of the individual, the search warrants should be very closely examined. Consequently, where search warrants have been issued and people have been prejudiced by this, applicants have tried to make out very strong cases in an attempt to indicate that their private rights should not be encroached on. In the Cine Film case this entailed great financial losses for the applicant, because films were seized. It was even alleged that the Police had assisted the complainant in protecting a supposed right of the complainant. With all due respect, I cannot imagine that a Police officer armed with an official document would cause less alarm and less resistance on the part of a person who is to be searched, just because particulars of the offence are mentioned in the search warrant.

†The hon. learned Judge continues in the 1929 case. On page 850 he says—

*Then his argument creates the impression that if the alleged offence were to be described in the search warrant, “it would apprise the occupier whose premises are searched of the reason for the encroachment on his rights and thus may tend to allay resentment and prevent obstruction of the Police”.

†The learned Judge here refers to the recital and not to the offence. He goes on to say—

He then went on to say—

*I want to emphasize that in my humble opinion the accused, or rather, the person being searched, is in no way adversely affected by not knowing the nature of the offence which is being investigated. What, for example, would the position in the Cine Film case have been if it had subsequently appeared that possession of the films had not been an offence in terms of the Copyright Act, but in terms of the Publications Act? Would the search warrant then have been invalid? This shows hon. members that such a situation could render the whole process ineffective.

A further argument I want to advance here is that this clause corresponds to section 42 of the present Act, and that it has existed in some form since 1828. Although the Hon. Mr. Justice Tindall voiced his objections to the omission of the particulars of the offence in 1929, he certainly did not advance them in 1948, when he was the acting chief justice in the appeal trial in the Desai case. For that reason I believe that the proposal made by the hon. member for Jeppe in this regard would render the amended section ineffective, that it has no substance and that it should not be accepted.

Then I want to go on to the proposal made by the hon. member for Houghton.

†In the first instance the hon. member for Houghton proposes that a policeman must upon arrival inform the possible suspect: “Look, Sir, I have a search warrant. I intend searching you or your house for the article. Here is the warrant. I hereby produce a copy and hand it to you.” Thereby he will present the suspect with, a glorious opportunity to dispose of the article. That is exactly what she means. Surely, she must agree that the proposed amendment completely defeats the object for which this clause is to be enacted.

*As far as the proposed amendment to the new section 45 is concerned, we must keep in mind that we are dealing here with a search without a warrant. From the nature of the case, a search carried out in terms of the provisions of this new section is urgent. Any delay may defeat the object of the search. Can any right-minded person believe that a Police officer who has to act under these pressing and demanding circumstances should have to do so in the daytime, to get hold of two persons to be present and moreover to make sure that those persons are respectable?

That is how it was.

That is not how it was. It means that two strange persons, complete outsiders, would have to be obtained, which would further invade the person’s privacy. At least the Police officer has a task to perform there, while these two persons, who may be neighbours and who are not concerned in the matter at all, stand looking on. What are they to do there? This is a very ill-considered proposal indeed; it is impractical, not to mention the adverse effect it would have on the privacy of the individual. The proposal is basically nonsense.

I come to the proposed new section 46. This presents another illustration of the unfortunate situation in which the party on that side of the House finds itself because it does not have a lawyer in its ranks, or because the person who advised them in this regard did not examine this measure properly. If one looks at the proposed new section 50B, one sees that reference is made to “a search of any person”. This indisputably includes the person who has must been arrested. Why then add this unnecessary and tautological proviso?

Then I want to refer to the proposed new section 47 on page 6 of the Bill, to which the fifth amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton relates. This section corresponds with section 46(2), which was inserted in the Act by section 11 of Act 93 of 1963. If a person takes action in this regard which is wrongful or malicious, and without reasonable cause, moreover, his actions will be covered by other provisions of criminal law. He may be guilty, for example, of trespassing as well as of assault. But what about all the other civil remedies that are available to the person concerned?

They are expensive.

Mr. F. J. LE ROUX (Brakpan.) In that case we can leave out the civil remedies and just use the criminal remedies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 8, to omit all the words after “that” in line 24 up to and including “notify” in line 26 and to substitute “no policeman shall act under this subsection unless he has previously failed to obtain admission after having audibly demanded the same and notified”;
2. (2) on page 8, in line 45, to omit “two” and to substitute “four”; and
3. (3) on page 8, in line 46, to omit “six months” and to substitute “one year”.

Mr. Chairman, in moving these amendments, I would like to support the amendments of the other members who have already spoken, and to say that I believe that the cumulative effect of the amendments proposed to this clause is that no principle of this Bill is in any way vitiated or destroyed or even watered down. If one looks at these amendments carefully, one sees that that is so. Indeed, this clause is perhaps made stronger by the amendments proposed because, without limiting the State in any way or detracting from any of the powers of judicial officers, the proposed amendments do offer certain safeguards to the individuals concerned. The amendments in fact humanize and regularize the rights of persons who may well be the subject of investigations or searches. There is no intention in the amendments to hamper the work of the officials or the guardians of justice in any way. In addition, I believe we do not wish to create or to perpetuate a situation in terms of which policemen, officials or peace officers become little tin gods with limitless rights in their respective communities. Just looking at some of the proposed amendments, one sees that quite clearly they are all geared to assist in the protection of the individual. For instance, in the case of the very first amendment mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan, an amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Houghton, I cannot see how, if this amendment is accepted, the object of the clause will be defeated. When a policeman knocks on a door and hands over a warrant, he immediately thereupon commences the search. Surely in that case there will be very little time in which to dispose of any goods or evidence which might be the object of the search. What I ask is that when a search is being undertaken and the people are walking through somebody’s house or on somebody’s premises, why keep the owner in suspense? What is the purpose of that? Surely it is only the civilized thing to do to disclose to people what you are about?

As far as the second one that was mentioned by the hon. member for Vereeniging is concerned—amendment No. (2) under the name of the same hon. member—if I understood the hon. member correctly, he said that it was absolutely ridiculous to expect a policeman to find two respectable people in a neighbourhood and then conduct the search. As I see it, his particular provision has been on the Statute Book for years. It has been in our criminal procedure for years.

To which section are you referring?

I saw it today, but I do not have the Statutes with me. I can assure the hon. member that there is provision in our criminal procedure for this type of thing. This is where two respectable people in a neighbourhood are called upon by a police officer or policeman before a search is undertaken. What is the harm in accepting this amendment? If we look at the word “daytime” which appears in the amendment, we must realize that a search conducted under the cloak of night will in many cases be a terrifying experience. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask a policeman where possible—we are not binding the policeman—to conduct the search during daytime? It merely seeks to leaven the hardness of the law itself. Let us look at amendment No (4). This states, inter alia, that if any person wrongfully or maliciously or without reasonable cause does certain things, then a penalty is imposed which the judicial off icier will have to pay. This is not covered in the Bill in any other place as far as I can see; it is merely a safeguard. It covers a search without a warrant where a person may perhaps do more than he is legally liable or obliged to do and in doing so, prejudices the rights of other people. I am sure hon. members will agree that the Government will never condone the malicious overstepping of the mark in a case of this nature where people’s rights are involved. All the amendments that have been moved in fact have the effect, without limiting the right of the State, of guarding the rights of the individual.

My proposed amendments are no different. The first amendment boils down merely to a reshuffling of words and relates to a situation where a policeman may enter upon premises in order to conduct a search. The proviso to subsection (1) of the proposed new clause 50 states—

I say, however, that no policeman should act under this section unless he has previously failed to obtain admission. As this is worded, the policeman may merely knock on the door and say that he is there to conduct a search because he is investigating a certain case. He can immediately batter the door down and enter. It may be the wrong door. However, if you put the words just slightly differently, you have a situation where without losing more than 30 or 40 seconds, the policeman can state his business and demand admission. Where he then fails to gain admission, he has the right to take certain action. It is merely a reshuffling of words. However, in certain circumstances, this reshuffling of words can mean a great deal. I believe that the second amendment is fully in line with Government policy because Government policy as it has been expressed during this session and, I am sure, during previous sessions, is in every case where Bills containing provisions relating to fines and penalties are brought before us, to update such provisions. I want to know why in this Bill we have the situation where the fines stay the same. In the Statute as it is today they are even expressed in pounds.

You are not correct. The old fine was £50.

That is correct.

Then it does not stay the same.

Well, now it is R100. [Interjections.] Let us say that it is not nearly sufficient. Perhaps my calculations are not as good as those of the hon. member for Brakpan.

He knows it is merely a translation of rand into pounds.

It is not nearly as good and correct if you take into account the upping of the fines in all the other Bills. Surely, Sir, officers of the State are as subject to the law as anyone else. Perhaps even more so, because I believe that the duty of a judicial officer to adhere to the law is greater than that of a possibly ignorant individual. Here we have a situation in terms of which personal rights are involved. We have penalties which relate to people who illegally or maliciously seize personally owned goods. We have penalties relating to officers who may search a person who may well turn out to be an innocent person, and in such a case I believe that the wrongful invasion of that person’s privacy and dignity might well be very serious. Sir, the Government freely talks, I believe correctly, about the security of the State. I think we all support the Government in wanting to have a secure State, but very often in doing this the Government tends to forget that the State is comprised of individuals. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that nothing demonstrates more the validity of the objection that we raised during the Second Reading debate to the manner of legislating contained in this Bill than the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, the speech of the hon. member for Houghton and now the speech of the hon. member for Sandton. Sir, here we have one clause in which are inserted 17 new substantive sections of the Criminal Procedure Act; they are all contained in one clause. The result is that the Committee cannot give its attention to each issue, to each new section in the Act, because I doubt very much whether the members of this Committee, who are going to be obliged to exercise their judgment and to vote in this Committee, have any idea what is going on, what amendments the hon. member for Houghton has moved, what the hon. member for Brakpan was talking about and what the hon. member for Sandton was talking about, because there are 17 substantive clauses and the hon. member for Houghton has moved 10 amendments, which have been put on the Order Paper, quite properly in the circumstances, as 10 separate amendments dealing with 17 different new sections. Sir, we object again to this manner of legislating. It has been demonstrated here this afternoon that it is bad for Parliament and bad for this Committee. It is impossible for the ordinary members who are not lawyers and who are not taking a keen interest in this to know what the issues are and what they should support or persuade the Minister to support. If I may say so to the hon. member for Sandton, it would have helped a little, too, if he had put his amendments on the Order Paper so that we would have had notice of them.

I beg your pardon.

No, that is in order. We have, however, been able to examine the amendments which he has moved and it seems to us, so far as his first amendment is concerned, that it puts the situation better than the Bill puts it. I do not think there is any difference in intention between the hon. member’s amendment and what is in the Bill, and I think the way in which the situation is put in the hon. member’s amendment is good. So far as the last two amendments are concerned, that is, to double or to redouble the penalty for offences committed by a policeman in respect of search warrants, the situation at the moment is that the Bill already doubles the existing fine in this respect. The Bill provides for alternative imprisonment of six months and we feel that an ordinary doubling of the existing penalty at this stage is sufficient, especially considering that the court may also award damages and that the court is no longer restricted, as it is under the law at the moment, to awarding damages of only up to R200. In those circumstances, Sir, we feel that perhaps the first amendment is a good one, but we do not feel that there is any evidence to justify support for the hon. member’s second and third amendments, on the basis also, of course, that the offences committed are not always committed maliciously. They are often committed because of a misunderstanding of the search warrant. It is for that reason, amongst others, that the hon. member for East London City has moved his amendment. I will deal with that in a moment. In so far as the amendments of the hon. member for Houghton are concerned, there are ten and we give her four out of ten.

Thank you very much. It is more that I have ever given you for any speech you have made.

Of course, but the hon. member for Houghton is unable to be objective about me. That is the difference. Or about anything else for that matter. However, in so far as her first amendment is concerned, as it stands at the moment she is omitting certain rights that certain people have. Why she wants to omit those rights is not clear to us. Then she proposes that a certain person must be handed a certain document and most certainly she does not even say whether the person is present or not, or how the person can receive the document if he is not present. That is not provided for. So it must be held up until such time as he is handed the document. Then there is also omitted a right already existing in the Act, the right that people may on demand see the warrant that she proposes to take out. We believe that that must stay in. The hon. member for East London City has dealt with the second amendment and has rightly pointed out that this was moved by the hon. member for Jeppe in 1972, the identical amendment, but after the Committee debated the matter he withdrew it, after the explanation given by the Minister of Justice at the time. It was withdrawn with the leave of the Committee, the hon. member for Houghton not dissenting at the time.

I had different legal advice from last time.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton should not interrupt so often.

Either the hon. member for Houghton says what she thinks, or she comes here and says what other people think. But I would advise her, if that is the case, to get the same person to tell her what she thinks on both occasions. [Interjections.] In so far as her third amendment is concerned, we do not support it because we feel that section 50(B) already covers the provisions in this chapter, relating to search. In so far as her fourth amendment is concerned, we support this amendment. It is a provision which is already in the Act. It relates to malicious and wrongful search by owners or occupiers of land. It is now part of the law, and we can see no reason why it should be removed and therefore we support her on that. We support her also on her fifth amendment relating to the insertion of the word “reasonable”, in so far as reasonable acts are to be performed in relation to searches. That is in the law at the moment and there is no reason so far as we know why it should be removed. The hon. the Minister certainly has not motivated it and I hope that he will give us the benefit of his views on that. So far as her sixth amendment is concerned, it is a repetition of the fourth, and if the hon. the Minister does not accept the fourth amendment, we will support the hon. member if she moves her sixth amendment. So far as the seventh is concerned, we support that as well. It provides that you should have 60 days’ notice in respect of forfeiture of your property which has been seized, instead of 30 days, and in the circumstances—and I am glad the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is here— knowing what happens when letters are delivered to addresses unknown, and to find the owner thereof, we feel that 60 days is a reasonable period. In so far as her eighth and ninth amendments are concerned we feel that they are impracticable. The thought is a good one, but we believe the amendments are impracticable to implement. The hon. member for East London City will deal with them in more detail.

In so far as her tenth amendment is concerned which deals with the extradition of exhibits in respect of offences committed in other countries, we feel that the law as stated at the moment is in fact the law as it should be. However, we shall deal with that also at a later stage.

I want to urge the hon. the Minister to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Jeppe and the one moved by the hon. member for East London City. The whole point of the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe is that it seeks to provide that a search warrant should state the nature of the offence in respect of which the search is being made. The hon. member for Brakpan does the hon. member for Jeppe an injury, if I may say so, in dealing with his argument, because if he looks at the judgment of Tindall, he will see that what Mr. Justice Tindall actually said at the time was not only that it seemed highly desirable that a search warrant ought to mention the alleged offence; he said further—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Sandton moved an amendment, his objection was to the so-called “no-kncck rule”. I do not intend replying to each one of his allegations—the hon. the Minister and other members will deal with them—but from his arguments, it is very clear to me that he does not have any notion whatsoever of the difficult work which the Police do in this connection.

The hon. member for Durban North once again objected to this large number of amendments having been grouped together in one clause. As support for his objection, he said that the hon. member for Houghton, too, did not have a chance to motivate her amendments properly. But when the hon. member for Houghton moved her amendments here the other day, she spoke for precisely three minutes. She did not motivate her amendments at all. I have the Hansard unrevised copy of her speech and it is only two pages long. I think that if she really wanted to use the time which she had at her disposal, she could have motivated the amendments which she moved fully.

However, I want to pause for a moment at the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City, and look at it closely. If one looks at the proposed section as embodied in the Bill, one finds that its principle is precisely the same as that which is contained in the existing Act. I refer to section 43(1). We are dealing with nothing but a new formulation of an old principle. At the moment there is no such requirement and therefore he seeks to include a new provision by means of his amendment. The provision proposed by him, will mean that the offences for which a policeman may search a person or premises without a warrant, will be limited to more serious offences. He referred to the offences which appear in the First Schedule to the Act, and in this connection I think, for example, of high treason, rape and robbery. Why do we want to effect such an amendment? The policeman who conducts the search, only searches at first, and if he were to exceed his powers, surely there is a remedy for the person who feels that he has been aggrieved. If we look at the proposed sections 50(A)(1)(b) and also at section 50(A)(2), we see that such a person may even be awarded damages. If a policeman finds what he was looking for on such premises, surely one may accept that a crime has indeed been committed. The section makes the necessary provision and one cannot complain.

The proposed section 45, as it stands, also have certain safeguards built into it. It provides, inter alia, that the person concerned, has to consent to the premises being searched or to the person himself being searched. Furthermore the policeman must believe on reasonable grounds that he would be able to obtain a search warrant if he were to apply for one. Thirdly, such a search must be urgent, so urgent that should he first apply for a search warrant, the law would be defeated. In other words, before a policeman conducts a search without a warrant, there are certain requirements which he must satisfy. If he does not satisfy them, there are as we have seen, certain remedies which the aggrieved person may invoke. The existing system has been tried over the years, and I do not think one can support this amendment of the hon. member for East London City.

Next I want to express a few thoughts on the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton. Her first amendment which deals with the question of persons whose rights are affected, makes me wonder whether the policeman should first conduct a search into the matter of whose rights may be affected in order to determine to whom he is to give a copy of the warrant. I do not think this is possible. In practice, a search will take place without the person whose rights are affected, being present. Is the policeman to wait until he has first found that person? I do not think this is practical. When I look at the amendment, it seems to me as if it contradicts itself. In it she refers to persons whose rights “have been affected”, and to articles “seized”. Therefore it seems as if the articles must already have been seized. I am not altogether able to reconcile this, because to my mind the amendment contradicts itself.

I should also like to pause for a moment at the seventh amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. She says 30 days is unreasonable and suggests that the period should be 60 days. When we think of the object of this amendment, we see that there will be mountains of exhibits in the exhibit rooms at the courts and now at the Police stations should this clause be accepted. Now the hon. member wants these articles to remain there even longer. One wants to dispose of the question of exhibits as soon as possible after the conclusion of the case. I think it will defeat the whole object of the legislation should the period of 30 days be lengthened to 60 days. If a person has been aggrieved and puts in an appearance after the expiry of the period of 30 days, I think the State will always be prepared to consider the payment of ex gratia compensation to him. Therefore I cannot support this amendment of the hon. member either.

Finally I want to pause for a moment at the tenth amendment of the hon. member. When the hon. member for Houghton moved her amendments, she told us that in moving these amendments, she was trying to restore the position existing in the present Act. The hon. member nods her head and therefore I accept that I have understood her correctly. However, when one looks at the existing section 50(6) of the Act, it is very clear that the hon. member did not read this subsection. It reads, inter alia—

The hon. member’s amendment deals with the question as to whether the offence was committed in the same country. This appears in the old Act as well as in the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member now wants us to substitute the words “the Republic” for the words “such country”. Therefore this is not in agreement with what the hon. member said initially viz. that she wanted to restore the provisions to exactly what they were in the old Act. For heaven’s sake, the criterion to be applied cannot be the Republic’s penalties. It must be another country’s penalties, because the laws and sentences differ from country to country. Therefore it must remain as it is in the Act at the moment and as embodied in the new section. For this reason I cannot support the tenth amendment of the hon. member for Houghton either.

I would like to reply to one statement of the hon. member. I did not mean that every single amendment was to bring the clause into line with the old Act, but the majority of the amendments which I have introduced—and it is very difficult in a clause where there are several subsections—do just this. The final one does not.

In each case?

Almost.

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the arguments made the hon. member for Durban North when he says that, in a clause of this nature which deals with such a vast ramification of clauses from the code, it is not surprising that you have this peculiar form of irritation caused to members, particularly when they talk at cross-purposes on certain of the clauses.

I want to look into another matter which I do not want the hon. member for Brakpan to misunderstand. That is that we are not here to win a case. I am not here to win a case for the hon. the Minister as the judge, but I am here to help him if I can in my own modest way to improve the legislation so that we are not faced with this type of argument and this form of discussion and controversy in the law courts. I think the hon. member ought to have read this case of 1929 a little more closely because a very interesting point arose there. Mr. Justice Tindall came to the conclusion that the search warrant was not invalid because of the omission of the description of an offence. On the other hand, the hon. member for Durban North was right when he said that it was stated—

This is the essence of what the Judge said. Let me go further than that. The other judge who sat with him—no less a person than the Judge President himself, the late Mr. Justice De Waal, a very eminent jurist— disagreed with Mr. Justice Tindall on the conclusion as to the validity of a search warrant. Whilst he agreed with him on other things, he disagreed with this. He discussed this whole case of Herzfelder v. the Attorney-General, 1917, in Transvaal Supreme Court, where this whole matter had been decided. There it was decided that, under the present existing law under that ordinance—it was then the Criminal Code—it was necessary to describe an offence. He goes further and says that where he disagrees with his learned brother in the conclusion is that in respect of the repetition of the clause in 1917, there was no change, but in respect of another clause which dealt with the issue of search warrants there was a change. He came to the conclusion that there was no change because they did not intend to interfere in any way with the then existing interpretation of the law, as it existed under the ordinance and decided in Herzfelder’s case, because there it was laid down that an offence had to be stated in the search warrant in order to make it valid. The Judge President came to the following conclusion, and I quote from page 864, TPD 1929—

He in fact held, and I quote again from page 864—

In those early days you could only issue a search warrant in connection with stolen property but then in 1917 the law was changed to provide for a search warrant for any suspected crime. That is where the change took place but the change in respect of the other section did not take place in terms of the code and therefore the Judge President came to a different conclusion. Surely this indicates immediately that there must have been a controversy or a doubt in the minds of learned judges and learned jurists. It seems to me that it was certainly the point of view of this learned jurist that it is highly desirable that the alleged offence should be stated in the warrant. If a jurist of that eminence states, “If I could write this particular provision into the Bill I would willingly co so,” surely that is all that we need for guidance. We are not here in this House to fight cases with each other; we are here to follow the guidance and the direction given to us by our jurists. When I withdrew an amendment on the other clause to which reference has been made, I did so because the hon. the Minister of Justice of the time had made the following statement which I want to quote. It refers to an entirely different provision, but in a sense it had the same connotation and intent as this provision. I refer hon. members to Vol. 43 of Hansard, col. 4816, where the Minister of Justice of the time said—

The said, for example …

He then quoted their view—

Therefore I draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that I am not here to contest issues; I am here rather to follow what I believe is the direction given to us by our learned jurists and not the direction given to us by members of a legislature who have been sent to Parliament by an electorate, obviously to do their best to direct the affairs of the country to the benefit of the community, but in doing so we are expected to take note of the opinions of experts. After all we have appointed the Law Revision Committee to review legislation from time to time in order to draw the attention of Parliament to cases where the legislation should be amended and improved to the benefit of the community. That was my purpose in moving the amendment and that is the basis on which it rests. It does not rest on the basis of a device on my part to enter into an argument with my hon. friend, the member for Brakpan as though I was appearing before a court of law. That does not enter into any discussion in this House.

What is relevant is which direction we should take, what is reasonable, what is best for the improvement of law in our country, what is best in the interests of our community and what provides the greatest protection to the individual. For instance, in this very case of Desai, to which the hon. member referred, the following passage was quoted at page 587—

All this is surely indicative of the thinking of the jurists. What more do we want? If this is the thinking of learned jurists in our country, I believe it is not unreasonable to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice in whose province this whole matter falls and who himself is a lawyer of eminent standing, to take notice of their opinion and to assist in improving the law of the country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe referred once again to the court case of 1929. He pointed out that the Judge President differed from Mr. Justice Tindall in his judgment. However, there was also a third judge and the decision of the court in that specific case was that it was not necessary to mention the crime in the search, warrant. I think it will be as well for the hon. member for Jeppe to note once again what Mr. Justice Tindall went on to say in this case. I quote—

If there is something wrong with the integrity of the policeman concerned, it does not matter what is specified in the warrant, because the person will still be affected detrimentally. I want to put a second question to the hon. member for Jeppe. Can he tell this Committee whether there is any evidence in the cases which he quoted of persons in respect of whom these warrants have been executed, having been inconvenienced in any way by the fact that the crime was not defined in the warrant? There is no such evidence. The third important question I want to put to the hon. member for Jeppe is whether he thinks the ends of justice were served by the decision of the court which actually declared that warrant invalid. Hon. members will remember that the Police seized certain documents, books and exhibits which would possibly have enabled the State to succeed in proving that this person had committed a criminal offence. As a result of the decision of the court, however, those documents were returned to the person who might have been accused, thereby defeating the ends of justice. Probably it was for this very reason, I should like to suggest, that the Act, in spite of the remarks made by the judge in the 1929 case, was not amended at the time. It is very interesting that in the Desai case of 1948, the same judge who was acting Chief Justice of the Union of South Africa at that stage, did not repeat that specific statement. This only shows that he changed his views and that the ends of justice was not promoted by laying down further requirements in regard to what had to be included in the search warrant. With this, I think I have dealt with the arguments of the hon. member for Jeppe.

I want to proceed to the amendments of the hon. member for Houghton. When I spoke earlier, I was dealing with her amendment—I think it was the sixth—in connection with the insertion of the word “reasonable”.

That is the fifth amendment.

It must be remembered that it is required of the policeman to take certain steps in accordance with his judgment of the circumstances of the specific case. Therefore it is a subjective discretion which is desired of him. Now the hon. member wants the word “reasonable” to be inserted. This brings about that this test will now become an objective test and no longer a subjective test. In other words, the policeman will first have to determine whether his subjective judgment is not possibly wrong. In the meantime, the whole object of this exercise is defeated. The very reason for which we introduce this amendment is to bring about an improvement in the situation. Otherwise we would not have introduced it. Hon. members on the opposite side want to restore the position to what it was in the past, thereby defeating the legal process and the procedure. The same applies in this connection to the hon. member for Sandton. He has very definitely not done his homework. During the debate on the Second Reading he said that everything was being done to give the State somewhat more of an advantage and the individual somewhat less, but in this specific section to which he refers, the State is made to suffer more of a disadvantage—£50 is increased to R200. A fine of R100 is doubled. In the old Act no provision was made for imprisonment. In the old Act it was simply £50 and that was that. In the present proposal there is an alternative of imprisonment. Is that not to the greater disadvantage of the State? After the hon. member for Sandton had said that in the Second Reading debate, he repeated it in the Committee Stage. This shows one that he did not do his homework.

Furthermore, I want to refer to the next proposal of the hon. member for Houghton, i.e. that when it is an offence which is punishable in another country by imprisonment for a period exceeding 12 months, the specific article be delivered only if it is an offence in South Africa alone and not in that country. The answer to this is simple. It is not a principle of reciprocity which is applicable here. If we expect another country to observe our extradition treaties, to respect them and to respect any laws which we make as well, we cannot say to them that we shall deliver articles to them only in terms of the laws which are of decisive importance in our country. Then we are saying to them: If we do not agree with your laws, we are not going to deliver that article to you. It makes co-operation and reciprocity between different countries impossible.

I do not want to go any further. The intention of this Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill is to restore the balance between the State and the individual, to restore the equilibrium. [Interjection.] Yes, but this is the case. The test of time will teach us whether this is not the case and then one can bring about changes. At this stage, however, the object of the exercise is to restore the equilibrium. I think that this is a very good attempt to restore the equilibrium between the individual and the State. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments of the hon. members for Houghton, Jeppe, Sandton and East London City.

Mr. Chairman, I must also complain about the fact that it is impossible to deal with a Bill of this nature in the Committee Stage. One has to jump from one point to the other and I think it is absolute nonsens. I want to come back to the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe to the proposed new section 44. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in terms of subsection (2) of this proposed new section the existing Act has been changed by ensuring that the person to be searched must be identified in the warrant. That is not provided for in the old section 42. Secondly, the premises which are going to be searched must now be identified in the warrant—line 31. There is no such provision in the existing section. It is obviously desirable that both the person to be searched and the premises to be search should be identified. I believe that following that precedent, the offence should be identified as well. I want to point out to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg that as recently as 1971 Mr. Justice Galgut stated—

That is the existing Act—

Surely, Sir, this should be an indication to the hon. the Minister that it is in fact desirable. Has he got any objection to setting out the offence in the search warrant? Why is it that we have to waste hours of time here this afternoon discussing whether the offence for which the warrant is issued should be stated in the warrant?

That is the point.

Sir, I cannot understand it; it is beyond my reasoning that the hon. the Minister has not indicated to us already that this is an acceptable amendment. If one reads section 43, one sees that in each case the grounds for the issue of a warrant refers to the commission of an offence or the suspected commission of an offence. This is essential. I believe it is essential to add to clause 44 the provision that the warrant must include details of the alleged offence or the suspected offence. I think that is a reasonable argument. Sir, unfortunately I called the hon. member for Brakpan the hon. member for Verwoerdburg just now; I want to take that back. I will now talk to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg.

To which one are you apologizing?

I want to ask the hon. member for Verwoerdburg if he can tell me why it is that when the Criminal Procedure Act No. 56 of 1955 was made law, a subsection was included in section 43 stating that the search should be made by day and in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants? I want him to get up now and to explain to us why that was included, and in doing so he must tell us why it is now being excluded. We know, but I want to know from him why it was included. It was included, I believe, because this measure had been referred to a Select Committee in 1955. It was not debated at length in this House, but it had been referred to a Select Committee and I am certain in my own mind that that Select Committee, although I have not got the report of the Select Committee before me, decided that this section 43 was a drastic measure, and therefore in order to protect the individual’s rights to privacy, they inserted subsection (2). Have things changed in such a way that we must no longer regard it as a drastic measure? Is it because the Government has changed its mind to such an extent that they have forgotten about the present and can remember only the Government and their own party? I think that is the trend, and I think that is what the people of South Africa regard as the trend. Why should we exclude this subsection now when in 1955 there was a valid reason for including it? Sir, that is why we are moving that this provision should only apply in respect of the major offences. I would like to read out what the major offences are so that everybody can have a clear picture in his or her own mind. This provision will apply to the First Schedule, and the First Schedule applies to treason, sedition, murder, culpable homicide, rape, sodomy or bestiality, indecent assault, robbery, assault in which a dangerous wound is inflicted, arson, breaking or entering any premises, theft either under the common law or under any statutory provision, receiving stolen goods knowing the same to have been stolen, fraud, forgery or uttering, offences against the laws for the prevention of illicit dealing in or possession of precious metals, offences relating to coinage, offences the punishment whereof may be a period of imprisonment exceeding six months without the option of a fine, and any conspiracy, incitement or attempt to commit any of the above-mentioned offences.

Surely, Sir, this covers a wide field. The rest of the offences which are left are minor, petty offences, and I believe that the argument in favour of stipulating these offences specifically in respect of the arrest of persons without warrant, can apply equally to a search, without warrant, of premises and persons.

Then I should like to deal with the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton, with just two of them. Firstly, there is amendment No. 8 which proposes in lines 40 and 41 to omit “to which the State has been enriched by such disposal” and to substitute “the market value of the property”. I think the hon. member for Houghton has probably forgotten that this section 50D relates to articles that have been in the possession of the State, and that within a period of three years of those articles being taken over, the person must be compensated for those articles if they were sold. I want to know from her how on earth they are going to fix the market value of an article which was sold three years ago. I do not believe that her amendment can really stand at all, because it is impossible to fix the market value of property which was sold three years ago. The section which reads “shall be compensated by the State to the extent to which the State has been enriched but by such disposal” is, we believe, quite adequate.

Sir, I want to come back to certain arguments which were advanced by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. In the first place the hon. member referred to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe. The proposed amendment reads that the warrant shall state the alleged offence in respect of which such search is to be conducted. Now the hon. member says that Mr. Justice Galgut said on occasion that it was desirable that the offence be stated in the warrant. Sir, the reason why it is not desirable in all cases that the offence be stated in this way, is obvious. For example, it is not always known which offence has been committed. If the hon. member can get past that problem, of precisely which offence has been committed, then perhaps the hon. member has an argument. For example, has an offence of theft been committed, or has an offence of receiving stolen goods been committed? In both cases specific goods are sought with a warrant. The second argument which the hon. member advanced, referred to the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. The second amendment reads— and I quote—

The hon. member wants to know what the real objections are to this proposed amendment and its merits. The objections as I see them, are, in the first place, that the words “as far as possible” in the amendment are very difficult to define. I concede freely to the hon. member that I am aware that this proposed amendment is a section in the present Act, but that does not detract from the fact that the words “as far as possible” are very vague and an expression which is very difficult to define. The next objection is that when one demands of the Police that they do their work in the presence of other people, then one actually demands of one’s Police that they do their work in the execution of their duties in the presence of witnesses. This may create the impression that we suddenly do not trust the Police as regards this subdivision of their work. Consequently I am of the opinion that the section as it appears in the Act at the moment, is an unfortunate one for that reason. The Police have many powers in South Africa and heavy duties and responsibilities, and it is unnecessary to have witnesses when the Police do their work, to see that they do their work properly. We trust the Police and we say that this is not necessary. What is more, since 1955 experience has shown that it is not necessary that there should be witnesses when the Police execute their duties and fulfil their responsibilities. Sir, we must also take the effect of the section into account. Its effect is to defeat the very object of achieving the effectiveness one wants to have. Indeed, the effect is such that to my mind it may result in the law being defeated.

It is also important to note that the then Minister of Justice said, according to Hansard 1973, col. 4978, that he had received representations from a legal body. He did not say which legal body, but I quote the representation as he quoted it at that time—

Here we have a section which may be specifically to the detriment of the woman in certain circumstances,

The hon. member who spoke before me, asked why the powers conferred in terms of the section were to be applicable to all offences and why they could not be applicable to more serious offences alone. I shall tell the hon. member why. As I see it, crime is a serious matter in South Africa. It does not matter whether an offence is a serious one or not; all crimes in South Africa are serious and all crimes in South Africa must be solved. I must also point out to the hon. member that the criterion in terms of which the civilization of a country can be measured, is very often the extent to which it regards crime as such as serious. South Africa is a civilized country and because we are a civilized country which sets a high standard of civilization, all offences are viewed in a serious light and therefore the powers which are conferred in terms of the proposed legislation, apply to all offences.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down has stated that the insertion which I propose to be made in this clause, and that is that such a search shall as far as possible be made in the daytime and in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, etc., is a sort of hidden insult to the Police and implies that the Police are not doing their job properly. I can only say that this was in the law before and presumably the Police did not feel that they were under any suspicion of not carrying out their job properly or of acting in an improper manner. I think it is very necessary to have this protection for the public. The very fact that there are witnesses to the search provides that protection.

I should like to mention to the hon. member that in my days in this House identity numbers were removed from the uniforms of policemen. Many years went by and year after year I pleaded in this House with the then Minister of Police to have the identity numbers put back on the uniforms of policemen. I did so for the very specific reason that I thought it was very important that the public should be able to identify policemen who were arresting them or searching them or carrying out their duties in any way whatsoever.

What about detectives?

I used to get a very foolish answer sometimes from the then Minister of Police who said: “Well, you only have to ask the man from which police station he comes and then you will be able to identify him.” I pointed out that there were times when physical violence was being used and that it would be very difficult indeed for a Black man, for instance, to stop in his tracks and ask a policeman from which station he came.

We are not falling for that one.

Eventually the identity numbers were reinstated on the uniforms. Do policemen feel insulted these days because they have to wear identity numbers? [Interjections.] Certainly not! It is the usual practice in every Western country. The hon. member should therefore not take umbrage because this is certainly analogous to that situation.

I might just point out that I am not impressed with his argument that the new clause is favourable to the search of a female, because the search of a female still has to be carried out under the conditions laid down in a later clause—I think 50B. Therefore that part of his argument falls away altogether.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton became somewhat angry at me when I quoted what she had said, according to Hansard, when she moved her amendments here. I only read what was reported, and I am not looking for an axe to grind with the hon. member. However, she said—

This can only mean one thing, viz. that she wants to retain everything which is in the existing Act, while I indicated that one of her amendments was an exception. However, I accept her explanation that she actually meant that she wanted to retain as many as possible of the existing sections of the Act on the Statute Book. The hon. member for Houghton rode her well-known hobbyhorse once again by starting to upbraid our Police Force. It has become a habit of hers to have an axe to grind with our Police and I think it is really a pity that this is the case. In practice her amendment will bring about that searches will have to be conducted in the presence of two reliable persons. I do not think it is pleasant for anybody to have his house searched. Now two more people from the neighbourhood will have to be present when one’s house is searched, and not only those parts comprising the parlour and the sittingroom. Now two more reliable—I concede that they must be respectable people from the locality—will have to be present and it is not pleasant when one has to experience something like that. It is even worse if, to crown it all, the Police find nothing. I do not believe it will be pleasant for the person who finds himself in a situation like this. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for East London City as regards the eighth amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. That is the one which reads to omit the words “to which the State has been enriched by such disposal” and to substitute “of the market value of the property”. The point which he made, is that nobody will know in three years’ time what the market value of the property was. In addition I should like to ask who is going to determine the market value of the property. Therefore, something of this sort is simply nonsensical. [Interjections.] The hon. members for Houghton and Pinetown are only now trying to motivate the amendments which they moved. The hon. member for Houghton, however, had the chance to motivate her amendments when she spoke and one would be grateful if she would keep quiet now. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Orange Grove has just made his little contribution. We can manage without him.

I want to continue dealing with the eighth amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. After all, it is obvious that we cannot expect the State to pay out more after this period than the proceeds of that item. Surely, this is obvious. After all, the market value may exceed the amount fetched by the item when it was sold by public auction. Surely one cannot expect the State to pay out more. In the same way the hon. member moved in her ninth amendment that the words “but not exceeding the proceeds of the sale” be omitted. However, these words only put the requirement which is laid down beyond any doubt. In the first part of this sub-paragraph, it is provided “that the said seller be paid out of the proceeds of the sale an amount equal to the value of his rights under the contract to the weapon”, etc. Surely this only means that one cannot be paid more than the sum of the proceeds. Now she is asking that this be deleted. The provision, as it stands, puts it beyond any doubt, however, that one can definitely not be paid out more than the proceeds of the sale. I also want to pause for just a moment at the fifth amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. I think the hon. member for Brakpan dealt with it fully and I just want to add that the penal provisions of section 50A remain and are there to prevent the policeman from taking unnecessary steps in these circumstances. Therefore it is not necessary at all to insert the word “reasonable” here. The hon. member for Pretoria Central indicated very effectively that we must trust the Police. What is at issue here is the internal security of the Republic which must be maintained. Now, one wonders whether this did not perhaps give rise to the proposed amendment. We must accept that a policeman who acts in these circumstances will not take unnecessary steps which will cause problems for him afterwards. We must not make the task of the Police, which is difficult enough under present circumstances, still more difficult by introducing yet another objective test which may have repercussions for him afterwards, as the hon. member for Brakpan indicated. The man is in the thick of the fight and he must decide what to do. The Act provides that what he regards as necessary is sufficient. I feel that we must really leave it as it stands, and that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, cannot be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, the laymen on this side of the House have been very interested in the discussion between the legal men. I have listened to some of the replies of the Government members and I wonder whether the laymen could follow the arguments at all, because while they had a clear exposition of the law from this side of the House, they had confusion spread from the other side. The ordinary layman sits here and looks on the hon. the Minister as a judge. They, the laymen, expect to hear from him what the true story is. Some of them hope that he will live un to the standard of our courts and our judiciary and be unprejudiced in his replies. He has not replied to this debate for some considerable time. I do not know what he intends doing. Does he want time to consider and work out his replies?

I can reply now.

All right, I shall now sit down so that the hon. the Minister can get up to reply. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in terms of Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.