Mr. Chairman, just before the House adjourned last night, the hon. member for Umlazi found it necessary to refer to the Railway Board in extremely unfriendly terms. I do not think that we can allow the remarks made by the hon. member to pass unnoticed. He said that they simply sit here and do nothing; they enjoy the hospitality of this House, and so on. He made further remarks which I am not going to repeat. To say the least, I think it was disgraceful of him to have made remarks of this nature about officials who cannot defend themselves in this House. As an ex-police officer he ought to know that this is simply not done. I think he owes the members of the Railway Board an apology at least.

Mr. Chairman, other hon. members on this side of the House have already dealt with the Opposition’s unkind remarks in general about our Railways and our top officials. I think it was unfair and undeserved.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the word “disgraceful” allowed?

Yes. The hon. member may proceed.

That was disgraceful. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to emphasize that greater efficiency and higher productivity are matters which enjoy a very high priority with the S.A. Railways. This is apparent from everything the hon. the Minister and his staff do. This is the way it should be, because in an organization in which more than 250 000 people are employed, any increase in productivity will make a significant difference in rands and cents. Yesterday we heard that productivity on the Railways increased by 9,4% during the period 1970 to 1976. I think this is an achievement of which we can be proud and which is worth following in South Africa. The staff are to be congratulated on it.

However, the Railways were not satisfied with this, and in order to increase productivity even further, they began a comprehensive job evaluation project in two spheres on the Railways. This evaluation method has been designed by the Railway staff and adapted to the specific aims and needs of the Railways. It is based on the analysis and application of basic factors which concern the job content of every post, and to which certain values are allotted. Points are allotted to every basic factor of this kind. The total then determines the position of the post concerned in the wage hierarchy. In other words, the value of each job is determined in a scientific manner. After that it is easier to attach a realistic remuneration to such a job. Today, a correct and scientifically based determination is of the utmost importance in any job. It ensures satisfaction among the employees, and what is more, it also ensures that an employee is not paid above the value of the work he is doing, because one knows what the value of that job is.

Besides the evaluation of a particular task, this method also enables one to regroup tasks in a scientific manner so that work which belongs together, may be placed together. Duplication of work is entirely eliminated in this way. This does not only promote efficiency, but also helps to increase productivity. The first two spheres in which, as I said, the Railways have begun these projects, concern firstly, the technicians and, secondly, the duties are carried out by non-Whites on the Railways. It is the intention to extend this project in future to certain grades of artisan staff and to technical supervisory posts on the Railways. As far as the technicians are concerned, this means in practice that better use can be made of more highly skilled staff. With this method it is now possible to transfer certain routine duties, which have been carried out by highly qualified technicians in the past, to artisan staff. This will bring about the improved utilization of highly skilled labour and technical specialists on the Railways. It will also help considerably to alleviate the shortage of technicians which is experienced in the Railways. If Whites are not available for technical work, non-Whites—and I emphasize this—may be used for that kind of artisan work in collaboration with the staff associations of the Railways. However, in this way it will be done in an orderly manner, taking into consideration the abilities and interests of all concerned. It is clear that the Railways will bring about improved utilization of available manpower through these projects, and in this way ensure higher productivity. I think that the hon. the Minister and the staff concerned with this, are to be heartily congratulated.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know why hon. members on that side of the House will persist in deliberately misunderstanding or misconstruing what is said by members on this side of the House. I do not know whether it is a case of their not understanding English. [Interjections.] That hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I do not believe that hon. member was here when my friend from Umlazi spoke last night. Had he been here he would have heard my friend from Umlazi ask questions about the institution of the Railway Commission not the individual members. He never attacked the individual members at all. The fact that he alleged that the commission was filled with party hacks is something entirely different. That is Nationalist policy. The fact is that my hon. friend from Umlazi asked the hon. the Minister whether he could tell us what the commission did. He asked whether its continued existence was essential. These questions have not been answered. It is no use that hon. member saying that the hon. member for Umlazi attacked the individual commissioners as persons. He never did anything of the sort. I hope this will put the record straight.

I would like to return to the question of the increase in rates and particularly to associate myself with all the members of the House, on both sides, who pointed out to the hon. the Minister the devastating effects on the farming community of the increases. At the moment the farmer finds himself squeezed between these tariffs. When I say squeezed between the tariffs, then I mean it, because a farmer is going to have to pay higher prices for his requirements, his necessities, his feed, his rations for his personnel, stock-feed, his equipment, his fencing poles and all his other requirements, as a result of the higher freight tariffs. When the farmer sells his products, he is going to have to pay more once again. There are very few products which are controlled today, and even then it will take some months before increases in the price of these products will be granted to the producers. The farmer, therefore, finds himself squeezed from both sides.

This afternoon I would like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister, specifically in respect of stud breeders. During the last three years there have been increases in tariffs totalling 284%. This is what it works out at, because in 1974 there was an increase of 60%; in 1975 an increase of 60% and in 1976 an increase of 50%. It adds up to 284% in two and a half years because the first increase of 60% was introduced only in September or October of 1974. With a view to this I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider the réintroduction of the rebate which was allowed for show animals, that is animals sent to and from the agricultural shows. Unfortunately neither the hon. the Minister of Agriculture or his Deputy are here, but I see many interested agriculturists on the other side of the House. They know that the lifeblood of our farming, particularly of our stock industry in this country, is the stud breeders. The stud breeders depend on shows. If the stud breeders are not going to participate in shows, we might just as well forget about our stud industry in this country. We have already had the situation where the Secretary of the Royal Agricultural Society in Natal believes that the further increase in rail tariffs of 50% is going to affect the turnout at the next Royal Agricultural Society Show in Pietermaritzburg. In fact, there was a meeting in Pietermaritzburg yesterday of all the show-holding societies to consider the affect of the increase. I have not had the report of what happened at the meeting. However, I would plead earnestly with the hon. the Minister to consider the reintroduction of the rebate which was allowed until a few years ago. Since the rebate was taken away, there has been an increase of 284% in the railage rates which are to be paid by stud breeders when they take their livestock to the agricultural shows.

To be parochial for a moment, I would like to turn to Pietermaritzburg in the few moments I have left. We appreciate the amount of money to be spent on the section of the Railway network at Pietermaritzburg and that part of Natal during next year. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not pay particular attention to a problem we have there, i.e. the question of the movement of the labour force. The Government’s policy has decreed that the African workers in Pietermaritzburg shall be moved from where they were to Imbali, the new township which is being established near Edendale. At the same time, with the Physical Planning Act, we have had the development of the industrial area at Willowton, on the other side of Pietermaritzburg. The city of Pietermaritzburg lies right between these two areas. There has been further industrial development towards Durban, that is on the eastern side at Mkondeni. The new fresh produce market has been established there and they have a large labour force as well.

There is a network of railway lines. At the moment there is no railway line that goes into Imbali township itself. The first question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he will consider building a spur into Imbali for the sake of transporting workers. I believe the Railways can play a large and important part in the transport of commuters to and from their place of employment. The hon. the Minister is spending money in trying to eliminate the bottlenecks on the Edendale Road which are created by the tremendous crush of traffic, of which 85% is bus or taxi traffic transporting commuters to and from their work. I believe that the Railways should themselves be undertaking this task. It is not only going to relieve the traffic on the roads, it is not only going to ease the danger of loss of life and limb through accidents on those roads, but it is also going to play a part in the fight for the conservation of fuel. I believe that we can take a number of buses off the road if the Railways were to undertake this. The railway lines are there, all that is required is a spur into Imbali itself and the placing of passenger trains on those lines in order to move workers. The distances over which they will have to be moved, range between 12 and 20 km. This is something that should enjoy the attention of the hon. the Minister, because it is something which can help with the traffic situation in the capital of Natal. A further aspect to this is that if a well-equipped station could be established in the Edendale area and be tied to that line— incidentally there are spur lines in Edendale at the moment serving the industries there—then we could have an arrangement whereby the bus and taxi traffic of Black labourers from the Swartkops location, which is a vast dormitory area for Pietermaritzburg, could come to that point and from there be transported to Pietermaritzburg by rail. With the line going through the centre of town, all sections of Pietermaritzburg, the industrial as well as the commercial sections, could be handled by this particular service. I commend this thought to the hon. the Minister together with the thought of reintroducing the rebate that is allowed for showstock on their way to and from agricultural shows.

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Umlazi, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also spoke about the Railway Board, but I think the hon. the Minister of Transport will be able to answer them on that. I have a few other matters to discuss. I think that the hon. member has a good case with respect to show animals and I want to support him on this score.

We have almost reached the end of this Railway budget debate. It is as plain as a pikestaff that the Railways has to balance its revenue and expenditure at all times. This huge organization, the Railways, which forms an integral part of South Africa’s economy, also deals with the ups and downs with the weals and woes of our economy. Therefore it also handles increased costs, rising rates of interest, the low growth rate which we are experiencing in the country at the moment and with the fact that labour is becoming more and more expensive. Looking at the histogram, I see that interest alone amounted to 13% last year. For this reason I think that it has become clear during this debate that the Railways must find the shortfall in revenue and that we must also find ways and means to alleviate bottlenecks, wherever they may arise. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, since it now seems to be the policy that tariffs should be more and more cost-orientated, he would be so kind as to tell us when he intends tariffs and costs to meet, in other words within what period the hon. the Minister wants the difference to be eliminated.

I am specifically asking this question because one would like to have a clear answer at this stage with a view to future planning. If it is the policy to adjust tariffs in order that they may be cost-orientated, we ask the Minister to give us an indication of the period over which the tariffs will be adjusted. I put this question because the expenditure of various industries including agriculture, will be increased. Of course, in agriculture we have the problem of transporting products over very long distances, seeing that the economically active section of our population is mostly to be found along the coast and in the Pretoria/Witwatersrand complex. Heavy cargo, a great volume of heavy cargo, therefore has of necessity to be transported over long distances. In the past, if we were unable to afford the tariff for low-tariff goods in agriculture and other fields, I think that in future we will have to consider ways and means of absorbing the costs, possibly in the form of a rebate which can be refunded by the State to the Railways. This is important, because whereas costs are now being increased, some people are thinking in terms of decentralization of slaughtering facilities. In order to have a clear picture of the future, one has to make a projection and, before any planning is undertaken one has to adopt a clear standpoint because large amounts of money have been spent on slaughter facilities in this country. Therefore we must know what is intended for the future. I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister, if he could tell us whether railage on the amount of maize consumed in the interior, will once again, as in the past, be borne by the State. Since we place a very high premium on the grain elevator at Richards Bay, I should be very glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us whether the planning thereof takes place according to expectations under the present circumstances, or whether there is any delay and what the proposed date of completion will be.

I do not only want to ask questions; I also want to thank. A few years ago, in my own electoral division, on the track between Bethlehem and Balfour, we were privileged to receive diesel locomotives in the place of the old steam locomotives. Today I should like to thank the Minister for what the Railways meant to us as farmers by introducing this service. It often happens that all we do is ask, but that we forget to say thank you. The veld fires and the disruption caused by them, are now things of the past and I am very pleased that we are able to thank the Minister for it this afternoon. I also want to thank the Minister for the improvement and reinforcement of the track between Balfour and Bethlehem. The track runs through my constituency. Here we have to deal with a considerable amount of freight which has to be conveyed over this track, for example export maize, and we are very pleased that the Railways were able to undertake this as well, seeing that these are also low-tariff goods. However, we still have a problem with the track between Vrede and Ascent, where we actually have to make a detour to reach the coast. This is a very small line which cannot carry heavy freight. We should like to ask the Minister to try and help us in that case. I should also like to ask the Administration and the hon. the Minister to help us as far as Heilbron is concerned, where we have a growth point, to extend the station facilities so that we are able to render a better service to our industrialists.

Considering the circumstances in which it finds itself, the Railways have not fared badly. It accomplished its task well and it will be everyone’s duty not merely to criticize, but also to make positive contributions from now on, in order to help to extend even further that which has been achieved, to the advantage of our fine country.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave the hon. member for Heilbron and the farmers in his constituency and come back to a matter which I originally raised with the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading Debate. I want to come back to the question of women pilots. [Interjections.] Yes, I am sorry; you will have to listen to it again. I want to do it for one specific reason, and that is to establish whether or not it is a principle of the Airways not to employ women as pilots. I have now had two different sets of answers from the hon. the Minister. The first was the answer given to my friend, the hon. member for Orange Grove, when he asked a question in the House. The hon. the Minister then said it was the policy of the Airways not to employ women as pilots. Then, when I brought this specific case of Miss Wales-Baillie to him, the hon. the Minister said to me the other day that the Airways would not have taken Miss Wales-Baillie because as far as they were concerned she was disqualified for the reason that, at the time when she could have been taken into South African Airways—the earliest opportunity would be August of this year—she would be over the age of 35, which is the age limit. Secondly, the hon. the Minister said that the advertisement which she had answered stated that she should have either mathematics or physical science and that she did not have either.

Then, too, the hon. the Minister told me that she had in fact been given an interview by Capt. Pienaar. Either it is a principle of the Airways, in which case it would not matter whether Miss Wales-Baillie was 30 or 35 or 40 for that matter, and it would not matter what her matriculation subjects were, or it is not a principle. The point, Sir, is that this is a trained woman pilot who has, as the hon. the Minister knows, over 3 000 hours of flying experience, of which at least 700 hours are jet flying experience, and therefore the fact that she is nearly 35 years old is irrelevant, because I presume one does not dismiss one’s trained pilots when they turn 35. So, that argument was irrelevant.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister of course was wrong because as I read out correctly, the advertisement did not say that physical science for matric was essential. It merely said that a science subject or mathematics was required. Miss Wales-Baillie had biology which is a science subject, as one of her matriculation subjects. In any case, surely, Sir, when a woman has over 3 000 hours flying experience and has been flying jet aircraft all over the world, it is irrelevant whether or not she had mathematics or a physical science subject for her matriculation. It is ludicrous. She obviously has mastered all the mathematics that is necessary for her to be able to perform her task efficiently.

I want to say right now, Sir, that she is in the employ of one of South Africa’s leading businessmen who shall be nameless, and that she is flying some very important people all over the country.

Guess who!

No, the hon. member has Harry Oppenheimer on the brain. In fact, it is not Mr. Harry Oppenheimer. I am not mentioning any names. The point I want to make is that the hon. the Minister talked nonsense when he referred to the impact on the male pilot should he find himself seated next to a female pilot. That breaks no ice with me, that I can tell him. What he must do when his male pilots cannot behave themselves, is to kick them out—that is what he must do. [Interjections.] He must not deny women pilots the opportunity of employment because his male pilots are not able to behave themselves.

Finally, Sir, on the subject of Miss Wales-Baillie, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that she did not have an interview with Capt. Pienaar. She saw him, admittedly. He referred her to Operations and Operations referred her to Personnel, and Personnel told her to go home and fetch her passport—to prove, no doubt, that she was a South African citizen. When she came back with her passport she was informed that there was no point in her going any further because it was against the policy of the South African Airways to employ women pilots. Therefore she did not go to the next two stages, one of which, I am told, is to see a psychiatrist and four members of the Airways personnel, and then finally to go before the selection board. She did not have an interview. So, I want the hon. the Minister to tell me today, whether it was because she was a woman or because he thought she would turn 35 shortly, or because she did not have the right subjects for her matriculation certificate, or because he cannot trust his male pilots. Which, in fact, is the real reason why he is in principle against the employment of a woman as a pilot?

Idi Amin gave you the answer!

I want to tell him, too, that there are women pilots employed by major airlines elsewhere in the world, and I want to remind him that in Russia there are even women astronauts.

Now I want to come to another aspect of the Airways. It was raised by the hon. member for Walmer, who complained about the many delays in the flights. I am sorry that I have to agree with him that that is so. One used to be able to rely absolutely on the S.A. Airways to leave at scheduled times and to arrive at the scheduled times. I have been using the Airways many times over all these years, going backwards and forwards between Cape Town and Johannesburg, and one hardly ever arrived or left late, but alas that is not the case now. In fact, it is rare that a plane leaves on time and arrives on time. I would say that is probably because inter alia there is a shortage of personnel, and that brings me right back to the original point, that you have to look outside your existing work force in order to keep your Airways running efficiently in the future. Now that means both employing women pilots and going outside the White population of South Africa. But I do not believe that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Walmer, that the Airways should telephone every one of the passengers when a plane is going to be delayed, is at all reasonable or practical. I do think however that when people phone the Airways to ascertain whether a plane is leaving on time or is arriving on time they ought to be given accurate information. Over and over again it has been my experience, and I am sure that of other members of this House, that the people at Jan Smuts or at D.F. Malan do not bother to check before giving the information. Nothing is more irritating than, having phoned half an hour before a plane is due in order to ascertain whether one can set off to meet that plane, to be told that it is on time and then to arrive at the airport only to be told that it is arriving three quarters of an hour late. I should like something to be done about that because I think it is extremely irritating for people meeting and catching planes.

Now I want to come very swiftly to another matter which has been worrying me for years and which I have raised over and over again in this House. I refer to the rail service between Soweto and Johannesburg. The hon. member for Parktown dealt with that subject yesterday and he pointed out that the Railways are moving 200 000 African people each way every day from Soweto to Johannesburg. The hon. member for Langlaagte had a lot to say about the lack of patriotism, of entrepreneurs who did not decentralize their industry. I want to say that it is a lot easier to plan one’s city townships for Africans in such a way that you are not moving everybody from point A to point B and from point B back to point A at the same times of the day. It is a lot easier to do that than it is to decentralize industry which relies on all sorts of locational factors such as the availability of raw materials, the proximity of the market and infrastructure, power and things of that nature, as well as the availability of labour. So I want to know to what extent the inter-departmental committee is functioning which is meant to plan, together with the Railways, things like the location of residential townships for Africans. I think that for us to go on expanding an area like Soweto, for instance, is absurd. We should obviously be attempting a geographic spread of these areas so that we do not have this tremendous congestion on the one line, because 411 trains a day, as I think the hon. member for Parktown said, is probably the limit of the number of trains you can use on that line. Therefore I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that that could be one possible future solution.

The other possible solution is of course the staggering of work hours. Now I know that the Driessen Commission recommended this and I read in the Mail this morning that Pretoria is to be the guinea-pig as far as the civil service is concerned. This idea has now apparently been adopted and hours are to be staggered for the civil servants. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell this Committee whether or not the staggering of hours for commerce and industry is now being seriously considered, and whether the matter has been brought to the notice of industry and commerce to see whether they would be in agreement with the idea of staggering the work hours, so that we do not have this tremendous congestion from 5 o’clock in the morning onwards to about 8 o’clock in the morning so as to get the whole of the Black work force into Johannesburg and then out again at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon. I believe that unless we do something practical like this, the irritation, the danger point mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown, will then become only too real. Accidents and congestion on the trains are flash-points of danger in South Africa. They are the kinds of things that cause tremendous public reaction, and the African population has shown itself to be particularly susceptible to this sort of irritation. Therefore I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us about some of the improvements he envisages for the future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton must forgive me if I do not react to what she has said. The hon. the Minister dealt with the question of lady pilots in great detail yesterday. I do not know if the hon. member does not understand Afrikaans.

I understand Afrikaans very well.

Hear, hear!

I assume that the hon. the Minister will have more to say and will give her a clear reply.

In the short time at my disposal I would like to discuss a matter which is of great importance to Welkom. I am referring to the inadequate service of the railway station at Welkom. I realize very well that we are living in inflationary times, and I realize very well, too, that it is the Government’s task to curtail expenses strictly. I would like to reassure the hon. the Minister immediately by telling him that I will not be making a plea this afternoon for a new station for Welkom. When I arrived in Welkom in 1951, the present station was already there and now, after all the years which have passed, the station is still precisely as it was in those days, with only a slight improvement here and there. That area has developed very rapidly, especially Welkom itself, and I know it has been a giant task for the Government departments to keep up with those developments at all times. Nevertheless I am pleased to be able to point out what certain Government departments have in fact accomplished there. The Department of Justice has a beautiful magistrate’s court there and there is also the beautiful police station, which, by the way, was opened by the hon. the Prime Minister. I am pleased that that department has been able to keep pace and also that the provincial administration has been able to keep pace in providing schools and hospitals, in spite of the rapid development in that area. However, I very much regret to say that the railway station as such has not kept pace with the development of Welkom, and I say this in great earnest, because it is a matter which causes concern to my people. Here I have a memorandum which was drawn up jointly by the Sakekamer and the Chambers of Commerce in Welkom. It concerns this whole matter. For the record I would just like to give the Minister a brief indication of the development that has taken place in that area and the problems we have to contend with, I quote—

This is a letter which was written on 18 August last year to the System Manager of the Railways in Bloemfontein. I accept that due to the rapid development of the city of Welkom it has most certainly been a Herculean task for the Railways to keep up with that development at all times. Perhaps, as a matter of interest, I should just mention a few facts here concerning the development of Welkom. Since 1972 the revenue from gold sales from the gold mines in the Free State goldfields has increased drastically and in 1975 the sales already totalled an amount of R783 million. It has almost been tripled. One can appreciate that other major economic activities are taking place there as a result of the rapid development of the gold mining industry in that area. The municipal valuation of Welkom for the year 1972 was R122 million in round figures. Last year it was R180 million—an increase of R60 million. Construction plans to the value of R2,6 million were passed in 1971, while the value of construction plans which were passed in 1975 amounted to a total of R21 million.

To prove this I may just say that 239 new business licences were granted at the end of 1974. Since January 1975 to the present date 141 new business centres have been granted there. The industrial area of Welkom covers 350 plots, and there are industrial premises on 95% of them today. In 1971 19 000 vehicles had been registered there, in round figures. Today there are 31 000. The numbers of inhabitants of Welkom have increased from 25 000 Whites a few years ago to almost 40 000 today. Because of this development in Welkom, heavy demands are being made on the Railways, and I regret having to repeat that the railway station at Welkom has in no way kept up with the development there. I am not asking for a new station, although I would be grateful if the financial circumstances would allow this to be provided, because that station is positively ancient. I would like to request today that the goods-shed at Welkom be enlarged considerably. The industrialists and businessmen of that area express their dissatisfaction from day to day because our goods-shed at Welkom is in a chaotic condition because of the fact that with the development which is taking place there, the cargo simply cannot be handled. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is an acknowledged fact that goods sometimes remain in that goods-shed more than three weeks or a month. The delivery service at Welkom station is very poor. I make no bones about this because it is my duty as representative of that area to bring these matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. My knowledge of the hon. the Minister, who is an extremely capable Minister, and of the Railways, leads me to believe that the officials of the Railways are well aware of the problems which exist there. I believe that the good record of the South African Railways, a record which is maintained throughout South Africa, will be restored at Welkom as well. My request today is not unreasonable. Representations in this respect have repeatedly been submitted by the institutions in Welkom—including the Sakekamer and the Chamber of Commerce— but I regret having to say that up to date no finality has been reached concerning those representations. Lastly and before I sit down, I would like to thank the hon. the Minister and his department in advance because I have faith in them and know that what is wrong there will be rectified in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Chairman, what a welcome breath of criticism we got from the hon. member for Welkom. I agree with him that the conditions there are a disgrace. The hon. Minister should do something about it. It is a very effective and subtle form of blackmail the hon. member used.

I want to address the hon. the Minister on the safety of passengers on the South African Railways. I want to deal particularly with the safety of passengers on the Soweto service. It is a fact, and the hon. the Minister knows it to be a fact, that the crime rate on Soweto trains is increasing by the day. These trains, which are packed with passengers in the mornings and in the evenings, have virtually on every train a complement of criminals and thugs who molest, assault and rob the people who travel on those trains. The increasing incidence of assaults and robberies on those trains is a very serious situation indeed. On Fridays, when the breadwinners return home on these trains, they are very often relieved of their pay packets, as a result of which their families have to face another week of deprivation and hunger. It is no use the hon. the Minister saying that the Railways are doing all that can be done in this respect. It is no use referring to the number of policemen that are available at the various police stations, or to the steps that have been taken in this regard. The fact of the matter is that it is the responsibility of the S.A. Railways to ensure the safety of passengers on trains of the S.A. Railways. In respect of the safe conduct of passengers on the Soweto line, the S.A. Railways have failed dismally in their responsibility. I believe the hon. the Minister must attend to this matter as a top priority. The safety of those passengers is his responsibility and he must discharge that responsibility. I believe that when the hon. the Minister looks at the figures of the escalating incidence of crime on the trains, he must feel very concerned at what is happening there.

However, not only is the safety of passengers on trains the responsibility of the Railways, but also the safety of people on the platforms. Although I do not want to suggest that the incident I am going to relate is widespread, there are too many incidents where Whites, passing through stations where Blacks are congregating, pelt the Blacks with water and food packages, and missiles of that nature. This is already happening too often. It is creating a very bad impression and is bringing much shame on the White man in the eyes of the Black man. There again, the protection of those people is the responsibility of this hon. Minister. I wish to read out a letter which appeared in Die Transvaler of 15 January this year to illustrate the point I am trying to make. In reading this letter, I do not want to suggest that what is described in it is general. However, there are some members of the White community, a minority, who bring disgrace on the White community as a whole by their bad behaviour. I believe we must take strong action to put an end to this sort of activity. The letter reads as follows—

*There is another paragraph, but I am not going to read that out. The letter was signed by a Mrs. Betsie Terblanche. The hon. the Minister and his department are primarily responsible for the safety and the protection of passengers both on the trains and on the platforms. There have been incidents in the past in which the Minister and his department have badly neglected their responsibility. Arising from the two examples I have referred to, I request the hon. the Minister to take urgent steps to ensure that incidents of this kind do not occur again. In the first place, this creates criticism against the department. What is more serious still is that incidents of this kind lower the esteem in which the Whites are held by the non-Whites.

As if you cared about that.

I care very much about that. It seems as if those hon. members on that side do not care about it. They are not prepared to do anything about it. It is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister towards the people concerned, towards South Africa, and towards the Whites in South Africa, to ensure that this type of incident does not take place.

†I should like to put one further request to the hon. the Minister with a view to a possible saving of money. I refer to the turn-around time of trucks. In a recent article a Railways expert indicated that in the 1960s the total turn-around time for a truck was eight days and by 1974 had increased to 11,3 days. This gentleman calculates that the additional time—38% more than in 1960—results in a cost to the taxpayer of approximately R238 million per year. The number of trucks in March 1974 was 166 327 valued at R713 million. The calculation which I came across indicates that if the same turn-around time which existed in the 1960s had been maintained up to 1974, a saving of 46 327 trucks would have been achieved, a saving on cost of R198 million. If one adds to this an additional R40 million, the total additional cost brought about by the longer turn-around time is R238 million. The hon. the Minister has, in fact, asked for examples of cases where greater efficiency can be obtained and money saved. I believe that this is a field which should be investigated. It should be determined why the turn-around time has increased. I know that the hon. the Minister will say that demurrage costs have been increased in order to persuade people to release trucks sooner. I agree that that may be so, but I think the hon. the Minister must also look at other reasons for the longer turn-around time. I believe that if he does that, he may be able to determine that this is a worthwhile suggestion to be considered with a view to reducing expenditure on the Railways. I should very much like to hear the answer of the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was negative once again, an attitude to which we have become accustomed. He again used expressions like “a form of blackmail” and so on. I, on the contrary, feel like being more positive. It seems to have become customary, when there has been bad planning by other bodies, planning which is not very scientific, for the S.A. Railways to be called in to solve the problems immediately. That side of the House is still opposed to decentralization, while in fact one of the solutions to the transport problems of the Railways lies in decentralization on a larger scale.

There is a matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and his department. I am referring to the question of houses which are no longer occupied at some smaller stations, something which has been caused by the decentralized traffic control systems. I expect that this modern development will become more and more prevalent and that more and more of the houses at smaller stations will be left unoccupied. This will also mean, of course, that greater damage will be done to the houses. I wonder whether it would not be possible for this matter to be investigated. Would it not be possible for arrangements to be made in consultation with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for these houses to be occupied by elderly people? What I have in mind is that such houses close to the large cities or urban areas could be occupied by elderly families who would then be able to make use of the train services comfortably when it is necessary to get to the city. I assume the Administration and the hon. the Minister have already considered this, but I feel this is a matter of exigency, in this sense that many empty houses are in danger of being ruined. One already finds that corrugated iron has been nailed to the doors and windows.

I want to come to aspects which are of more specific concern to my constituency. I would like to bring the matter of the Daspoort station to the attention of the hon. the Minister once again. This station is situated in a White residential area, where an enormous stream of Black people have to pass through the White residential area to the industrial area. If there had not been a solution, one would still have been able to accept the position. However, we feel the possibility could be considered of extending the platform or of abandoning the station. This might cause these people to alight at another station instead of at Daspoort station.

Apart from this I only have praise for the South African Railways. Every time we have gone to the Railways with problems, whether it be the city council of Pretoria concerning the transportation of Black labourers from the Black areas like Ga Rankuwa or Mabopane, or whatever the case may be, we have always received the wholehearted co-operation of the department and the Minister.

I should like to request that the matter which I have mentioned be investigated. I should also like to express gratitude for everything which has been done in my constituency by the Railways. I think in particular of the culvert under the ramp which I asked for two years ago and which is now being provided at the railway crossing in Hendrik Street.

Mr. Chairman, the kettle on which Nationalist discipline kept the lid so carefully at the start of this debate, is showing a little strain under the pressure and amongst Government ranks—I refer to the hon. member for Welkom and some of the farmer members—we have seen some of the courage and the honesty which one expects of a member of Parliament. I welcome it, because we are here as a Committee dealing with the Railway budget, and it is refreshing to hear members taking an interest in the problems of the Railways and those of their constituencies. I wish that this had happened to a greater extent. Earlier during the Committee Stage I raised the question of the Railway pensioner, to which the hon. the Minister replied by saying that they are not too badly off, because a person with a pension of R100 in 1958 was by now receiving R235—an increase of 135%. On 15 January this year a local newspaper carried a report on certain members of Parliament departing for Cape Town. I want to quote what some of the members had to say. There was, for instance, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North on his way to Parliament. This is what he was coming to Parliament to do—

I am the last speaker in this debate. Where is the attention that hon. member gave to the plight of the older Railway pensioners? The hon. member for Bloemfontein West, who is not even in the House for this debate, said that he also was concerned about the position of the older Railway pensioners. Where was his voice? They go to the Press and say that they are going to fight for the pensioner, particularly for the older pensioner, and when they get into the House during a debate in which this very matter should be dealt with, one does not hear their voices. Where are the voices of these courageous members who were going to fight? Do they, when the hon. the Minister criticizes us, stand up and say that they are also worried? Tjoepstil! Zip!

The hon. the Minister gave an example yesterday, and I have just quoted that example. Two Railway pensioners have come to me today. One of them had 36 years and six months service in the Railways, 21 years as a special grade driver. He retired in 1960, that is two years after the hon. the Minister’s date of 1958. Let us compare his pension to what the hon. the Minister quoted, that is R100 in 1958 to R235 at the present time. The pensioner I have mentioned retired on R88 a month, and today he is getting R174, less tax. In other words, the R174 is his gross income. How does the hon. the Minister explain that?

Another pensioner went on pension before the hon. the Minister’s date, namely in December 1954. His pension then was R93. If one were to add the R2 per year, it would total virtually R100 in 1958. At the moment he is receiving R179,93 after deduction of PAYE; His gross income would, therefore, be approximately R182. Why does the hon. the Minister come here with examples when he knows that there are cases like this? Who is he trying bluff? He is not bluffing the pensioner. He may be bluffing this House, but he is not bluffing the pensioner who gets his cheque at the end of each month on which he sees a figure which is R30 to R40 less than the example the hon. the Minister quoted. I repeat that it is a disgrace that we could not have done something for the older scheme Railway pensioners in this budget, no matter what hardship for South Africa as a whole may have resulted from it. I am also shocked that Government members should have remained silent without lifting their voices on this matter.

I would like to return to the issues we raised as opposed to the detailed matters which have been discussed in regard to individual problems in constituencies. I would like to start with a statement which I regard in a serious light. The hon. the Minister claimed that I had quoted incorrect figures in regard to Airways tariff increases. He said the following—

Mr. Chairman, one expects that when a Minister says something, people can accept that that is the position. This is untrue. The hon. the Minister has made an incorrect statement. One could perhaps expect a backbencher, or even an Opposition frontbencher, to make a mistake in a statement, but not a Minister. The hon. the Minister should know that the increase to which he referred, the one of 1 October, was not an increase by IATA. It was an increase due to the South African Government’s decision to devalue the rand. It was entirely an internal decision. It was not even considered by IATA, but followed after devaluation when the Airways decided that they would raise the fares by 15%. It had nothing to do with IATA, and it had nothing to do with any agreement. I take the strongest exception to the hon. the Minister hiding behind an incorrect statement in order to try to show that my figures were wrong. I am told that I have two minutes left and, therefore, I cannot give him the full figures. However, it is a simple sum. If traffic is increased by 10% on 200 million and the income estimated has increased by R45 million then R20 million from R45 million, plus the odd thousands and hundreds, comes to the R26 million which I quoted. In the same way I can give the other figures which the hon. the Minister queried during the second reading.

The last point I have time to deal with is the question of the gap between high-rated and low-rated traffic. The hon. the Minister used percentages to show that he had narrowed the gap. He did not deny the cold, hard fact that he had increased the difference between low-rated and high-rated traffic on average by an additional 16c and that, on average, he had increased the high-rated traffic by 25c per ton whilst on low-rated traffic he had increased it by 9c a ton. The gap between low and high-rated traffic has, therefore, increased by the physical amount of 16c. What the Minister did in order to try to refute this fact, was to take the highest tariff and the lowest tariff, calculate how many times higher it was and then say that he had closed the gap. He “closed the gap” by increasing it by 16c, and he then tried to hide behind the extreme exception—the most expensive and the very cheapest—and to claim that he had narrowed the gap. Over the 15 tariff ratings the average is a difference in the gap of 16c more per ton. The hon. the Minister cannot escape the hard, cold fact that he is so. Unfortunately I have no more time to continue. However, if this is the basis upon which the hon. the Minister argues, then South Africa knows what to make of his repudiation of the charges which stand unanswered from this side of the House in respect of this black budget.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point, who has just spoken, lost the debate. At the end of the debate he came here and raised his voice and made boisterous statements, inter alia that I had proclaimed untruths in this House.

I said that you had furnished incorrect facts.

The hon. member did all these things to throw up a smoke-screen because he realized that he had lost the debate.

Are my statements correct or incorrect?

The hon. member referred to what I had said about our increases in connection with external flights. The hon. member knows as well as I do that we are a member of IATA and that we are bound to agreements which are made from time to time by IATA. However, the hon. member now couples devaluation with increases which we had on international flights. I do not know how the hon. member’s mind works.

Was the increase of 1 October 1975 an IATA increase?

The 1 October increase is not the only one which is being discussed.

That is what you spoke about.

I did not speak about it; the hon. member may perhaps have spoken about it. International flights are not completely affected by devaluation as far as fuel is concerned, because we earn money abroad and we pay for petrol which is used on our international flights abroad. We do not send our money from here to pay for it there. It is not like internal flights which are dependent on fuel which has to be imported to South Africa from abroad, as a result of which money flows out of the country. Oh, please the hon. member is making me angry now. Because the hon. member lost the debate, he became excited and tried to create the impression outside that I proclaim untruths in this House. I want to tell that hon. member that I attach great importance to integrity and to the truth. I would not say that I never make statements which are perhaps not entirely correct in some respect or other, because we are all human. One of the first instructions I gave this department, is that when they present facts to me and to this Parliament, they must be 100% correct. The hon. member may therefore accept that the facts which are presented to Parliament from outside, are as correct as is humanly possible.

Last night I told the hon. member for Bellville that I would furnish a reply today in regard to the property in Bellville to which he referred. I should like to give him the following information: After representations from the municipality consideration is being given to leasing to the municipality a piece of land west of the proposed parcels block, initially for a period of three years, for the purpose of establishing a non-White bus terminus when railway lines in the area are removed in approximately two years’ time. Secondly, to ceding land to the north of the proposed parcels block to the municipality for the construction of a connecting road between Chari Malan Street and Modderdam Road and, thirdly to leasing a section of land north of the above-mentioned connecting road to the municipality for the provision of public parking facilities. I should like to tell the hon. member that the development in Bellville is very complicated. We are being very careful because we may perhaps require land in future, and therefore we are not very keen to cede land now, if we are not certain that we shall not need it again in future. I think that this may serve as reply to the question which the hon. member put to me.

Last night the hon. member for Gezina discussed the goods shed which is being built at Capital Park. I want to tell him that our planning in Pretoria takes place in close co-operation with the Pretoria City Council. The only suitable ground which we were able to obtain there, is at Capital Park. It is situated next to the marshalling yard. I cannot furnish all the particulars at this stage. However, I want to tell him that Voortrekker Road and Fransina Street are the only service roads for Capital Park. We sympathize with the people who live in that area, because we realize that there will be a degree of noise owing to the development we are envisaging. We will simply have to accept that development also has certain disadvantages and very often causes inconvenience. In the process of development one sometimes has to accept that people will have to put up with a certain amount of inconvenience.

I should now like to refer to the hon. member for South Coast, who discussed pensions, and at the same time say that the hon. member for Durban Point did not deliver a plea for the pensioners this afternoon, but merely made a political point here. He wanted to score a few points off us. Yesterday I gave the hon. member an example with 1958 as the base, not necessarily the actual pension, but as a base. If the hon. member differs with the example which I gave to him yesterday, I should very much like to look at it.

I shall give you two.

I should very much like to have it in order to see what the circumstances are and why—if it is at all possible, although I do not believe it can be possible—it deviates from the pattern which I gave him yesterday. The hon. member for South Coast referred more particularly to the pensioners who retired prior to December 1973. I want to tell the hon. member that I have had many representations concerning those pensioners. Naturally one examines these requests with the utmost sympathy, because we are all concerned about the position of our pensioners, because we are aware of the dwindling value of the rand, of the money they receive, and therefore we would like to do what we can for them. It is unfortunately the case that many of them are linked to a particular pension fund. Since December 1973 the contribution has been greater than what it previously was. We cannot, with the best will in the world, apply the conditions and stipulations which apply to these people who are making a larger contribution, to people who made a smaller contribution. There is a difference. There is a joint committee on pension matters, which has already investigated this matter several times and which concluded that we can do nothing about it. The circumstances prior to 1973 were different and we must accept this difference in this way. The hon. member also mentioned the administration of the funds and the fact that pensioners are not serving on the committee. This is the case because it is those people who make contributions, that is to say those who are still in the service of the Railways and who are responsible for the financial success of those funds. For this reason it is correct that they, as far as these funds are concerned, should be in charge of these matters.

The hon. member for Malmesbury referred to the housing of people who had been forced to move as a result of circumstances. Fourteen married drivers and 11 married conductors had to move from Malmesbury to Cape Town due to the introduction of dieselization. Every possible effort is being made—I should like to give the hon. member this assurance—to provide them with housing in Cape Town on a preferential basis. Besides that, a transfer cost of R500 is paid to married servants as well as R100 per child up to a maximum of R800 per family. We shall do what we can to provide these people with housing.

The hon. member for Humansdorp asked us not to eliminate the gap between rates completely. I should like to assure the hon. member that, with the best will in the world, we can never achieve fully cost-orientated rates. There will always have to be a slight latitude, and therefore it is not possible that a stage will arrive when the gap which exists today, will have been completely eliminated.

The hon. members for Walmer and Houghton referred to aircraft which are late in departing. Yesterday I gave a full explanation of the problems which we have been experiencing in recent times with regard to the internal flights of the S.A. Airways. The hon. member raised certain matters here, and suggested methods of handling the situation at the airports. I want to tell the hon. member that I, too, have often said that announcements should be made when the departure of an aircraft is going to be delayed so that people will know that it is going to be delayed, and if at all possible, what the reasons for this are. However, it is not always possible to give the reason. For example if a telephone call has been received to say that there is a bomb on board, one cannot tell this to the passengers. Surely that is obvious. Sometimes it is due to a technical fault and then they hesitate because they think that they may not be able to rectify it in time.

Naturally there is another reason why it is difficult, namely, because our airports are operated by the Department of Transport and not by the Airways. This is a matter to which I still want to give attention. The announcements are made by a woman in the service of the Department of Transport. In other words, there has to be a request for such an announcement before it can be made. Apart from that the reasons for the late departure of aircraft are often rather difficult and complicated to describe, and that is why it is not so easy to convey this message to the public. But I believe—and we must reconcile ourselves to this—that people will feel far more reassured and for more satisfied if it is at all possible to provide them with the reason for the late departure of an aircraft, especially if it is related to safety. Then people understand it, if you say that it is due to technical reasons which have to be rectified, etc. Naturally they are still disappointed, but at least they understand it. Now I want to mention another aspect which also causes us frequent problems. I think there are probably many of you who have repeatedly heard the following announcement at an airport: “Will the two gentlemen who are delaying flight No. So-and-so please board the aircraft,” and a moment later this announcement has to be broadcast again. And where are those two gentlemen? They are in the bar and it is so noisy there that they cannot hear the announcement. Now it is easy to say that we should leave without them, but we cannot do so. If we leave without them, we shall first have to cause everyone to get off the plane and remove the luggage so that each person can identify his luggage, because we do not dare depart with those people’s luggage. Therefore, you must understand that the public also cause us many problems.

It would help if the loudspeakers were a little clearer.

The hon. member must raise that objection under the Transport Vote. But I do not want to make excuses. We have recently had many delays, and I told you yesterday that as soon as we put the new Boeing SPs into service abroad, we will have more 707s available for internal flights. But by the end of the year, once the Airbus is in operation, I think that things ought to be running a lot more smoothly than they have been up to now.

The hon. member for Walmer also put questions to me in connection with the chartering of aircraft. The charter aircraft which appear in books are from Safair, the Hercules 130 aircraft. Hon. members have probably seen them at the airport in Johannesburg. They are freight aircraft which the Railways hire to convey large quantities of freight. It is in respect of this that we expect a decrease in expenditure during the coming financial year.

The hon. member for Wonderboom spoke about the facilities which are provided from Mabopane to Pretoria Central. This is a matter with which the hon. member is very well acquainted and which naturally causes him and other M.P.s in that area a great many problems. But I just want to tell him that the interdepartmental committee concerned is not disposed to recommend, as he suggested—and this was his request yesterday—a change-over service at Wolmerton and requested that limited train services through to Pretoria be reconsidered when the railway line between Mabopane and Wolmerton is completed. The matter is receiving attention at the moment. I think that this is in accordance with the ideas which the hon. member expressed here.

The hon. member for Bethal discussed the conveyance of coal by road. I may mention that a few years ago the Railways experienced certain problems in connection with its carrying capacity in that area. They then proceeded to buy large trucks, those to which he referred, and coal was then exempted for transport by road. As a result of this the practice to which the hon. member referred arose. While it is indeed possible at the moment, as far as capacity and waggons are concerned, for the Railways to transport coal, it may happen that during the winter season we will not be able to cope with this problem in the short term. At the moment, in co-operation with the TCOA—the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association—we are inquiring into the possibility of block loads of coal from that area to Johannesburg.

The hon. member for Durban Central also raised certain matters here. He complained that a return ticket now costs twice as much as a single ticket. I would simply like to tell the hon. member that this is the practice throughout the entire world—with rail, air and road transport. He also complained that the necessary provision is not being made for discount over longer distances. I want to tell him that in fact there is still a difference. For example a first-class ticket for 100 km costs R6,70 while a ticket for 1 000 km, which is 10 times as far, costs R62,90. That is to say, there is a discount of 6,1% on a ticket for 1 000 km, compared with a ticket for 100 km. So there is still a degree of difference.

The hon. member said that these higher rates would now be very much to our disadvantage, because people would travel less by train and the trains would therefore be half full, etc. This may happen. One always receives this kind of resistance, but if the trains should be half full, we shall cancel certain of the trains so that firstly, there will be greater capacity for the non-Whites and secondly, we shall have the advantage of being able to transport goods more easily, because I want to remind the hon. member that a passenger train delays the goods traffic considerably, because the passenger train has to always be given preference, and as a result goods trains are delayed on a large scale. There is an additional factor to which we have no objection, and that is that people, especially with the new rates, are making greater use of the Airways. Because the losses on the conveyance of passengers per rail are tremendously high we would rather encourage passengers to make greater use of the Airways.

Sir, I should like to say a great deal to the hon. member for Umlazi in connection with the remarks which he made about the Railway Board. But it is such an important subject that I do not want to detract from it by glossing over it. The hon. member made a very good speech last night; he said pleasant things about the Railways, but the remarks which he made about the Railway Board were not justified. I would like the hon. member to remember that the S.A. Railways are by far the largest business concern in the country. Any ordinary business has a chairman and a board of directors, who determine the policy of that organization. The Railways is different. All that it has, are the Minister and these three commissioners, who as I see it, support me as directors of this board, who are responsible for the activities of the Railways and who are of tremendous importance at policy level. At the moment we have three young commissioners there who are very diligent and competent to do the work and to support me, and I want to assure the hon. member that they render valuable service in the interest of the Railways. But unfortunately I cannot now do justice to this subject as I should like to do.

The hon. member for Potgietersrust discussed the Northern Transvaal and referred to the new railway line which is being built from Thabazimbi to Ellisras, for which legislation will still be introduced in this Parliament later this year. This will be a guaranteed railway line. To extend this railway line, as he has in mind, to Waterpoort and to Messina, will cost a great deal of money and therefore will not be justified. He also spoke of the possibility of doubling the line further northwards from Pienaars River. That entire railway line has already been dieselized, and at the moment there is sufficient capacity for the foreseeable future. In future we will have to decide what the priorities are in order to increase the capacity of that railway line further.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Eshowe on the explanation which he gave in connection with Richards Bay. It was very interesting, and I am sure that hon. members also found it interesting.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg spoke about the staff this afternoon and I appreciate his contribution.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke about thoroughbred show cattle and asked that a rebate be given on the conveyance of these animals. If we had to give a rebate on this, it would be entirely in conflict with accepted policy, namely the consideration that payment must take place according to what the traffic can afford. Surely thoroughbred stock, horses or whatever they may be, are far more valuable than ordinary stock. Naturally the ability of that traffic is greater, and as a result of this there is no justification, except perhaps for emotional or sentimental considerations, to grant a discount with respect to the conveyance of these animals.

Then the door is completely closed?

I am afraid it is closed. If the hon. member needs help, as I said the day before yesterday, he will have to look for it somewhere else. I do not think that he will receive any help from us. We have to consider these matters from an economic point of view.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture says there is no money.

The hon. member also spoke about the conveyance of labourers at Pietermaritzburg. I will consider this matter and inform him later of possibilities in this respect.

The hon. member for Heilbron spoke about the rebates on maize. This is a rebate which is provided by the Department of Agriculture and administered by us, and we have not received any news that there will be any change at all with respect to this. The hon. member also spoke about a grain elevator at Richards Bay; at the moment our capacity is sufficient and we cannot consider it. We have made an agreement with the Maize Board to reconsider the matter during 1977.

The hon. member for Houghton spoke once again about Miss Wales-Baillie. But I made the matter so clear to her the other day and I even tried to speak English. At the end of my speech, when I concluded, I told her that under all these circumstances we would continue to appoint men as pilots in the South African Airways, as long as men were available. This is the conclusion and this is the answer and this answer was given to her emphatically at the end of my speech. I do not think that there can be any doubt in this respect.

The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Bryanston, also spoke about the passenger services to Soweto. We have certain obligations with respect to transport services and the hon. member for Bryanston in particular allotted obligations to me which are not my duties and responsibilities. My duties and responsibilities are to provide transport. The hon. member for Houghton criticized the Soweto complex. This matter has nothing to do with me; she must take this matter elsewhere because I am only there to provide transport. If two lines are not enough, we shall build four, and if four lines are not enough we shall build six. We shall make our contribution, and I said yesterday how many passenger coaches have already been bought for conveying the third-class passengers.

In conclusion I should like to say that the hon. member for Durban Point said so often that I have a great deal of assistance and support and that I am supplied with information. Sir, it is necessary, and I need it. The S.A. Railways is a large organization and attacks are often made on me by the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Maitland and even by members on my side of the House, and I must cope with those attacks.

You have very good assistance too.

I should like to tell the hon. member that it is good assistance. It has also been brought to my attention that I did not refer to Welkom. The hon. member for Welkom made an earnest plea on behalf of Welkom. I will look at it and inform the hon. member about the possibilities of future developments concerning the railway station at Welkom.

I want to conclude by thanking all hon. members sincerely for the discussion which took place here, and in particular also my own people who provided me with that useful information to which the hon. member for Durban Point referred.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 75.

Schedules, Clauses and Title agreed to.

House resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains minor amendments only, for the most part of an administrative nature, in order to eliminate a few shortcomings in regard to the Police Reserve.

The proposed amendments are intended to make provision for written notice by members of the Police Reserve of their names and addresses and of any change of address, and to penalize any failure to comply with these requirements. Furthermore, it is also necessary to add certain penalties which were lacking, as I shall explain further when I deal with the clauses separately.

Clause 1(a): Subsection (2) of section 34A of the principal Act is being substituted by this clause. In subparagraphs (a) and (b) provision is now being made for a member of the Police Reserve to give written notice of his name and address and of any change of address.

As the Act reads at the moment, the method of giving notice is not prescribed, which has created considerable problems in cases where prosecutions have had to be instituted against persons who have failed to comply with the provisions. There have been cases of members of the Police Reserve advancing excuses of having supplied the required details telephonically to an unnamed person at headquarters or at a police station, with the result that they have had to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Written notice will eliminate this shortcoming and the designated officer will also have to provide the member concerned with a written acknowledgment.

As is evident from subparagraph (c), only this written acknowledgment, issued by the designated officer, will be accepted in any prosecution as proof of the accused having given notice of his name and address or of any change of address, unless he adduces other proof to the satisfaction of the court that he has in fact complied with the requirements.

It is true that the onus of proof is being placed on the accused in this regard, but as I have already said, experience has taught that in cases of this nature any excuse imaginable is advanced, which can give rise to doubt.

Henceforth a written acknowledgment of receipt of the notice will be issued upon receipt of the written notice of name and address, or of change of address, as the case may be, by which means it will be possible to exercise proper control over members of the Police Reserve.

Hon. members should also take cognizance of the fact that the production of the written acknowledgment will not be the only proof of innocence. An accused may still adduce other proof to the satisfaction of the court.

Mr. Speaker, here I should just like to add that similar provisions in regard to members of the Citizen Force do exist in the Defence Act, and this provision follows those.

Clause 1(b): A new provision is being inserted in section 34A by this clause, in terms of which any contravention thereof, or any failure to comply with an order issued in terms thereof, is made punishable by the same penalties to which a member of the Force is subject for contravening the Act. For the information of hon. members I may just mention that section 9(1) of the principal Act is applicable only in respect of serving members of the Force who, in terms of the definition of “member of the Force”, do include members of the Police Reserve, but only while such member of the Reserve is employed in the Force. Therefore this provision is necessary in order to eliminate any misunderstanding which may possibly exist.

Subparagraph (b) is self-explanatory and is necessary in order to enforce the liability imposed on the member in subsection (10) of section 34A of the principal Act, and to introduce penal provisions when such a member does not report for service or, having reported for service, does not render such service.

Clause 2 contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to inform the hon. the Minister that we in the official Opposition will support him in the Second Reading of this Bill. This Bill is mainly a Bill of an administrative nature, as the hon. the Minister has quite rightly said, and is aimed at sealing the loopholes in the fabric of the structure of the Police Reserve. At the same time it also imposes certain penalties for non-compliance with these provisions.

Speaking as a member of the Police Reserve, I see the necessity for these measures, which are all aimed at the efficient control of the Police Reserve, thereby making it more effective. Again speaking from experience, I agree that written notice of name and address and of any subsequent changes of address, together with the written acknowledgment by an officer designated by the Commissioner of Police, is absolutely vital for the efficiency of the organization of the Police Reserve.

Normally we would have objected to the provisions of clause 1(c), as this departs from the fundamental principle in our legal system that the onus of proof rests squarely on the prosecution. However, having in mind the special circumstances and the experience of the Police, we concede that it is necessary to reverse the onus in this case.

With these few words, Sir, I first want to assure the hon. the Minister that we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we who are sitting in these benches, also support the Second Reading of this Bill. There are only two aspects to which I should like to refer. In the first place, it is so that usually we, too, are not in favour of supporting a provision in terms of which the onus of proof is placed on the accused. In these circumstances, however, it is fair in our opinion that the onus of proof be placed on a person who is in fact the only person who has any knowledge of the circumstances. Therefore, it would be very difficult in a case like this, to place the onus of proof on anybody else.

In the second place, I want to point out that problems may possibly arise in respect of the interpretation of the wording of clause 1(b)(ii), viz. “having reported for service, does not render such service; …”. It might be argued that the words “such service” in fact meant that a member of the Police Reserve should render all of his service in a satisfactory manner. However, I do not believe that this is what the Bill intends. As I see it, the intention is merely that a member of the Police Reserve should report for service and that he should then be prepared to perform the duties which are imposed upon him. Therefore, the object of the Bill is not to determine whether or not a member is performing his service satisfactorily. For that reason we shall not move an amendment to this provision either. In conclusion I should just like to repeat that we have no problem in connection with this Bill and that we shall support it for that reason.

I thank the hon. members of the Opposition for their support. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that the words “does not render such service”, refer to people who in fact refuse to render that service which they are liable to render. This is all it actually implies.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure was suggested by the South African Law Commission. The Commission pointed out that our civil procedure made provision for two methods of making an application to a court, i.e. by way of petition and by way of notice of motion.

Presently these two types of application differ only in form. A petition is submitted to the court, and the supporting affidavit forms part of the petition. A notice of motion, on the other hand, is submitted to the clerk of the court together with a separate affidavit. The petition is of a more formalistic nature and is used virtually only when required by law, inter alia by the Insolvency Act, 1936, and the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946.

The commission is of the opinion that no need exists for different procedures for making applications to the court. The measure is also supported by the Chief Justice, the various Judges-President, the General Council of the Bar, the Association of Law Societies and the State Attorney.

I am convinced, Sir, that there is no longer room for unnecessary formalism in our administration of justice, and I trust that this measure will therefore be to the advantage of all who are involved in our administration of justice.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches, the official Opposition, support this Bill. We think that this is a timely amendment. As the hon. the Minister has correctly pointed out, a petition is usually made use of in terms of the provisions of certain statutes. In the Supreme Court Act of 1959 for instance, we find under section 21—appeals to the Appellate Division—that provision is made for appeals to be made by way of petition. Motions usually come before the court, relative not only to the individual, but also to matters of an ordinary sort against other persons or their actions.

Sir, we believe that this is a very timely amendment, because the present formality in our law is probably outmoded today.

Mr. Speaker, we, too, support the Second Reading of this Bill. I should just like to say that those of us who practised as counsel, will perhaps become somewhat sentimental because the word “petition” is now going to disappear, that the petition system is going to disappear. However, there is no reason why it should not disappear. I believe, however that the hon. the Minister himself will become somewhat sentimental over this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members for their support. It is true that those of us who are counsel, and were admitted by way of a petition, are somewhat sentimental about the disappearance of the petition. It is, however, purely formalistic and ought to be removed from the Statute Book.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As far back as 1963 the Cabinet agreed to a scheme for the revision of all pre-Union legislation with a view to repealing those laws which had become inexpedient; incorporating as far as practicable, the provisions of those laws with laws passed after 1910; and re-enacting and adapting to present circumstances, essential provisions of those laws in so far as they were incapable of incorporation with existing legislation.

At that time there were approximately 1 250 measures which were affected by this scheme. Those measures were assigned, according to their nature, to the various State departments for consideration in terms of this scheme. More than 700 of the measures were repealed by the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act, 1967 (Act 78 of 1967), and the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act, 1970 (Act 42 of 1970). The various State departments also contributed the removal of a further number of measures from the Statute Book through consolidating and other measures, with the result that only 380 remained.

The South African Law Commission was established in 1973. One of its objects is to make recommendations concerning the repeal of obsolete or unnecessary legislation. The commission has therefore taken upon itself the task of revising existing Pre-Union Statutes as well.

†In consultation with various State Departments, the provincial administrations, certain local authorities, churches, the Bar, law societies, chambers of commerce and various private bodies, the commission has come to the conclusion that approximately 60 of the measures concerned, require further investigation with a view to their re-enactment. Sixty others, including private Acts dealing with church matters, the activities of chambers of commerce, boards of executors and water affairs, cannot be repealed or re-enacted at this stage. Twenty-four measures are being considered by State departments with a view to including them in consolidating legislation. The consolidation of another 17, including the so-called “Police Offences Act”, are being considered by the Law Commission. The remaining measures—more than 200—can according to the recommendation of the Law Commission, be repealed. They are included in the Bill now before the House.

*I am convinced that this measure will contribute much towards facilitating the task of everyone involved in the administration of justice. A large number of measures are being repealed. These measures, no matter how antiquated always had to be borne in mind when legal problems arose.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House believe that it is important that old statutes should be revised from time to time so as to clear up anomalies and remove from the Statute Book those provisions which no longer reflect the thinking of the legislature. The Law Commission has done a good job as far as it has gone, and we in the Opposition support this Bill. We were a little surprised and disappointed, however, to find that the Bill has one glaring omission. I am referring to the remaining provisions of Sir John Cradock’s proclamation of 1813 in so far as it affects the rights of the State to make and repair public roads and raise material for that purpose. During the debate on the Expropriation Act, during the 1975 session …

Stop your tattle, man!

… I made very strong representations to the effect that these rights of the State be repealed. I am very sorry the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke does not agree with what I am about to say. He is a Transvaler, and being a Transvaler, neither he nor his clients have been subjected to the provisions of Sir John Cradock’s proclimation for many, many years. None of these provisions have ever caused him or his clients any worry at all, so I believe he must bear with me as a representative of a seat in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope while I deal with this matter, because I believe this is the correct place to deal with it. As I said, I made very strong representations in that debate and I went into some detail about the effects, on landowners faced by expropriation, of the retention of these rights by the State. I do not intend, at this moment in time, going into all the arguments or again giving all the illustrations I used then.

Order! The hon. member must not discuss all the pre-Union statutes that are not being repealed. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling. I do, however, believe this is a glaring omission and, as I said earlier, we on this side of the House felt that this Bill should have made provision for that in view of the debate that took place last year.

When the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act of 1968—incidentally, that is one the hon. the Minister did not mention in his introductory speech—was passed, it repealed the proclamation of Sir John Cradock dated 6 August 1813, but subject to section 2 of that Act, i.e. the Statute Law Revision Act, 1968. Section 2 of that Act says—

I do not wish to argue against the propriety of this saving clause. It is understandable that the rights of the State and persons should be protected and that conditions of tenure should remain undisturbed. It is unfortunate, however, that clause 4 of Sir John Cradock’s proclamation of 1813 should lump together different rights of the State, including the right of making and repairing public roads and raising materials for that purpose. I am satisfied that the other rights of the State that are grouped together in clause 4 should be retained, inter alia mining rights in respect of precious stones, gold and silver. The effect of the retention of the State’s right to make and repair public roads and raise material is that the Provincial Administration of the Cape of Good Hope and divisional councils of the Cape Province are entitles to take land without compensation for the purpose of routing a public road over any quitrent land subject to the proclamation.

They are also entitled to take materials— such as stones, sand and gravel—on any quitrent land for the purpose of building or repairing a road without paying any compensation for it. In practice these authorities usually pay something which they call an ex gratia payment, but this bears no relationship at all to the true value of what is taken. When the landowner demurs, he is told that by law he is not entitled to any compensation at all and that, unless he accepts that which is offered, the authority concerned will pay him nothing. This is the sort of lawful blackmail which causes much anger, frustration and distress. In the words of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture during the debate I referred to earlier, this is “skandalig”. We now have an Expropriation Act which provides that any landowner from whom land or materials are expropriated, should be paid the true market value thereof—with one big exception, viz. land or materials taken for the building and repairing of public roads in the Cape Province. We should like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he will repeal the State’s right in respect of the taking of land or materials for road-building purposes so that landowners in the Cape Province will also be paid the full market value for such land and materials.

Jack, what does that have to do with the Bill?

I shall now revert to the Bill and its schedule. I should like to refer in the first instance to a very interesting Natal law which is being repealed. I refer to Act No. 6 of 1866 of Natal. This Act provides for authorizing, levying and collecting dues within the colony of Natal in respect of the Little Basses light-vessel at Ceylon. For the protection of ships plying for trade to the Far East, a light-ship was placed on the Little Basses Rock in the colony of Ceylon. The cost of building the light-vessel, putting a light in it, anchoring it to the Little Basses Rock and maintaining it must have been very considerable as the dues extracted from every ship which plied for trade in the East, excepting ships belong to Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, was one penny per ton of the burthen of every ship. These dues were collected from ships as they put into port in Natal and the collector of customs could refuse to clear any ship until such time as the dues were paid. As legislators, we are always on our guard against presumptions. It is therefore very interesting to read the presumptions in this law of 1866. The particular law provided for a number of presumptions dealing with ships deemed to have derived benefit from the light-ship. Quite an amusing description is given, but time will not allow me to read it out to you, Mr. Speaker. The law describes a number of sea routes, and a ship sailing on a course which intersects such routes is presumed to have derived benefit from the light-vessel. It is interesting, also, that if a ship used a certain route at certain times of the year, from March to September, or certain other routes from October to March, it had to pay dues in respect of the light-ship. This is a very interesting piece of legislation which, I think, we shall be very sorry to see removed from the Statute Book because it casts quite a spell when one reads it. One is led to think of the old sea-faring days of sailing ships and of all the difficulties sailors met with on unfriendly coasts.

Another Natal law to be repealed is Act No. 10 of 1869, which provides for the establishment of toll-gates and the imposition of tolls to raise the necessary revenue to repair flood damage to roads and bridges. I think that Natal still suffers from this unfortunate occurrence. The tolls were only levied for that purpose. What is interesting in regard to these tolls, is how they were arrived at. There were actually toll-gates on the road between Pietermaritzburg and Greytown. The following were some of the tolls levied: For any coach or other vehicle drawn by eight or more horses, mules or asses, or 12 oxen or upwards—1s. 6d.; if drawn by six horses, mules or asses or eight oxen but not exceeding 10—1s. 3d.; if drawn by four horses, mules or asses or six oxen—1s. So it goes on till we come to this: For any coach or other vehicle drawn by one horse, mule or ass or two oxen or any other animals—6d. For every saddled horse, mule or ass—3d; horned cattle or horses—1d. each; sheep and goats—3d. per score.

It is a case of “for whom the bell tolls”.

Yes. I do not know if any of these old toll-sites can still be seen along that road. If they can, I think the Historical Monuments Commission might have a look to see if they cannot be preserved.

Finally, there is the Transvaal law, No. 18 of 1889.

You must stop now, even though you have a quarter of an hour left.

Perhaps my hon. friend will be interested in this, for it is a Transvaal law. This is a very interesting law because it was placed on the Statute Book a few days before the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer War. The law deals with revolt, public violence, high treason, injured majesty, incitement and instigation. It makes provision for part of or all of the property of a person convicted of one of these offences to be confiscated although—and this is very interesting—the following is added carefully: “Subject, however, to the rights of mortgagees.” The mortgagee in the Transvaal has therefore always been protected, even in such states of emergency.

What is also interesting about this legislation, is the fact that the accused had to be brought to court in any event, and that the offence “had to be proved to the satisfaction of a competent court of law” before anything could be done. It is quite interesting that every section in this legislation commences with the following words:

As I have said, other sections also commence with these words. It is clear that the legislators in the Volksraad of the Transvaal realized in the year 1899 that, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence, it was something that had to be brought to a court of law and that it was for the court to convict or acquit the person. I am sorry that I have to say that there is no record of any proceedings instituted at that time in terms of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. member for Wynberg is in a talkative mood this afternoon. Last year I had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee on Expropriation. I believe that the hon. members who served on the Select Committee are well aware of the strong opposition of the hon. member for Wynberg to the provisions of Sir John Cradock’s ordinance. Under those circumstances I want to request the hon. the Minister rather to refer the matter to the S.A. Law Commission, so that we may satisfy the hon. member for Wynberg.

I believe that the S.A. Law Commission has done a particularly good job. The Bill comprises only two clauses, but the schedule contains a very long list of Acts. I believe that those Acts had to be studied carefully before a decision to repeal them could be taken. When one reads the reports containing the recommendations of the Law Commission, one notes that a very thorough study has been made in this regard. The Law Commission, which was established in 1973, has already done very good work. I could just mention that Appeal Judge Mr. Justice Rabe and Mr. Justice James, Judge-President of Natal, are the chairman and deputy chairman, respectively, of the Commission. Both are held in high esteem among the legal profession.

Reading through some of the Acts that are being repealed, one inevitably feels that in fact one is dealing with history, because the course of history is depicted in these Acts. On the basis of the various provisions one can see what the dominant social and political factors were at the time. I want to refer briefly to one that interested me particularly. It is an ordinance, promulgated by the Legislative Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope in 1846 “for licensing retail shops within the district of Natal”. What I find interesting in this is the fact that although at the time Natal had already established a separate Government by way of letters patent in 1845, the Legislative Assembly of the Cape Colony had continued to pass laws for, as they called it, “the District of Natal”, until a separate legislative assembly had been instituted for Natal in 1848. I particularly want to bring this to the attention of those hon. members opposite who come from Natal, in particular, because after all, they think that everything begins and ends in Natal. They should remember that the Cape Colony, too, made laws for them.

Another provision that interested me was a Government notice of 1882 in the Transvaal providing that because it was “most objectionable that Church Square and Market Square should be together on the same square”, the Pretoria market was to be held on the Outspan Square with effect from 1 September 1882. Of course, this notice is only of historical interest now and that, too, is why it is being repealed. I could point out that the Transvaal Provincial Administration has given its consent for the repeal of this notice.

It is with a feeling of sadness that one takes leave of these Acts, but nevertheless it is necessary that they be repealed in order that to effect order and uniformity throughout the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also support this legislation. In my opinion we have perhaps, too much legislation in the country already, and consequently if a Bill comes before us which will result in our having less legislation, we can only welcome it. Each of us could, of course, speak for half an hour about the history of South Africa as described in these old Acts. We could speak about this and in that way prove that we had read the reports of the S.A. Law Commission. This, however, I shall not do. I merely want to point out that there are some interesting Acts now being repealed. Furthermore, there are many interesting proclamations, and perhaps I could mention three. The first concerns the annexation of British Kaffraria, and the second, the annexation of Griqualand West. I do just want to ask the hon. the Minister to make quite sure that we will not, as a result of the repeal of these proclamations, have to give the territories in question back to the people from whom they were taken. The third proclamation concerns the capitulation of the Cape Colony on 18 January 1806. The hon. the Minister must please make sure that we will not fall under the Dutch again from now on, and that they will not have to rule over us as a result of the repeal of the capitulation.

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the hon. members who have taken part in the debate for their support and also for the interesting facts they have put before us in connection with the repeal of these pre-Union Acts. It is very true that when one pages through the Bill and takes the trouble to look up the Acts being repealed, one really does take a journey through the history of South Africa. There are a number of interesting cases where we can read between the lines of the various Acts. For those who have the time to do a little research, it would be very interesting to get to know still more of the Acts and to research the surrounding circumstances which gave rise to those Acts.

As regards the first matter referred to by the hon. member for Wynberg, it is true that part of the Sir John Cradock proclamation of 1813 has not yet been repealed. I do not want to express an opinion on the wisdom or otherwise of leaving certain sections on the Statute Book. I am a Transvaler, of course, and although the weal and woe of the Cape is important to me too, you will understand my not getting quite as vehement about the matter as the hon. member for Wynberg did. I remember from the days when I served in the Transvaal Provincial Council that a similar ordinance applies in the Transvaal. I tell the hon. member this in case it is of any comfort to him. I am not prepared to give an undertaking to take steps to remove the remaining sections from the Statute Book, as the hon. member asked me to do. What I shall do, however, is to refer the matter to the S.A. Law Commission. If necessary, the Law Commission may then hear witnesses from the provinces in order to determine whether it is in fact necessary for those sections to remain on the Statute Book. If the provinces are of the opinion that those sections must be retained, then, of course, I do not believe that this would be a matter for us to decide on here. In my opinion a decision on the matter would have to be taken in the various provincial councils. Nevertheless I shall submit the matter to the Law Commission. I agree with the hon. member that the law relating to the lighthouse to which he referred is very interesting. I do not believe that the old lighthouse is still standing on that rock because if so, in these times of economic pressure we should undoubtedly have tried to collect that money as well.

Then, as far as the issue of incitement and confiscation of property in the Transvaal is concerned, I must honestly say that I am sorry that we are removing this Act from the Statute Book. Apparently the old Transvaal Republic never made use of it, but if I had been aware of this Act before, I should undoubtedly have made use of it, even if I should have had to take the people to court before being able to do so.

The hon. member for Eshowe also made a very interesting contribution. He referred to the Government notice which indicates that in 1882 the people found it objectionable that there should be a market on Church Square in Pretoria. You will understand, Sir, that it was objectionable chiefly because the church also stood there, but nowadays the church is no longer there and there is a danger that Church Square could become a lifeless square. I wonder whether it would not be in order to develop, say, a flower market or something of the sort on Church Plain now, so as to put more life in the square itself.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the annexations. I share with him the fear that, if these acts were to go, we might find ourselves under the Dutch again. I want to tell him that I am not eager to be under the Dutch again in this year, but nevertheless I do not think there is any danger of an invasion by the Dutch with the aim of trying to uphold their rights here. I thank the hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

I refer to the first and fifth items in the schedule relating to the annexation and the borders of British Bechuanaland. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any remaining description elsewhere, in any Act, of the borders of British Bechuanaland. In terms of section 21 of the Bantu Administration Act, Act No. 38 of 1927, the Bantu chiefs in British Bechuanaland had exclusive civil jurisdiction over the Bantu within their territory, with the exception of matters relating to Western marriages and with the further exception of criminal jurisdiction. This exclusive jurisdiction relates to matters arising out of Bantu law, excluding matters like murder, rape, witchcraft, etc. I just want to ask whether there is still a definition somewhere of what is meant by the concept “British Bechuanaland” in view of the repeal in this schedule.

Unfortunately I cannot tell the hon. member whether there is any definition, but these proclamations are now being withdrawn, of course, and I do not think there is any doubt about the borders of Bechuanaland. At this stage I am unable to tell the hon. member which other Acts may contain this, but I shall have it looked up and will let him know later on, if that will satisfy the hon. member.

Then I should just like to refer to the Orange Free State and the repeal of Chapter XXXIV of the OFS Statute Book. Reference was made earlier to the nostalgia one feels with regard to the repeal of some of these measures. I do just want to point out that Chapter XXXIV of the OFS Statute Book really went quite far, particularly in view of the circumstances prevailing then. You know, it is often said that in certain respects, the OFS was quite far ahead of other parts of our country with regard to race relations. In this particular Chapter XXXIV, provision is made for a number of things.

Firstly, the existence of mixed marriages is recognized in so far as the chapter refers to Coloureds born of a lawful marriage of a White father and Coloured mother or a Coloured father and a White mother, and the chapter then goes on to give those Coloureds the right to acquire property after having been resident in the territory for five years, and to give the children of such Coloureds the right to inherit those properties. Most of these provisions have of course been replaced in the meantime by the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Group Areas Act, but nevertheless this is something which causes one distress, viz. that whereas we had this situation in the Free State in earlier days, we have in fact tried to turn the wheel back. Actually this is only general commentary, but I want to put a further question to the Minister. If Chapter XXXIV is repealed, what is the position with regard to Chapter XXXIII? Chapter XXXIII concerns the position of Asiatics and restrictions placed on Asiatics with regard to their residence in the Orange Free State, once again with the exclusion of Malays …

Is this mentioned here?

I do not think it is mentioned there.

I just want to indicate that in fact the whole matter contained in Chapter XXXIV is now regulated by the Group Areas Act of 1966.

Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Up to now, all records or minutes of evidence and proceedings in the Supreme Court have been stored permanently. These include plastic tapes on which the proceedings were recorded mechanically. Because the equipment formerly used for this purpose, and spare parts for the equipment, are no longer obtainable, the courts will hence forth be compelled to use recording apparatus utilizing magnetic tapes. The tapes can be re-used indefinitely, but because there is no provision for the disposal of records or minutes of the Supreme Court, the usefulness of the tapes is limited.

There is no reason why provision should not be made for the custody or disposal of the documents in question. Provision has already been made for this in the Magistrate’s Court Act of 1944. In the circumstances, provision is now being made in the Bill before the House whereby the Chief Justice may make rules for the custody and disposal of the documents in question. The measure will effect major savings as regards, inter alia, the magnetic tapes and storage space.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official Opposition I want to say that we shall support the Bill. We accept the reasons the hon. the Minister has given which, I think, are in accordance with modern mechanized practice. I think it is wise that the legislation should be amended to give the Supreme Court the power to decide when records should be preserved for a specific purpose and when they should be destroyed and the tapes raised. In that sense this is a streamlining of the procedure, and therefore we support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure arises out of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Collection of Debts in Magistrate’s Courts, which was tabled on 16 April 1975.

As paragraph 21 of the report shows, the committee received many suggestions of a diverse nature. Only the important recommendations were mentioned in the report itself, whereas the details were included in the proposed legislation in Appendix B thereto. Annexure B, in its turn, served as the basis of the legislation at present before the House. A summary of the committee’s recommendation is contained in paragraph 279 of the report, and I should like to explain on that basis what the proposed legislation entails.

Clause 1 of the Bill springs from the recommendations referred to in subparagraphs 279 (1), (2), (3), (37) and (38). Chapter 8 of the Magistrate’s Court Act, 1944, is being replaced in its entirety since the existing procedure for the recovery of small debts is no longer followed in practice. In its stead, provision is being made whereby a creditor can obtain a court order against a debtor who fails to meet his obligations after he has been warned to do so, has admitted his liability and offered to pay his debt. This procedure will benefit both creditor and debtor, since the debtor will be forced to honour his offer to the creditor, whereas the long process of drawing up and issuing the summons, serving it, applying for sentence by default, issuing a notice in terms of the existing section 65(1) and serving it, and subsequently holding an inquiry in order eventually to arrive at the same result, plus all the costs involved, are eliminated. However, the debtor is now forced to pay the costs of the letter of demand if he only pays the debt subsequently. On the other hand, nobody except an attorney or an agent will be entitled to recover from the debtor any fees or remuneration in connection with the collection of any debt. Debt collectors who conclude agreements with uninformed debtors in this connection will be restricted by this provision.

†Clause 2 contains the recommendation referred to in subparagraphs 279(4), (5), (8), (9), (12), (13), (14), and (16) of the committee’s report. As is stated in paragraph 72 of the report, section 65 of the Act at present provides for an inquiry into the financial position of a debtor after judgment has been entered against him. At such an inquiry the court may make an order to the effect that the judgment debt shall be paid in specified instalments. Non-compliance with such an order may result in imprisonment of the debtor. At present the judgment creditor has to take the initiative in executing a judgment entered in his favour. The debtor can remain passive until the judgment creditor takes action against him. A change is proposed, making it possible to commit a debtor to prison for contempt of court should he fail to satisfy a judgment for the payment of money. What the proposal amounts to is that, if the judgment debtor fails to pay the judgment debt within a specified time, the judgment creditor may cause a notice to be served on him, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court. Although, on the face of it, the proposal may seem to be far-reaching, this is not so. It is accepted that failure to comply with an order of court for the payment of money constitutes contempt of court, and the committee is of the opinion that failure to comply with a court judgment for the payment of money due should also be considered contempt of court for the purposes of the Act. Essentially, such a judgment is an order by the court that the judgment debtor owes the judgment creditor a sum of money and that the judgment debtor must pay that money to the judgment creditor. It should not be possible for a debtor simply to ignore this fact. As to the question of committal of a judgment debtor to a prison, the committee is of the opinion that periodical imprisonment may be used to advantage in this regard.

Matters for which provision is also made in clause 2 are the following: A creditor is enabled to take steps in a magistrate’s court to enforce a judgment given in the Supreme Court, and it will no longer be necessary to burden the Supreme Court with the holding of inquiries. Garnishees, i.e. employers, are allowed to receive remuneration for judgment debts paid under garnishee orders so as to reimburse them for their administrative costs. This remuneration will be deducted from the moneys collected. The employer will be responsible to forward to the judgment creditor any amount deducted under a garnishee order from the salary of a judgment debtor. In certain circumstances the court will be able to consider whether all the judgment debtor’s debts should not be considered collectively with a view to granting an administration order.

The provisions pertaining to the recommendation referred to in subparagraphs 279(29) and (34) of the committee’s report, can be found in clause 3. It is provided that, unless the court otherwise orders, immovable property that has been judicially attached shall be released from attachment after 12 months. Thereafter the creditor concerned may judicially attach the property if he satisfies the court as to the necessity of attachment. A judgment creditor who wants to attach immovable property already under attachment and who has lodged a warrant of execution with the messenger in respect of which a sale is not pending may, upon notice to interested parties, apply to the court for an order that the property may be sold in terms of his warrant. It is also provided that a messenger of the court shall ascertain from a judgment debtor whether he has immovable property which is executable.

The amendment of section 72 contained in clause 4 is consequential as the existing provisions of that section relating to the attachment of emoluments are now included in the provisions of the proposed section 65J (clause 2), and section 72 will relate to the attachment of debts only. Paragraph 279(9) of the report refers.

The recommendation referred to in paragraph 279(42) that section 73(1) be amended to provide that execution may be suspended where the judgment debtor consents to a garnishee order against him is given effect to in clause 5.

*Various provisions relating to administration orders have been included in clause 6 in pursuance of the committee’s recommendations referred to in paragraph 279(15) and (17) to (25) of the report. It is recommended in subparagraph (15) that section 74 of the Act be retained, but in an amended form, whereas the proposed amendments relating to administration orders are mentioned in subparagraphs (17) to (25).

Clause 7 contains a purely consequential amendment. In subparagraphs 279(11) and (44) of the report, reference is made to the recommendation relating to penalties included in clause 8. Paragraph 279(43) of the report contains the recommendation that it must be made possible for a judgment creditor, by notice in writing, to bring the judgment debtor before the court for contempt of court, where the judgment debtor has changed his place of residence or employment and has neglected to inform the plaintiff or his attorney or the administrator of the estate and the clerk of the court in writing of his new place of residence or employment. This recommendation is given effect to in clause 9.

In subparagraphs 279(7) and (40) it is recommended that provision be made for the substitution of the husband as judgment debtor for his wife to whom he is married in community of property in proceedings under the proposed section 65A of the Act where judgment has been obtained against the wife for the payment of any premarital debts, and that any incorrect name of any party in court records may also be amended after judgment. This is given effect to in clauses 10(b) and 10(a) respectively. Clause 11 contains a provision relating to transition.

So much, Mr. Speaker, for the recommendations of the committee. The committee,which functioned under the chairmanship of Adv. P. J. Conradie, S.C., formerly Chief Government Law Adviser, with Messrs. B. J. Parsons, at present Deputy Secretary of Justice, D. G. Br�sler, Chief Professional Officer of the Department of Commerce, and S. W. van der Merwe, a Johannesburg attorney, as members, deserves thanks for the major task which was undertaken. At the moment a number of avenues are being explored to find more efficient methods by which to solve specific problems. I believe that the committee’s recommendations will make a substantial contribution towards greater efficiency in the collection of debts in magistrate’s courts, and by so doing will also cut down on costs. In general, the Bill also has the support of magistrates and attorneys who have to see to its practical implementation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence by endorsing what the hon. the Minister has said in expressing his thanks to the members of the committee of inquiry, which made the recommendations on which this Bill is based. I am satisfied that they have rendered a service to the legal profession and to the community. It is interesting to note that the member of the Johannesburg Side-Bar, who served on the committee, was until recently president of the Association of Law Societies of Southern Africa. He has taken a very keen interest in this particular type of work. I am sure he must have been a very great benefit to this excellent committee which reported so well on this subject.

The legal profession will generally welcome this Bill, because it seeks to resolve a problem with which the profession has lived for many years, namely a satisfactory manner in which to ensure, through the legal process, the payment of debts without the indignities of what was known for years as the civil imprisonment system with all its evils of heavy costs, time-consuming delays, an atmosphere savouring of the debtors’ prison and the hounding of a debtor which was unsavoury to the attorney, the creditor and certainly the debtor. The Bill itself provides a system which is more rational and which spells out clearly the obligations of all parties concerned and provides machinery which, in a dignified manner, will ensure payment of debts. Both creditor and debtor as well as others who are involved, such as an employer, obliged by a I garnishee order, i.e. an order of court providing for a deduction of moneys from the salary of the debtor, will all find that their rights and obligations are fully protected. They will be protected from undue harassment and from the pitfalls of the lack of information or knowledge, as well as from any semblance of justifiable ignorance of procedure.

The Bill meticulously covers every aspect of procedure and will bring about complete clarity in what hitherto was what one may describe as a morass of difficulties. There are certain features about the Bill which will clear up many unpleasant anomalies which have existed. For instance, the proposed new section 60 of the Bill rules out the self-appointed private administrator who sets himself up in order to administer the distribution of the debts of debtors, seeking this type of business through advertisements and, in some cases, abusing the trust of the debtor. This administrator will now be appointed within the orbit of this Act and will be under the control of the courts. His rights and obligations are fully defined and provision is made for any breach of his duties. I think the method, that is being provided for in this Bill, is very satisfactory in that it ensures that a man will not flounder in his difficulties or even find himself in insolvency courts, but enables his estate, provided his liabilities do not exceed R4 000 in all, to be properly administered and therefore enables him to remain a useful member of society without the harassment of being hounded by all his liabilities as has occurred in many cases without its really having been the fault of the debtor, but for many other reasons.

Another interesting feature which this Bill introduces, is the saving of costs which in many cases in years gone by brought about situations where costs have exceeded the actual principal liability by as much as five times or even more. That, in itself, has been a very unhappy and unpleasant situation, not only for debtors, but for the whole social system in which it occurs. The old section 65 resulted in the much dreaded system of years gone by, because of all the difficulties, the unsatisfactory procedure that was applied and the very unsatisfactory conclusions that very often resulted. The proposed new section 65 will provide what is required.

Another interesting feature is the provision of committal for contempt of periodic imprisonment instead of an extended imprisonment which would take the debtor away from his home and probably cause him to lose his job. This method of periodical imprisonment of so many hours over week-ends will not only engender in the debtor an appreciation of the importance of and respect for an order of court, but will at the same time, prevent any dislocation in family life and in the social framework. It will be very interesting to see this Bill, when translated into law, actually working in practice, because, as I said earlier, the committee has produced a first-class report containing all the benefits of experience and knowledge represented by the members of the committee, all of whom have in one way or another had a tremendous amount of practical experience in this particular field.

There are one or two comments I should like to make and to which I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention.

One is an anomaly which is contained in clause 2, particularly the new section 65(F). Subparagraph (1) provides that a debtor, who is an individual, or if the judgment debtor is a juristic person, the director or officer of that judgment debtor, can be committed for contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment or to periodical imprisonment. Subparagraph (4) of the same section contains a further provision relative only to this director or officer of a juristic person who has to appear before the court on a charge of contempt of court where he can be sentenced to a fine not exceeding R100. That applies specifically to the representative of a juristic body. That I can well understand, but what I cannot understand is why that provision in subsection (4) is made in juxtaposition to that in subsection (1) of that particular section. There seems to be no co-ordinating relationship between the two sections, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could look into that and explain to us why that has come about. Furthermore, in clause 8, the new section 106A provides that in the event of a garnishee order being served on the employer of a debtor to retain a portion of the emoluments of the debtor and to pay it over to either an administrator or to the judgment creditors, and the employer by reason of such an order being served upon him dismisses the employee—unless the employee was employed by him in a position of trust, e.g. for handling money, securities or other articles of value—he would be guilty of an offence and on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding R100 or, in default, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months. I think this is a somewhat harsh provision, because it interferes with the liberty of the employer. There may be many reasons which flow from the serving of the garnishee order which might possibly accentuate something that has been bothering the employer for some time in regard to his employee. This might also bring home to the employer the problem that because the employee is so deeply in debt, he cannot give sufficient attention to his employment. There are many phases of the conditions flowing from the employment of the debtor or circumstances flowing from the employment of the debtor which is brought to a head by virtue of a garnishee order being served on the employer. If he then has no right to dismiss his employee, it may put him in a very difficult position. In my opinion, it almost puts him in a position where he becomes a captive employer of the employee. I think that is a matter which we must look into. I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this particular issue is, but it is something which we might perhaps have to deal with during the Committee Stage.

It is pleasing to note that the Bill carries the full approval of the profession, and I have not the slightest doubt that in practice it will be a most beneficial measure in the interests, as I have said, of the debtor, the creditor and the employer who has to deal with orders calling upon him to deduct payment from the debtor’s salary. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, all of us will agree that legal costs in our courts, and I mean our civil courts, are high. Legal costs, in other words, the cost of appearing in court to have a case tried, are very high in the rest of the world. This is also the case here, but fortunately they are not as high as they are overseas. In many cases the costs of the lawsuit are even higher than the original debt. In practice it happens very often that the amount of the original debt is doubled, especially if the amounts are on the small side. Although this is the exception, legal costs are high under normal circumstances. These costs must normally be paid by the debtor and if he cannot do so, then the creditor may pay them. However, someone must pay them. One may argue that the debtor himself is responsible and the cause of the high legal costs and therefore do not complain about them. However, the matter is not as simple as that. It is undesirable that any person in South Africa be expected to pay exceptionally high legal costs. These high legal costs are brought about within the provisions of the present legislation, and therefore this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. Many reasons can probably be advanced for the fact that the legal costs are so high. Amongst these are included the allegedly long and protracted legal procedures which must be followed in the recovery of debt. Another possibility is the large number of documents which have to be drawn up and served on the debtor. Every action which is carried out requires the knowledge of trained people and this must be paid for. An obvious solution would be to shorten the procedures and, if possible, to streamline them to a larger extent.

In this way unnecessary procedures which result in unnecessary costs may be eliminated. With this in mind the hon. Minister of Justice appointed a commission during 1970 with inter alia the following terms of reference: To inquire into and report on the efficiency or otherwise of the existing procedure with regard to the collection of debts in the magistrates’ courts and any possible improvement of such procedure and in particular with regard to the collection of small debts and the execution of judgments. I cannot fail to mention that this Government, as usual, looks after the people who need help most. When it is the case that creditors need help, the Government looks after them and at the same time it also looks after the debtors who have to pay the money. As the hon. the Minister has said, the legislation which is now before this House is the outcome of that commission’s work. The commission did a very good job of work, and we can congratulate them on it. The legislation proposed by the commission seeks to benefit all parties concerned; the debtor who has to pay the money and the creditor who is trying to recover his money. In addition to this the proposed legislation will simplify and expedite the dispatch of civil processes.

The legislation contains certain provisions which may possibly be regarded as being somewhat drastic, but if we want to deal with the professional debtor in South Africa, and unfortunately there are many of them, we must be prepared to do so by means of legislation. If we look at the annual report of the Secretary for Justice, we see that 679 000 civil cases were recorded in 1973 and that the number had increased to 691 000 in 1974. It is to the advantage not only of the creditor, but also of the debtor himself that he will save on legal costs and, as the hon. member for Jeppe said, will be able, in spite of the fact that he is paying off his debt, to serve his sentence by means of periodic imprisonment. We find that this is a very good suggestion which the commission has made here. In the light of the fact that the hon. the Opposition, through the hon. member for Jeppe, supports the principle of this Bill, I do not think that it is necessary at this stage to go into the provisions of the various clauses any further. We can have a fruitful discussion on the detailed implications of the legislation in the Committee Stage. With this, I wish to give my very strong support to the proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when dealing with this type of legislation, I think we should have a look at what the objectives are that should be achieved. When it comes to the question of collecting debts, it should in the first place be possible to collect debts speedily, at low cost and with the smallest possible burden being placed upon the State machinery. Without ignoring the need for speed, the need for low cost, and the other aspects which I have mentioned, it is quite clear that we must also ensure that justice is done, and in our anxiety to reduce costs or to act expeditiously, we should not ignore this most important requisite of them all. I believe it is common cause among all the parties in this House that, in so far as debts are concerned, there is unfortunately an increasing number of people in South Africa who get into debt. It is also clear that the volume of debt, as is the case with the number of people who are in debt, is increasing substantially. Further, it is also clear that the burden in respect of costs is one which has to be borne by people who can least afford it. In other words, one does not get into debt because one is rich and can afford to bear extra legal costs. One gets into debt because one is poor and cannot pay in the normal course. Yet one then has to bear an extra self-imposed burden.

In this piece of legislation we are looking at how to extract money from people who owe it and who, in many cases, cannot afford to pay it. We are not looking in this piece of legislation at those people who extend credit, in many cases recklessly, thereby bringing about a situation where people actually get into debt when it should not occur, with adverse effects on the economy and with undesirable social consequences which flow from such actions.

Whereas it is correct that one must look at this piece of legislation with a view to recovering debts expeditiously, in a just manner and at low cost, I do not believe that we are entitled to ignore the fact that we shall also, at some stage, have to look very carefully at those who extend credit recklessly, those who create these situations. I would venture to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should look into a situation in terms of which we should perhaps consider legislation whereby people who extend credit to those who earn below a certain amount of money, will not be allowed to recover any legal costs at all if the amounts owed them are not paid.

Let me take a hypothetical figure, and I do not allege that that should be the actual figure. Let us assume for a moment that people who, in today’s circumstances, earn R250 a month … I believe that one should be obliged by law to state one’s monthly income before incurring any credit. A businessman should not be entitled to extend normal credit to people earning below that amount, because it too often happens that he ultimately has to sue them, to impose an even bigger burden of cost on them and then create an impossible situation for them. I believe that the possibility of legislation should be looked into in order to do away entirely with the right to recover costs where this low-income group is being dealt with. I believe that this is necessary in the social interests of our country. I believe it is in the interests of the economy. I believe that it is not correct only to look at how to get money out of a debtor. I believe we also have to look at the root cause, i.e. the extension of credit which should not be extended.

In the light of that, I want to turn to the legislation and say that the principles that are there—with one possible exception, which in itself is to my mind not a principle of the legislation, but merely a technical aspect of it—can be regarded as an improvement on the present position and for that reason we shall support the Bill.

When we deal with the provisions in regard to small debts as they were before, it is quite clear, as the commission indicated, that these were in fact superfluous, because they were not being used, since they were not effective or sufficient. The first of the provisions in this legislation deals in particular with the letter of demand. I believe that here again one may have a procedure which can be used in order to reduce costs.

There will be a number of amendments which we shall go into in greater detail, during the Committee Stage, but let me suggest one now in regard to this particular provision relating to letters of demand. It says there that one can recover the cost of the letter of demand, but I think it should equally provide that the cost of the letter of demand should be stated in that letter of demand, in order to avoid extra litigation as to what amount can be recovered. I believe that the debtor should know what he is obliged to pay when he receives the letter in that form.

I further believe that the provisions which deal with the ability to obtain judgment, where in fact there have been undertakings to pay by way of instalments, can be welcomed as well, although there may be some technical problems in relation to them.

The provisions in regard to substituting a husband where the debt has been incurred by a woman who thereafter marries in community of property, is one which is a practical issue. It has to be welcomed, because again it saves costs. So, too, are the provisions in respect of making a judgment of the Supreme Court a judgment of a magistrate’s court so as to enable a cheaper and more efficient procedure to be introduced. Also here, perhaps, I should mention that in regard to the provisions of section 72, as it now stands, in regard to the attachment of debts, we do not quarrel at all. There can also be no difficulty in regard to the administration orders and the principle in relation to them.

When we come to administration orders, however, I would like to raise a couple of issues. Firstly, I believe that the way in which the provisions exist at the moment, a debtor is going to be very careful as to whether he wants to be under an administration order or as to whether he will not in fact be far better off being sequestrated. I believe that at some stage in the future, we shall again have to look at the position, because the law relating to sequestration may have to be changed so as to make it impossible for one to seek to escape one’s debts by sequestration, especially where, in the long run, it is proved that the sequestration has not been for the benefit of creditors. It is so easy to be sequestrated. It is so easy to be released of one’s debts, and the mere allegation of benefit to creditors, with a couple of facts relating to it, in what was until earlier today called a petition, but will now be called an affidavit and the notice of motion, that I think we should look again at whether sequestration should take place in all these circumstances.

Then we come to the question of who should be the administrator. The commission says that one should not limit it to attorneys, to practitioners as such. I would venture to suggest that the whole issue of who are entitled to be administrators in terms of the provisions in the piece of legislation, as well as the question of who shall be trustees in insolvent estates and who should be liquidators of companies in liquidation, are questions that need the attention of the hon. the Minister of Justice. In regard to this particular issue here, I believe that the provisions in regard to furnishing security are not enough. In my respectful submission it is wrong to say that these provisions are there to protect creditors, as the commission says. I believe that the provisions must be there to protect creditors and debtors, because in most cases the creditor can afford to have a defalcation, whereas the debtor in most cases cannot afford to lose the instalments which he has paid.

I would venture to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the appointment of administrators should be limited to either practising attorneys or to practising chartered accounts.

I do not believe that this should be open to all and sundry by reason of the particular circumstances that surround the issue. Then comes the question of the amount of R4 000 in respect of administration orders. It is true that the amount has been increased from R2 000 to R4 000, but with the value of money such as it is, I believe R4 000 is still too low. The commission itself reports as follows—and this is not something one must regard lightly—

If anything illustrates inflation, this certainly does, and this report was signed in 1974. In these circumstances I believe that R4 000 is too low, and I think the hon. the Minister should consider increasing this amount when we come to the Committee Stage.

I now come to the provisions of the proposed section 65.1 believe these provisions are of the utmost importance in the context of this discussion. Here I must say, with respect, that I am at odds with the commission. I have consequently taken the trouble to discuss this matter with a number of lawyers. The hon. member for Jeppe has said that they all welcome it, but I do not think he is correctly informed. I do not believe that they all welcome this provision. Let us look at the proposed section 65A(1), which reads as follows—

The person concerned can be asked to appear in court—

What is even more important, are the provisions relating to what he must show before he can escape committal for contempt. The onus is placed on him, in terms of the proposed section 65F(3). Here the new position in law is being created that the mere non-payment of a judgment shall constitute contempt of court. In law there has always been a difference between a judgment in a sum of money, the non-payment of which is not contempt of court, and a mandatory judgment, because not obeying a mandatory judgment constitutes contempt of court. It has always been taken that a judgment in a sum of money is one in which a set of facts or an issue is determined. It is not a mandatory provision, as is an interdict. In terms of the old section 65, if a debtor was ordered to pay by instalments and did not comply with the order, there would be an investigation to determine his financial position. If he still did not pay, only then could he be committed. In the present position, however, the mere giving of a judgment can create a situation in which a person is committed for contempt of court. It is my belief that the whole system of justice in South Africa—and this is not a political issue on which I feel we are divided—is one in which civil imprisonment is repugnant to what we believe in. I do not believe we want civil imprisonment in South Africa. I do not believe it proper to go back to the days of Dickens when that concept was rife. We must get away from civil imprisonment and in my view, with great respect, in these circumstances there should be no question of committal for contempt solely on the strength of a judgment. Committal should only arise once there has been an investigation into a person’s financial affairs if, after the investigation, a person wilfully and without just cause does not comply with an order stipulating periodic payment.

That is going back to the old section 65.

Certainly, because in terms of our basic law I do not think one can, without investigation, commit people for failing to comply with a money judgment. In terms of the proposed legislation, it is no longer a question of a person’s financial position being investigated. Let us also look at the question of the onus being placed upon the debtor. Here it is not a question of what the court finds. He has to discharge an onus. He has to prove a number of things to the satisfaction of the court—inter alia, that he lacks means and that such lack of means is not due to the fact that the judgment debtor “has wilfully disposed of his goods”. It is also stated that such lack of means must not be due to the fact that the judgment debtor—

This means that a person must be able to go to court and discharge the onus that he cannot earn say R1 000 per month. The point at issue is what his earning capacity is. The onus is on him throughout. To my mind that is utterly illogical. In actual fact there should be an examination of the person’s financial position, and then he should be ordered to pay. With all due respect, one of the things that some lawyers have got to take note of, is that the whole world does not revolve around the speed and ability with which lawyers can issue summonses. The debtor also has rights and he also needs to be protected. Very respectfully, to have this burden of civil imprisonment imposed upon people who may quite innocently be landing themselves in debt, is quite contrary to the whole concept of our judicial system.

I would now like to touch on the question of including body corporates as entities in terms of section 65. On the face of it, there is no reason why this should not be done. However, if one looks at the provision of the proposed section 65A(1), one sees that now one cannot only summons the juristic person by having a director or officer of the juristic person as the representative of the juristic person; one can also summons him in his personal capacity for contempt of court although he has not, in effect, incurred the debt. One can summon him not as a director, but in his personal capacity. There are many examples one can give to illustrate why this is wrong, because quite clearly the obligation to pay the debt is upon the corporate body, and if anyone has to be brought before the courts and punished, it should be the director in his representative capacity. However, if one is going to adopt the proposed procedure one is, in actual fact ignoring the whole concept of limited liability. Here again the onus is cast upon an individual in his personal capacity to discharge an onus in connection with what a corporate body should be able to do. This is something quite repugnant to the whole legal system. There is, however, a further issue involved. When it comes to non-payment by an individual, one takes into acconunt his income, his obligations and so on, but when it comes to a corporate body the position is quite different. In this regard the court shall take into consideration—

In other words, all one is leaving a corporate body with is enough to pay its administrative expenses, but not enough to conduct a business in the normal course of events, i.e. nothing for the running expenses of the business so that the business may produce, earn and hence pay its debts. To my mind, therefore, the moment a corporate body is brought before the courts, although it may be a business that could possibly recover, its principals will immediately put it under judicial management or into liquidation to obviate a provision that is impracticable.

There are other matters that could be dealt with at some length, but I do not want to burden the House during a Second Reading debate with a detailed analysis of all the provisions of the Bill and the amendments it is our intention to propose. I would prefer to leave these arguments for the Committee Stage, having already drawn attention to what I believe are the important issues. The principle of the Bill is acceptable to us, but I think the details should be looked at again from a completely non-political point of view, and not only from the point of view of what is good for the attorney or the creditor, but also from the point of view of what is fair and just for all the parties concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville raised quite a few arguments here which I find very interesting. However, I believe that one will actually be able to discuss the last one he raised, to better advantage during the Committee Stage. As far as the matter of the juristic person is concerned, to which the hon. member referred, I should like to say that it has definitely not been included in this Bill without good reason. In practice there have naturally been many cases where no enforceable orders could be obtained. As far as the question of civil imprisonment is concerned, to which the hon. member also referred, I think that this may also be dealt with in the Committe Stage. Perhaps the hon. member can also consider the proposed section 65K in the meantime. Perhaps this will elucidate the matter. I do not want to argue about this in detail now. He also suggested that the amount of R4 000 in respect of jurisdiction may be too low. In this connection I should like to point out that administration orders or even other orders for debt are basically concerned with household debts, debts which the person is unable to settle immediately. Few debts of this kind are not of a household nature. I want to suggest that household debts of R4 000 constitute a particularly heavy debt. Should this amount be increased, it would possibly encourage people to say: “We can actually incur unlimited household debts and then be placed under administration later.” I think the hon. member will agree that it is particularly easy to be placed under an administration order in practice.

There is nothing in the legislation which says that this is confined to household debts.

We shall discuss this again.

The point which the hon. member made in connection with the persons who may be appointed as administrator is very interesting to me. I think that the hon. member has an arguable case there.

The hon. member for Jeppe referred to the proposed section 106A, which deals with an employee who is dismissed when an emoluments attachment order is served on his employer. I think it would be highly unfair to allow a debtor to be dismissed in such circumstances, because then he would be in a dilemma as regards inter alia, obtaining employment again without too much difficulty, and as regards the payment of debt.

I support the legislation. I believe that it is legislation which has still to be tested in practice and to which slight amendments may possibly have to be made in future. It represents an effort to facilitate, expedite and reduce the cost of recovering debts. It is a matter which affects a great many people. Let us look for a moment at the number of summonses served last year in respect of debts. Last year 588 175 summonses were issued in this regard. Particulars of that amount are inter alia:251 989 for goods bought on open account; 34 All on hire purchase; 79 000 for professional services; 59 000 for other services; 43 333 for R/D cheques and promissory notes. As against that almost 273 000 judgments were entered for these debts. These debts involved an amount of almost R80 million. Actually one must be very rich to be able to pay one’s debts as well as the legal costs, considering the extent to which they are increasing. However, I know of no creditor who will still take a debtor to court for collection of his debt when the debtor approaches him and makes him a reasonable offer. I think that many people, when they find themselves in debt, are afraid to approach their creditors and make the necessary arrangements in time. I know of professional people, including doctors, who have accepted as little as R1 per month on large debts in order to enable their debtors to pay off their debt. Therefore there is still an onus on the debtor to make the necessary arrangements in time. Should he do this, I believe that it would ease matters for him a great deal.

One reason why I think that in practice, this legislation will have to be adapted in time, is that the professional debtor, viz., the man who is not really eager to pay his debts, is an adaptable and mobile person. It may be necessary to look at this again later on, because I believe that a debtor of this type will in time be able to adapt himself to a certain extent.

I want to refer to the provisions relating to administration orders. We have already referred to the fact that the jurisdiction is being increased to R4 000. I believe that this suggestion which is being implemented here is a good one. There have been considerable complaints in the past concerning the question of administration orders. I believe that the arrangement of the whole process as set out in the Bill is sound. There are certain documents which must be submitted on request, including the list of assets and a statement of the market value thereof. The way in which the debtor’s debts must be detailed is also specified, and—this is an important aspect—any previous administration order issued in respect of a debtor, must also be referred to. One also finds in practice that there are people who are under administration almost all their lives. I call to mind a person who has been under administration ever since I have known him, but nevertheless enjoys a fine holiday every year. He saw his children through university, paying for some of their books and tuition fees while under an administration order. I do not think that this can be what is intended and that in its present form, this legislation will eliminate those practices.

The procedure at the hearing is set out in full. The court will not issue an administration order if the person concerned has already been under an administration order which had been set aside less than six months previously due to non-payment on his part. If one looks at the information which the administration order must contain, one sees that it is a full statement of what the legislators in fact aim to achieve by means of these provisions.

It is interesting to note that the remuneration and expenses of an administrator may not exceed 12½% of the amount received which he collected for allocation. The issue of neglect on the part of administrators as regards the fulfilment of their duties, a neglect which causes considerable problems in practice, is also defined in greater detail here. Another provision which I greatly welcome, is the fact that the debtor is bound to notify his change of address while under administration. What is also important, is that he cannot incur any further debts while under administration and that, if he does so, he is liable to imprisonment, which may be in the form of periodic imprisonment.

Much doubt has been expressed about the desirability of the continued existence of section 74, which relates to the granting of administration orders. However, I believe that for the right person, the poor man who has got into difficulties due to circumstances beyond his control, this can be advantageous. I know of cases of poor people being under administration, people whom no one wanted to care about, and who are today prominent and wealthy people. The professional debtor is disciplined by means of this legislation. I also believe that it is important, when an application for an administration order is heard, that the nature of the debt is considered, and especially, too, the time when the debt occurred. It may happen that a person decides that he should provide himself with sufficient clothing and food to keep him going for, say, six months as regards food and for several years as regards clothes, and that this person is then placed under administration.

I think that this fact, which occurs in practice, also has to do to some extent with the fact that the section is being established, or is at present in this Bill, which refers to the question that when a person has had judgment entered against him, he may receive a notice calling upon him to show cause before the magistrate—the point to which the hon. member for Yeoville also referred. I say that this may be an explanation of that particular insertion, but then I want to add that there will still be a duty, although I do not think that it specifically belongs here, for the dealer to use discretion when he grants credit. Then too there would perhaps be less of a problem to have the money collected. But these administration orders give one the opportunity—and I use quotation marks—to go ahead without a record. In the rase of a liquidation or an insolvency, one is actually hamstrung for life owing to the fact that in any future application for credit one has to refer back to the fact that he had been insolvent, whereas in fact, an administration order basically gives one the opportunity to get back on one’s own two feet and go ahead without a record. Like other hon. members, I want to support this Bill. I believe in practice that it will effect a great improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to all hon. members who have participated in this debate. This is not a debate in which it is necessary to take up a standpoint on principle. We all agree in principle that the Bill which is before this House, serves a good purpose. It seeks to serve a good purpose, and hon. members mentioned their problems with a view to having them debated further in the Committee Stage. Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that I have an open mind as far as this legislation is concerned. We are all seeking the best legislation in this specific regard, because there are two evils which we are trying to combat here. The one is the creditor who unscrupulously pushes up costs for a debtor who is poor, who has made small debts and cannot pay them. In my own career I have often heard debtors complaining that they originally owed only R50 and then found that they owed R120. It is the costs which push up the debt to that extent. This Bill which is before the House seeks to eliminate such unscrupulous exploitation of the small debtor.

In other words, here we are trying to devise a method by which the costs which one may recover from a debtor, may be limited to a minimum. This is the first principle we are trying to apply here. But in practice we also have unscrupulous debtors, people who go from one shopowner to the next with all kinds of sly stories making debts which they know they cannot pay and do not have the slightest intention of paying either. We are also trying to make provision for those creditors in this Bill so that they may bring those debtors to book in a proper way and without unnecessary additional costs having to be incurred. I say that this is the object of this Bill, and therefore I am perfectly prepared to consider any sound proposals during the Committee Stage. If it is in any way an improvement on the existing Act, I shall be prepared to accept it. However, I am of the opinion, without detracting from the fact that I want to have an open mind about the matter, that the Bill in its present form is a well considered Bill. It is a Bill drafted by a committee which published a very thorough report. The committee consisted of the former Chief State Law Adviser with two highly qualified officials from the department and a lawyer, a person who, as the hon. member for Jeppe said, is very highly respected. The work of these people is reflected in this very complete report, in which every possible aspect of debt collecting has been thoroughly considered and certain conclusions have been drawn. Those conclusions you now find embodied in this Bill.

The hon. member for Jeppe referred to the proposed section 65F(1) and argued that a person who represented a company might possibly be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He also said that in terms of the provisions of the proposed section 65G the company might be given a fine of R100. I want to read the provisions of the proposed section 65F(1) to the hon. member in English—

The words I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member are “summoned in his personal capacity”. If this happens, he may possibly be given the same sentence an ordinary person summoned for debt, may be given. If the hon. member carefully analyses the other section to which he referred, he will find that it applies to “a director or officer summoned as a representative of the juristic person”.

Correct.

If the person represents the company and is not there in his personal capacity, he may be given a fine of R100. This is of course the usual procedure when one represents a company. Therefore I say that I do not believe that the hon. member for Jeppe’s criticism in this respect has a sound foundation.

† The hon. member further referred to clause 8, which introduces a new section 106A. He said that the proposed section makes it an offence if the garnishee dismisses a person. Did I follow the hon. member correctly?

Yes.

He says it is an offence if the garnishee dismisses a person because of the garnishee order. In my opinion this is correct, because in practice we often find that, the moment an employer is saddled with a garnishee order that he has to collect a certain amount per week or per month from his employee and pay it to the creditor, he suddenly finds a reason to fire that employee and he dismisses him. I have already pointed out that the Bill also seeks the protection of the debtor and, therefore, to protect him against unlawful or unnecessary dismissal, the proposed section makes it an offence if the garnishee should do that. I think this is correct. It was asked in the Other Place what evidence would have to be submitted before a person could be found guilty. It is obviously necessary to submit that there is a garnishee order and that the employee was dismissed. Furthermore—this is obvious too—it must be submitted that there is a nexus between the dismissal and the garnishee order. The garnishee cannot be taken to court simply because he has dismissed the employee. Only when there is a definite nexus between the dismissal and the garnishee order, does the employer commit an offence. This is a protection for the small debtor. I think this is quite correct.

But the onus is on the State.

The onus is definitely on the State, there is no doubt about that. There is no onus at all on the garnishee. If the hon. member will look at the Bill, he will see that the onus rests fully on the State to prove these three facts.

*In my modest opinion, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg emphasized quite correctly that a saving in costs could result from this measure. The hon. member for Yeoville also pointed out that actions such as this involved too many costs and that this Bill would save costs. He said that we should conduct an inquiry into people who allowed buyers too much credit. I am in full agreement with the hon. member that we should also see to this aspect. Shop owners simply allow people who are living beyond their means, too much credit, people to whom they should not extend credit facilities. The hon. member also asked:“Who should be administrators, trustees and liquidators?”

†I must say that I agree with the hon. member. I shall certainly ask the Law Commission to look into the question, whether we should have registered administrators, trustees and liquidators, or whether we should leave matters as they are where the creditor could actually tell one who he wants as liquidator or as a trustee.

*I shall go into the matter as regards the amount of R4 000.

The hon. member also mentioned section 65 which is being amended by clause 2. The hon. member said that in his opinion it was wrong that whenever there was a judgment, there should automatically be contempt of court. This, of course, is not what the Bill says. The Bill does not make provision for this to happen automatically as soon as a letter is sent to the debtor. The Bill says that if he does not pay his debt within 10 days, he may have to appear before a court to show cause why he has not paid his debt and why an order of contempt of court should not be served on him. In practice we find exactly what the hon. member requested, that is that the person must appear before court even if there is a total amount of, say, R1 500 involved which the person has failed to pay. In a case like this the person is told that he has not paid and that he must appear in court to show cause why an order of contempt of court should not be served against him. After this follows the specific inquiry which the hon. member requested, viz. an inquiry into the person’s means, why he has not paid and how he intends to pay his debt. The hon. member added that the full onus is now on the debtor to show cause why he is unable to pay. On who else can the onus rest? After all, he is the person who ought to know his own affairs better than his creditors will. One can hardly place the onus on the creditor to try and prove whether the person can pay his debt or not. If the person is the prima facie debtor and an order has been issued for the debt and the person does not pay it, then naturally he must tell the court why he did not pay it, and also what his means are. In this case he must also tell the court why an order for contempt of court should not be served against him. If a court order is served against someone, as hon. members have already pointed out, it must be accepted that he must obey it. After all, it is an order of court. I think we will be going much too far if we accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Yeoville, that there is no sanction whatsoever from the court to serve an order of contempt against anyone in civil cases. The court is undoubtedly a figure of authority, and if the court has informed anyone that he owes R1 000 or R2 000 and that he must pay it, then the court means what it has said, namely that that person must pay his debt. If he should then fail to pay for some reason, or if he ignores the order, then that constitutes contempt of court. Then there is every justification for his being taken to court to show cause why his action does not constitute contempt of court. This is all that the Bill says.

At this stage, therefore, I think that as it stands, the Bill is a good one. However, I want to say to hon. members that I have an open mind concerning this matter and that I, if there are further worthwhile suggestions and if there are further points which need attention, shall attend to them with pleasure.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.