Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

Mr. Speaker, after disposing of the Third Reading of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill today, we shall follow the Order Paper, except in the case of Order of the Day No. 7, which will have to stand over until next week because the hon. the Minister will not be here. If we make such good progress that we dispose of Orders of the Day Nos. 9 and 10 as well, preference will then be given to Order of the Day No. 21 because it deals with Social Welfare and Pensions.

On Monday and Tuesday preference will be given to Orders of the Day Nos. 11, 12, 13, and 14.

On Wednesday, after the Post Office Budget has been introduced, the Minister of Transport will introduce a Bill in the place of the one he withdrew this morning. I hope it will be possible to dispose of all the stages of this Bill.

For the remainder of the week, i.e. after Wednesday, preference will be given to the Post Office Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the Third Reading of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill, a Bill in which the hon. the Minister requests an amount of R2 211 million on the Revenue Account, and an amount of R862 million on the Capital Account. Since we have now reached this stage of the Bill it is perhaps a good thing to dwell for a moment on the attitude of the official Opposition as far as the Railways in general is concerned. Voices were raised on the opposite side of the House indicating that the United Party allegedly had no real concern for the interests of the Railways, and also that we sometimes express destructive criticism on this matter. I want to rectify the matter immediately by telling this House that as far as the organization of the South African Railways is concerned, the United Party is proud of this organization and that, as far as its management is concerned, we have the highest praise for the officials who, in our opinion, are doing very good work.

However, there is another side to this matter as well. The Management as well as the hon. the Minister would be the first to admit that the House of Assembly of South Africa, this Parliament, has a key role to play as far as the control of the Railways is concerned. Since this is the case …

Order! Hon. members are conversing too loudly.

Since this is the case, I believe that the officials and the Management of the Railways would be the most frustrated people in South Africa if the House of Assembly and Parliament as a whole were simply to approve the Budget—asking for a station here, a bridge there—without taking a constructive and critical look at the Budget before us. That is precisely what we as an Opposition have tried to do. Not only have we enjoyed the debate very much indeed, we have also found it extremely instructive.

The first lesson we learned was that the Nationalist Party, the hon. members on the opposite side, simply cannot succeed in dissasociating themselves from their party ties, and that they cannot realize …

You are as dissociated as one could hope to find.

They cannot realize that we are dealing here with a large business organization and that it is not at all necessary to approach this matter on a party-political basis. That is the first lesson we learned.

I should now like to give attention to the contributions to the debate which were made from the opposite side of this House.

The hon. the Minister said that he had won the debate. I take it that he counted the number of hon. members on the opposite side of this House, and not the amount of facts, for if he had done that he would have realized that he had lost the debate.

There is also a second very important lesson which we learned, i.e. that the hon. the Minister came to this House and simply closed his ears in his determination to increase the rates, even though this would send the cost of living soaring, even though this would be in conflict with the anti-inflation campaign, and even though it could have been entirely or perhaps partially possible to have avoided this. The hon. the Minister simply closed his ears to those facts. The hon. the Minister gave us the impression that he was acting in a vacuum. If he increased the rates and the cost of living went up as a result, it was no concern of his. He said it was someone else’s problem, not his. He said:“If devaluation is the cause of increased costs on the Railways, do not blame me for it; it is not my fault. ” It is true that he is a member of the Cabinet, but according to him devaluation is not his problem. When we tell the hon. the Minister that we think it is time the State helped the Railways to alleviate the socio-economic freight burden, the hon. the Minister throws up his hands and says: “But that is not my difficulty either; the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Finance must help; I have nothing to do with it. ’ ’

The hon. the Minister of Transport cannot flee from his responsibilities. He knows that the Railways is, as the largest transportation medium in South Africa, an integral part of the entire production process in the country. Because transportation affords the product time and place utility, and underpins the entire process of mass production, he simply cannot get away from the fact that if he pumps R200 million into the production channel, it must inevitably have an effect on the cost structure in South Africa. To tell us that our argument is erroneous, is really to come into conflict with the truth. I want to read out to the hon. the Minister a telegram which we received while the debate was in progress. It came from an agricultural organization and I want to read it to this House precisely because so much was said here about agricultural produce. It came from the Nottingham Road Farmers’ Association, an organization which has a turnover of R1 million per annum, and reads as follows—

Not only is the farmer paying increased rates on his livestock; he is also paying all the other increased rates. If he is a cattle farmer he has to recover all the other increases from his cattle farming enterprise. He has no option but to rely on his being able to receive a higher price for his product. That is how simple it is. The hon. the Minister can turn whichever way he pleases, and his hon. friends on that side of the House can support him if they like, but this must inevitably have an effect on the cost structure in South Africa.

I listened to all the speeches. Some hon. members argued with great bitterness, and their words literally dripped frustration because they were not in a position to express their displeasure as well at these increases. The attack was so transparent that we were able to see this.

Time alone will tell who was right, the United Party or the hon. the Minister and the persons supporting him. If the lesson is a costly one, there is only one place where the fault should be sought: With the Government in general and the hon. the Minister in particular. We on this side have no doubt about the effect of the increases, for we know that they will be a factor in the cost spiral and that we simply cannot get away from that.

What is even worse—and this is what worries me—is that the hon. the Minister was determined to raise the tariffs and did not demonstrate in the least that he had attempted to cut down on his costs or to find other means of avoiding an increase in the rates completely, or at least of reducing it. The United Party, in spite of the denials from the opposite side, tried in the most constructive way to make a contribution in regard to what we thought should have been done. We told the hon. the Minister that he had R20 million in the Rates Equalization Fund and asked why he was not using it. We told the hon. gentleman that if he depleted this Fund and did so in the knowledge that such depletion of the Fund would weigh up against the detrimental effects which were otherwise going to be caused, we would tell him each time he depleted the Fund that he was not the first Minister to do so. His predecessor depleted the Fund with great economic effect, and I think that at one stage there was only R2 million left. And he needed the money in economic circumstances which were far less pressing than they are at the moment. Therefore, he could have obtained R20 million from that source. We told him that he should budget for a deficit of R30 million. Such a step is not unknown in the history of the Railways. It is acceptable, and if the hon. members had had any confidence in the economic upswing which will follow, this is in fact the step which should have been taken.

We pointed out to the hon. the Minister that his depreciation amount was R167 million. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor reduced his Depreciation fund by R17 million, precisely for the purpose of obtaining additional funds. We told this hon. Minister that he should also have done so and that he should use a little more. The Renewal Fund, into which the depreciation is paid, has a balance of R150 million. Why could he not have taken R30 million from that? This would have given him an aggregate of R80 million. We told the hon. gentleman that he should look at overtime and Sunday Time. He pushed it up by 32%, and we asked him to reduce it a little, for he could perhaps save R20 million there. That would have given him R100 million. We have not even come to the staff yet, and I am telling the hon. the Minister now that he was in a position to cut down on his rates increases by 50% or more. But the hon. gentleman does not want to argue this point. That is what I am so concerned about. The hon. gentleman did not even consider our proposals, but what he does in fact allow …

Should I have borrowed money overseas if I had cut down on the funds which I want to use for capital works?

Listen to what the hon. gentleman is saying. He knows the accounts of the Railways far better than I do. He knows that he has a balance of R150 million in his Renewal Fund. I am not asking him to borrow extra money, but to use a little of the reserve fat.

I need it for capital works.

When is the hon. gentleman going to use it? He has not used it in the last five or six years. When last was the balance on that account below R100 million? That is my argument. I am not asking the hon. gentleman to borrow overseas. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is in fact going to discuss the Capital Account and it may very easily appear that he is able to save R20 million on his capital expenditure in view of the economic position in which we find ourselves. The hon. gentleman cannot get away with that. We have given him the positive steps with which he could have reduced his rates increases by more than R100 million, and I have not even come to the staff aspect yet. The hon. gentleman said that he was going to deal with me and I want to concede that when the hon. the Minister deals with a person, at least he does so in a civilized manner. Has the hon. the Minister now dealt with me in regard to the staff position? After the accounts were closed, I found that I owed nothing, but that the hon. the Minister still owes me a reply. He must still tell this House—and this is important—what amount of money he included as a charge in the Estimates for 1976-’77 in respect of wages. According to my calculation the amount is R931 million. The hon. gentleman said that that was merely information. I am now telling him that if that is merely information, there must be a correct figure somewhere. I think it is the duty of this hon. House to insist that we obtain of the correct figures somewhere. If I am correct, and the figure is in fact R931 million, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he were to keep his staff constant, if he were to keep his staff at a figure of 252 000 instead of 266 000, he would find that he would be able to save approximately R50 million. He need only make a calculation. I used the hon. the Minister’s own figures. He himself stated that the average annual income of the Railway worker amounts to R3 500. Multiply this by 14 000—that is what he will save on officials—and you have a further R50 million. To my mind it is as simple as that.

Your calculation is too simple.

No, it is not. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Minister has made this matter so complicated that it has eventually become almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

However, I have not finished with the hon. the Minister yet. He made an attack on me because of my standpoint on rationalization. In my simplicity I tried to tell the hon. the Minister what I understood rationalization of staff to mean. I tried to put it to him that, if he were to keep his staff constant at 252 000, and if he were to reorganize that staff in order to enhance their efficiency and their productivity, he would still be able to pay his workers as much more as he is now doing. It would still have been possible to increase the salaries of some officials by 20%.

You are hopelessly wrong.

No, I am not.

But then you must explain it to us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister said that I was wrong, but the problem is that I am struggling—he does not want to help me. The second last point to which I want to refer is …

No one received an increase of more than 5%, not as a result of rationalization either.

The total increase in staff—if my figures are correct, and I have taken them from the White Book—was 9,75%.

You cannot work with averages here.

Good heavens! What should I work with then? Please tell me! On what should I base my calculations?

Anyway, you cannot make calculations!

Yes, but my “computer” can, and it is far better than the hon. member. The computer’s battery is still fresh. Is yours? Sir, I am not going to discuss the hon. member’s batteries. That would be a mistake. [Interjections.]

In addition I want to refer to something which is of grave concern to me. We have already heard a great deal here about the distress of the pensioner. The hon. the Minister has decided to rationalize his staff. I have already told him that we are not opposed to that. But there is nevertheless one thing I cannot understand, and which no one can explain to me. Why does the hon. the Minister not rationalize the pension system as well? The hon. the Minister can tell me that the pre-1973 model pensioner received less than the others because there are different funds. However, if the hon. the Minister was also gravely concerned about these people, he would put it to this hon. House that, according to actuarial calculations, he needs an additional R10 million to R15 million to put the two funds on a par. But his reply does not satisfy me at all. It does not enable me to give an old pensioner an explanation. The pensioner tells me:“Sir, three years ago when I retired I was doing precisely what that man who is going to retire now is doing. We have an equal number of years of service, yet my pension is considerably less than his.”

What explanation can I give for this? What does the hon. the Minister say to this? We are taking a realistic look at the position. The old age pensioner of today, who made no contribution to any fund, and his wife are now receiving an amount of R128 per month if they make application in the normal way. I still say that this is not enough, but this is what they are receiving. Now I have here a case of a man who worked for the Railways for 32 years. Over the years he made his contributions. Because he receives a Railway pension of R161 per month, he receives nothing as a normal pensioner, as a social pensioner. What he now receives for all his contributions over the years, over and above what the normal social pensioner receives who did not contribute a cent to any fund, is R33 per month. I think it is time we adopted a radical approach to this matter and I think it is time the hon. the Minister came to this House and said that he required R10 or R15 or R20 million to strengthen his funds to such an extent that all the officials who are on the same level could receive the same pension. Sir, this House would be unable to refuse it. For that purpose I myself would be prepared to increase the rates. If this cannot be done, I am telling the hon. the Minister that we will have to achieve a position—and I repeat that he is a member of the Cabinet—in which we have to provide the Railway pensioners with pensions on two fronts: Their Railway pension as well as an old age pension. Then they will receive a pension which will give them just over R200 per month. I am referring the the “pre-1973 model”. Sir, there can be no objection to that, because this House cannot sit idle and allow this situation to continue.

Lastly, I just want to deal briefly with the Capital Account. I find here in the Memorandum of the hon. the Minister that on 31 March 1975 he had 2 000 container wagons on order. Sir, the date on which containerization has to come into operation is not far off. In November 1975 not one of those wagons had been delivered yet. I may be wrong, but I believe the reason is that the Minister will argue that he was unable to obtain the steel and have those wagons built. I maintain that if there had been judicious management and if they had been unable at that stage to obtain the steel locally, steel should, if need be, have been imported. Then they would, in the first place, have been able to obtain the steel for the wagons more cheaply than they would have been able to obtain it locally and, secondly, would have been able to avoid all the steel price increases of the last few months. An amount of R27 million has been budgeted for those 2 000 wagons. I am watching the position very carefully, and shall see what it is next year. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that when that final account is presented to him, it will not be R27 million; it will be many millions more than R27 million. Now, if the hon. gentleman regards himself as an integral part of the Government of the Republic, I think he has sufficient grounds to say that even if he has to import the steel, particularly when he was able to receive it at a far lower price, he would do so rather than to wait a year, have all these escalations in the steel price and then have 2 000 wagons, wagons which he needs badly, but which would now cost many millions more.

This Budget will be known in the history of South Africa as the blind budget, a budget which was introduced by an hon. Minister who did not want to see. I almost feel like adding that he did not want to hear either. He did not want to see that his position required him to act in such a manner that he would promote and not harm the economy of South Africa. That is why I say, Sir, that I regret doing so, but I shall have to call this a blind budget.

Mr. Speaker, the speeches of the hon. member for Maitland are usually very entertaining and very amusing, but I must tell him that their content is just so much hot air—and that goes for many of his colleagues’ speeches in this debate as well. I want to tell the hon. member for Maitland that the hon. the Minister is not indifferent towards inflation. The large-scale and very effective retrenchment campaign which the Railways embarked on, belies his argument completely. What is more: Experts tell us that the effect of these high railway rates will in any event not be as bad as they are trying to make out. Sir, it is a great pity that the Opposition, and especially the hon. member for Durban Point, found it necessary to break out into hysteria during this debate, and to do so despite the fact that the hon. Minister has succeeded, in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself at present, in presenting the country, not with a crisis budget, but with a strikingly normal budget. In view of the conflagrations breaking out around us and the tremors which even we in this country can feel, it is particularly comforting and pleasing that the Railways has been able to continue so peacefully and practically undisturbed. But now in this debate, the Opposition comes along and lapses into wild hysteria. The hon. member for Durban Point sounded off melodramatically about “shock waves which will spread into every corner of South Africa”, and spoke about the “blackest budget” in the history of the Railways. The hon. member for Durban Point said that his amendment stood on four legs. Now I want to tell the hon. member that at the end of this debate, all four of those legs have been knocked out from underneath him. The hon. member and his party are lying flat on their backs, after one of the poorest shows which an Opposition has ever put up during a Railway debate. These people have become completely entangled in the astronomical figures of a growing Railways network. They are totally incapable of making calculations, and what is the use of arguments based upon inaccurate calculations, which they have so often made here? Sir, there is no crisis in the Railways, but there is indeed a crisis in the United Party—a chronic crisis.

Let us look at what has become evident during this long debate. In spite of everything said here, there are a few things which are as plain as a pikestaff. Firstly: the financial position of the Railways remains basically sound although there were a few increases in tariffs. It is very important that this great organization should be economically sound and strong especially in the times which we are facing. The Railways must always be ready for the challenges awaiting us and for the special demands which may be made of it. We are aware of the Railways’ important role in our economy, but now in addition to that, an equally important strategic role is developing, and we cannot allow this vital artery of our economy, and in a certain sense of our military activities, too, to be paralysed by a shortage of money. No, the Railways must remain vigorous and strong, and if possible must be made even stronger so that it may continue to play its key role in this country. To do this the Railways needs money. If one handicaps the Railways with too little revenue, then ons is handicapping South Africa, and we may not do this, especially not in these times. Therefore we shall have to make greater sacrifices and must be prepared to pay those high tariffs.

A second fact which has become obvious during this debate is that the Railways fully measures up to the basic demand made of it, namely, providing the country with an effective transport service. No-one, in the course of this debate, has been able to deny that the Railways are effective, not even the Opposition. All they could find to complain about here, was a matter of a few aircraft which were late now and again, but they were unable to deny that the Airways had one of the best safety records in the world. But they are not grateful for being able to travel safely. A third irrefutable fact is that the Railways has exhibited an exceptional degree of financial discipline in these times. If it had not been for the Railways’ vast retrenchment campaign, these tariff increases would have had to be much worse. If we look at what the Railways have done in order to combat inflation and rising prices, then we must raise our hats to them. They have not squandered money, nor have they, like the Opposition, lapsed into pessimism.

Now I want to deal with the hon. member for Durban Point. I ask for his attention. Because he emerged from this debate defeated, he clutched at a straw and made an unpleasant attack upon myself and my colleague here, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, because we told a newspaper that we would look after the interests of pensioners. Now he sees it as a terrible sin that we did not rise to champion the cause of the pensioners here.

Now is your opportunity.

I will tell the hon. member why we did not rise to speak here. We did not do it, because we do not want to take political advantage of people as the hon. member for Durban Point does. We did not do it, because we do not want, to try and gain votes for a by-election, as the hon. member does. If my colleagues and I were to rise and make and announcement in this Parliament whenever we did anything for our voters, we would have to discuss it in every debate. Thus we have also done our duty as far as the needs of pensioners are concerned, with this difference, that we do not broadcast it in order to gain votes.

Where is the result?

However, we wonder what the hon. member for Durban Point has actually done for pensioners, besides crowing about it here. I have before me correspondence which proves what I have done for pensioners in my constituency. To tell the truth, I have done much more, but I am not going to blow my own trumpet. That I leave to the trumpet blower of Durban Point. What is revealed during these debates, is not a twentieth of what we on this side of the House do for our voters in this Parliament, but we do not shout it from the rooftops as the hon. member for Durban Point does. We are not like the hon. member who tries to score political points off us merely because he lost the debate. The Railway people of Bloemfontein know what we do for them. That is why they make so much use of us. They know that my door, the doors of my colleagues in Bloemfontein and throughout the country are open to the Railwayman. This, side of the House has cherished the well-being of Railway pensioners and all other pensioners in the country through the years. It is the practice of this Government to revise pensions regularly, to increase pensions together with the periodical salary increases. The hon. the Minister knows just as well as the pensioners do, that the rising cost of living is making it more and more difficult for them to make ends meet. The hon. Minister knows these things because we continually keep him informed as regards the needs of these people. We tell him what is happening in the constituencies, and therefore he regularly considers these things. Nor does the hon. the Minister turn a deaf ear when it comes to appeals and many of the appeals come from us. When it is once again possible, there will be relief. The Minister has said so.

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

I am sorry, Sir, but the hon. member literally had hours to speak during this debate and now he wants to steal another few minutes from me. The railwayman knows very well that the NP is the true friend of the workers in our country, and not those people who want to undermine them with non-White labour.

In the few minutes which remain, I should like to deal with another very important matter. The Railways does indeed make more use of Black labour. In September last year, approximately 16 000 non-Whites rendered service in posts which were previously occupied by Whites. Non-Whites were placed in these positions because the necessary White labour was simply no longer available or obtainable. However, there are people in this country who are now trying to make political capital out of this. They are telling the railwayman that the NP is cramming the Railways with Black people. The UP is also guilty of this.

Who says so?

I say so.

Whenever it suits them, during elections, for example, they shout from the roof tops that the Government allows the poor White workers to be ousted by non-Whites on the Railways. The result of this irresponsible talk is that uncertainty has arisen among some White railwaymen, especially those in the lower grades. The Railways Administration, however, sees to it that the employment of non-Whites on the Railways takes place in a very orderly and systematic manner. It is not a question of simply throwing open the doors as regards labour. This is done in collaboration with the staff associations, and the staff associations allow this because they can trust the Government. However, they will never ever trust the UP with that, still less the Progrefs. If a labour measure of that nature should be effected under those people, there would be strikes, rebellion and chaos in the Railways. The Opposition will not come into power, but should they do so, the very just thing they would do would be to eliminate job reservation. Job reservation, which is the White workers’ insurance policy, would be tom apart by them and thrown to the winds. The railwayman must remember this. There are doors which are kept tightly closed by the Government, and those doors will be thrown wide open by the Opposition. For the Opposition, job reservation is the stumbling block in the path of industrial expansion in South Africa, whereas the policy of the NP has always been that the White worker will be protected against the undermining of his wage level and from being rushed out of his spheres of employment by non-White labour.

However, the railwayman does not have to fear anything as long as the NP is in power in this country. Not a single White person has been forced out of his job by a non-White in the Railways. Non-Whites are placed in positions which were previously occupied by Whites, but these are positions for which no more Whites are available. In any event this takes place with the full collaboration of the staff associations concerned. This step is in no way prejudicial to Whites. Rather, it favours them, because it has resulted in it being possible to create more channels of promotion for Whites in supervisory capacities. What is the position in this country? We have a position of virtually full employment. In these circumstances the Railways still find it very difficult to fill all vacancies. Out of an establishment of 32 099 in the bread-and-butter grades alone there was a shortage of 7 570—or 23,6%—and this was in spite of an intense recruitment campaign, periodic salary increases and improved working conditions. The Railways has simply been unable to eliminate the shortages. They also employed more women in men’s positions. At present there are 952 women working as checkers. There are 160 woman constables. I can mention many more such examples. The Railways is also doing everything in its power to help White workers so that they can improve their position. Therefore a committee has been appointed in order to give a hearing to all the White railway workers, viz. the lower income group in the Railway service, with a view to placing them in better positions. Five thousand people have been given a hearing and it has been found that 3 560 of them were suitable for promotion. Of this number 385 refused promotion and 208 were not interested. The training of its people, too, is a task which the Railways takes very seriously. More than R1 million is spent on this annually. The Railways are not only the biggest single employer in the country, but also the biggest trainer of apprentices. Approximately 7 500 apprentices are at present undergoing training in 38 different trades. The Railways spend a pretty penny on bursaries every year for students who want to study further.

To everyone, young or old, the Railway offers an opportunity for better training to enable one to acquire better qualifications and progress to better things. In this way the danger of his being ousted by non-Whites, is eliminated. In spite of all these efforts in the interests of the White worker, the number of people attracted to the Railways is nevertheless insufficient and the Railways is still faced with a serious shortage. This leaves the Railways no alternative but to make use of a greater number of non-Whites. If the Railways had not taken this step, certain services would definitely have come to a standstill and the Whites themselves would have suffered as a result. One can now see what a grievous untruth it is to maintain that Whites are being forced out of their posts in the Railways by non-Whites.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend entering into the hon. member’s quarrel with the United Party and the hon. member for Durban Point, although listening to the word pictures which he painted, one is somewhat fascinated at the idea of the hon. member for Durban Point going into a debate hysterically, coming out naked and then looking for political fleas. However, when the hon. member for Bloemfontein North talks about job reservation as an insurance policy for the White worker of South Africa, I must quarrel with him because the policy of job reservation is not an insurance policy. It is the sort of policy which brings the future of South Africa into danger because it is discriminatory and unfair and engenders bitterness. I want to tell the hon. member that it is legislation like that which enforces the policy of job reservation which is holding South Africa back.

At this stage of the debate I want to come back to a section of the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister when he moved the Second Reading. I refer to the discussions which the hon. the Minister is going to have with the various staff associations during April concerning their claims for improved salaries. The hon. the Minister said that should an agreement be reached in regard to salary adjustments, this would necessitate a simultaneous adjustment in rates and fares. I hope the hon. the Minister will, as a result of what has taken place in this debate, rethink his attitude in this matter. I think that the country-wide adverse reaction to the budget which he has presented must have made the hon. the Minister realize that one thing he cannot do for a long time is to increase rates and fares further, if we are to have any hope at all of fighting inflation in South Africa.

Are you opposed to salary improvements?

The inflationary effect of the budget is already far more than the country can bear and the thought of yet another round of massive increases is quite appalling. The hon. the Minister just must not do it and I hope that he has already realized it. We in these benches would like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he is not again going to increase tariffs and fares in the near future.

I want to make it clear to the hon. the Minister that I am not questioning the case for salary and wage increases for Railwaymen. Especially in view of the quite impressive increases in productivity which have been brought about, I think the case for the Railway employees is a strong and valid one. The money must, however, not come from increased tariffs. If increased amounts must be paid out on increments for the staff, the hon. the Minister must find the money elsewhere by cutting spending.

Increase expenditure and cut back on spending?

If the hon. the Minister will just listen to my argument he will hear what I have to say. The hon. the Minister must realize that if he increases rates in order to pay increased wages and salaries, he will cause further inflation which will lead to further wage demands and then we are once again on the old inflationary merry-go-round except that it is not so merry. The hon. the Minister and many speakers on that side of the House have continually challenged on the basis of where cuts should be made. They have asked us to indicate where spending should be cut seeing that we are asking for cuts in expenditure. They want to know what should be cut out of the budget. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether the Administration has a list of priorities in so far as capital expenditure is concerned. Do they list in order of importance exactly what the priorities are in terms of capital expenditure? The hon. the Minister does not say anything, but if they do, and I am sure that they must, then the answer lies in that list. I am sure that there is a list of that nature. If you just do not have the money to spend, then you cut back on the lower sections of your priority list. I want to make the point again that you cannot spend money which you do not have. The hon. the Minister must realize that he cannot come to the country again with further increases, because that will be the road to economic disaster. I can only urge restraint, self-discipline and the knowledge of what he is doing when he makes these tremendous tariff increases. The hon. the Minister seems to think it very funny, but I should like to tell him that the country does not feel that tariff increases are very funny at all. The fight against inflation has been virtually wrecked by this sort of thing.

You could not be funny even if you tried. I am not laughing at you at all.

I am very pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister does not think it is amusing because nobody else in South Africa holds that view.

Another matter which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister at this stage is the question of urban passenger services and the building of underground railways in the light of the Driessen report. I know, since I have raised it before, that in previous years the hon. the Minister, wearing his hat as Minister of Railways rather than as Minister of Transport, has denied responsibility in this matter altogether. He said that underground railways and other rapid transport systems did not fall within the ambit of responsibility of the Railways. I want to quote as follows from the recommendations of the Driessen report (para. 1.3.14)—

This recommendation is fair enough. I want to ask the hon. the Minister about the situation in Johannesburg and I quote again from the Driessen report where it says inter alia—

I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether such close liaison is taking place between the Johannesburg City Council and the S.A. Railways. Many transportation surveys have already been carried out in Johannesburg including a series on the desirability of an underground railway which could consist of 24 km of track serving the central area and other areas of high-density development in the city. The Railways are supposedly the experts in South Africa on the running of railways— the only experts, although they are shortly going to get competition from Iscor. Presumably they have been consulted by the city council of Johannesburg. I should like to know how far this liaison has gone and whether any decisions have been taken, because I hold fast to the viewpoint that any underground railway system in Johannesburg should be linked in some way with the other suburban railway services. It would be most interesting to know what is happening because time is passing, costs are escalating all the time, traffic is getting worse in Johannesburg and unless there is a major movement very soon, Johannesburg is in danger of strangulation. As the hon. the Minister is aware, the Johannesburg City Council cannot finance a system of this nature without the assistance of the central Government. Just how far have plans for such assistance gone and how much help and attention are the Railways giving to this matter of extreme urgency?

Proceeding to another matter, I want to talk about the efficiency of our Railways in terms of the service they are offering the public. I do not believe that there is any room for complacency. Modernization and improvement have taken place on a tremendous scale, but is the public really getting a better service? I have here two railway timetables for the Cape Western suburban train service; one is date 1 December 1975 and the other July 1938. The latter is a most interesting document, a document of 38 years ago. Incidentally, it is not only a railway timetable, but an air timetable as well.

I find it most interesting to compare the service the public was getting in those days with the service they are getting today. It is of interest to note that 38 years ago the fastest time from Cape Town station to False Bay on the suburban system was 22 minutes. Today, after all the improvements that have taken place, the fastest time I could find on paging through the current timetable was 29 minutes. Let us look at all the technical improvements that have taken place since that time. During the period 1938 to 1976 a number of level crossings have been eliminated and the voltage has been stepped up from 1 500 volts to 3 000 volts, to give greater power. I want to point out too that the number of trains entering Cape Town station has hardly changed. If one studies the figures for trains coming in between, say, 8 o’clock and 9 o’clock on any weekday morning, one finds that in 1938 the figure was 16 while at present it is 15. That is the position despite two extra lines between Woodstock and Cape Town on the Simonstown line, the elimination of the awkward bend around the buttress of the Castle and the use of eight instead of six platforms at the Cape Town Station. In all these years of technical advance we do not seem to have achieved a tremendous amount of improvement in the service: A train that took 22 minutes in 1938, takes 29 minutes today.

I must grant the hon. the Minister that we have come a long way as far as air timetables are concerned. Looking at the Airways timetable of 1938, it is interesting to note that there were only four planes per week between Germiston and Cape Town and that the flying time was seven hours. I grant that in this respect we have come a long way since those days. However, I am not sure that these improvements have come about due to the hon. the Minister’s efforts.

The point I wish to make is that there is always room for improvement. I am certain that the Railways Management and Administration is aware of this. I must say that I would like to hear, occasionally, a little honest constructive criticism from hon. members on the other side. Hon. members on the benches opposite continually come with a paean of self-congratulating messages that flow in an unending stream to the hon. the Minister. I think that a little self-criticism, a little introspection, is always a good idea.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove who has just resumed his seat, displayed a logic which is completely beyond my comprehension. He told us that he had no objection to the Minister increasing his expenditure by granting salary increases after the negotiations to be conducted before long, but that he objected very strongly to the revenue being increased by increasing rates. In all fairness I must add that he did ask for a cut in capital expenditure. I am sure that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who is to be the next speaker, will elaborate on that theme of cutting capital expenditure. The hon. member for Maitland told us that this would be the theme of the hon. member’s speech. I remember that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti launched a cutting attack on the hon. the Minister about his lack of planning during this debate last year. A year ago we had the congestion of ships at Durban Harbour.

The hon. member said that it was entirely due to the lack of planning by this Government that capital provision had not been made years ago for additional facilities and this was the reason for the congestion of ships there. If the Government had spent so much capital years ago, I wonder what we would have done with that unused capacity today. What a burden it would have been on the Administration.

It is understandable that the Opposition should try to derive any political advantage which it can from these tariff increases. One can understand this. However, what one cannot understand, is that in their eagerness to get at the Minister, some members of the Opposition have dealt very nasty blows at the management and the staff of the Railways. Under the impression that they were criticizing the Minister, they said extremely unflattering things about the staff, or at least insinuated them; so much so, that some of the hon. members had to back down and praise the staff. For example, the hon. member for Durban Central, who is very amused at something at the moment, stood up here and, even though he is a layman, found fault with the Administration and with conditions in the booking office. Nor did things in the workshops please him. With all respect, it really seems rather presumptious to me for a layman to express that kind of criticism.

Be careful, those experts are from your constituency.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland attributed the shortages to two factors. Firstly he attributed it to the fact that 22 000 additional members of staff had been appointed—it was later discovered to be 14 000. In the second place he attributed it to the amount of R43 million which had been spent on overtime. He has just stood up and asked that this amount be cut by R20 million. He was very enthusiastically supported in this by the hon. member for King William’s Town. The hon. member for Colesberg made a striking reference to this when he said that what the hon. member had displayed in his speech was a whirl-wind style. The hon. member for King William’s Town spoke about the economic slump and asked how one could increase staff and pay R43 million in overtime in a time like this. What is the implication of this allegation? If their premise is correct, the implication of this is that the productivity of our railwaymen has decreased, that the staff no longer work as hard as they are able, and that there are workers who are shirking and do not put in an honest day’s work. After all, if five people are needed to build a certain wall, and one appoints six people to build that same wall, and still pay them overtime, surely it means that productivity has decreased, and this is exactly what the hon. member for Maitland said about the staff.

Now you must be careful.

This covert insinuation is untrue, it is unfair and it is undeserved. What are the facts? The revenue of the Railways has increased over the past five years from R970 million in 1970, to R1 854 million in the present year, therefore an increase of almost 100%. During the same period the increase in the staff of the Railways was just over 10%. I know that there are other explanations for the increase in revenue, but one of the most important deductions one can make, is a higher productivity amongst our railwaymen. They deserve to be thanked by that side and not belittled.

By how much have the tariffs increased during that period?

The revenue has increased by 100%, but the tariffs have definitely not increased by 100%.

The tariff on livestock has increased by 284%.

The hon. member for King William’s Town said here that the farmers were the most wronged members of the community. He used a whole long list of adjectives to describe the ways in which they were being wronged. I know which group in our community is the most insulted—it is the railwaymen. The same hon. member who spoke about the wronged farmer, yesterday suggested a cut of R153 million in the salaries of railwaymen and that this would balance the Minister’s budget. I think that railwaymen outside should take cognizance of what that hon. member suggested here.

I should like to deal with the vacation employment of students. There are just over 90 000 students at our residential universities, students who have at least two months’ holiday at the end of every year. In my opinion we have a manpower potential here which is not being fully utilized as yet. I do not think that our employers are sufficiently orientated towards making use of this temporary source of labour. In Canada, for example, they are orientated towards the temporary employment of students to such an extent, that students belong to an unemployment insurance scheme, so that they may draw benefits if they are unable to obtain work during holidays. I should like to address a plea to the hon. the Minister, and that’s that since the Railways have so often taken the lead and set the example in respect of labour affairs, they should also set the example for the orderly and organized employment of students during holidays. I am not asking for any type of charity on behalf of students. The students have a contribution to make in order to promote the interests of the Railways. The other day, I heard a system manager of the Railways saying in a private conversation that he would have had to cancel trains during December were it not for the fact that he could appoint 40 students as firemen on the trains. These are the things we should tell the students. The student must feel that the Railways need him, too, and that he is able to make a contribution in the interests of the Administration and in the interests of South Africa. Therefore I want to repeat: The students are not asking for charity but only for the opportunity to prove that he can render the Railways a service. It is undoubtedly to the student’s advantage to work in the holidays. He needs the money. The other day I heard of a student who earned almost R1 000 as a fireman, because he was able to work a reasonable amount of overtime. It is necessary that we keep our students constructively occupied. The devil finds work for idle hands, and this must not happen in the case of the students. It is an enriching experience for students to be employed by the largest employing organization in our country. It broadens his outlook on life and it extends his knowledge of human nature. It equips him for the day and for his task when he enters a profession. Years ago it was my privilege to work as a steward on the Railways. I was young then, and I still think back with great satisfaction to that experience.

It is also of importance to the Administration that employment opportunites are created for students. During the debate it was mentioned that there was a shortage of 8 000 employees in the Railways. In the months of December a peak traffic situation is usually experienced because so many holiday-makers go on journeys, and as a result additional employees are needed. At the end of the year, when permanent members of staff usually want to go on leave, students are there as relief staff. Therefore I ask that the employment section of the Railways plan specially for the vacation employment of students. I know that there were students in the past who joined the Railways under the false pretext of wanting to take up permanent employment with the Railways and who resigned at the end of the vacation. I hope that this dishonest practice has ceased by now.

The Railways will undoubtedly give preference to its own bursary students. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North referred just now to the more than 500 bursary students who were studying in more than 10 directions. I do not know whether those people are bound by a contract to work for the Railways during vacations, but I assume that the Railways must give them preference. In addition to those people there are still others who would like to be employed on the Railways. Recently I saw a student being interviewed on television who said that this was the fourth consecutive year in which he had been employed as a fireman on the Railways.

Problems would undoubtedly arise if the Railways suddenly were to employ hundreds of students. After all, one cannot employ a student as a fireman for two months. What does one do for the rest of the year with the trains upon which such students were employed as firemen? However, I do not think that these are problems which the Railways will be unable to solve. It requires planning to accommodate students, but it is not impossible.

In the few minutes which are still available to me, I should like to express my appreciation for what has been done in my constituency. Last year I asked the Railways Administration to do something to replace the steam locomotives in the shunting yards at Bay Head with diesel locomotives. This has been done, and now things are much better. It sounds ungrateful to say thank you and then still have a complaint, but nevertheless I still have a complaint. The complaint is that the person who designed the diesel locomotive’s whistle did an extremely thorough job of work. The whistle has a terribly shrill sound which can be heard from very far away. It is a sound which banishes all sleep. If one tries to sleep while that sound can be heard, one fights a losing battle. I was at home for the weekend and my heart bled once again for my voters who are subjected to that noise night after night, not only the noise of the whistle, but also of the shunting yards. In the small hours of the night, I struggled with the question: What is the worst? Is it the mosquitoes, the heat or the noise? We can solve the problems of the mosquitoes and the heat, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister for the sake of peace of mind of our people, to do something in connection with this terrible noise.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I agree with my hon. colleague, the member for Maitland, that this is a blind budget, and after listening to the hon. members for Bloemfontein North and Port Natal, I also have to agree with the saying that there are none so blind as those who do not want to see—especially when listening to Government members who go chasing after railway workers’ votes, as these two hon. members have done. I must agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein North there certainly is no crisis in the Railways at the present time. These hon. members are so busy chasing railway workers’ votes that they are prepared to pass any budget the hon. the Minister puts before the House, regardless of the consequences it could have on South Africa’s economy. I would like to ask the hon. member whether he will deny that there is crisis after crisis in thousands of South African homes today as the result of inflation. Will he deny this? Will he deny that inflation is the result of this Government’s economic policies? With regard to capital spending, I would like to tell the hon. member for Port Natal that if the hon. the Minister continues with the tremendous capital expenditure he is presenting to the nation without tightening up on it, South Africa will be faced with a serious crisis as to the availability of capital funds for other aspects of the South African economy. It is for this reason that I concerned myself so far in this debate mainly with the capital budget. We do this as an Opposition to ensure that the funds which are available to the South African economy are spent wisely and economically, especially by Government departments. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister is not going to be blind to the needs facing South Africa today.

It is for this reason that I put certain queries to the hon. the Minister with respect to certain items which appear in the Brown Book. I was terribly disappointed with the hon. the Minister’s replies to these particular queries. He said, for instance, that the reason for the tremendous increases were that there were no detailed plans available when the original estimates were drawn up. He said that after some of the projects had been commenced, there were changes in design. He went further and said that in the Brown Book there were estimates for certain items for which estimates were drawn up as far back as 1969 and which had not been updated to 1976-’77. He used the excuse of inflation and devaluation as reasons why the capital budget has increased to the degree it has. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that I do not believe that these are real and valid excuses for the tremendous increases which he has presented to us. Surely the Brown Book of the Railways is an extremely important Parliamentary document. Surely its accuracy should be above all doubt. Surely it is imperative that all the estimates shown in the Brown Book are based on sound engineering plans and on sound feasibility studies. Surely there should be detailed costing and estimating based on a cost-benefit ratio. Surely there must be written into the budget realistic inflationary factors. This is what businesses do today in projecting their five-year estimates.

They have compounded inflationary rates which have been taken into their estimates for the future. Surely, the Brown Book of the S. A. Railways should be a document which everybody can take as being entirely accurate in regard to what is facing the nation or the Railways at any particular time. I do not believe that this has been done. The only excuse I shall accept, is the one of devaluation which the hon. the Minister has put forward. This, however, is not his responsibility. It is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Finance. He is the one to blame for that.

I believe certain questions have now arisen out of this debate. I feel we should all know what the eventual costs of the projects which are now listed in the Railways’ Brown Book are going to be. I believe that this budget bears no real accurate figures as to what this eventual cost is going to be. I do not think the hon. the Minister can tell the House what the eventual accurate costs of these particular projects will be. Because of this, he has to be condemned. I am afraid that is the way we on this side of the House feel. The evidence of this debate has clearly revealed that there are weaknesses in his Administration with respect to the budgeting on capital works depicted in the Brown Book. I do not believe the hon. the Minister can be excused for this. After all, he is the managing director of the Railways—he said so—and he also has three highly paid commissioners who are his directors. They are the ones who should be blamed for this.

I should briefly like to mention something about containerization. I want to quote from a speech which was made at the Assocom congress last year in Margate. It was made by a member of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, who asked the following question with respect to containerization—

He went on to say that the first estimates were that this programme was going to cost R2 billion. Then he says—

I should like to quote a further passage from his speech where he said the following—

He goes on to say that the results of this project on which the Government is working will cause an increase of 50% in the freight rates of shipping between the Continent and South Africa. He also says—

The main theme of this debate has been the effort to fight inflation and the Government’s tremendous campaign to fight inflation. I put forward these quotes from this gentleman’s speech for the heeding, I hope, of the Government. I hope the hon. Minister is going to heed these warnings which have been stated by people in the commercial sector. To back this up, I should like to refer to a number of items in the Brown Book. There are five items, namely 489, 527, 557, 624 and 565, which all have something to do with container traffic facilities. The original estimate was R41 million. In this Brown Book they are asking or a further R51 million. I appreciate the fact that some of their original estimates were provisional estimates. I believe this bears out what I have already said. How much is this project going to cost South Africa in the long term? I should once again like to ask the hon. the Minister: How do these present figures compare with those which were originally drawn up when this project was originally conceived? I should like to know what the final figure is going to be. Because I like to think that the hon. the Minister is a responsible Minister of this Government, I should like to appeal to him to institute or have instituted a thorough examination of the total capital expenditure programme of the S.A. Railways. I should like to ask him to up-date, for us in the official Opposition, all the estimates which are now appearing in this Brown Book, so that we will be able to see a more accurate estimate next year of what these projects are going to cost the South African taxpayer and the South African economy. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give us more details in this particular regard next year. In conclusion, I should like to say that we in these benches are going to watch next year’s Brown Book very closely and we sincerely hope that we are going to see a vast improvement in the figures.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to complain about the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove did not use his time to the full, because that now enables me to bring a little matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The hon. member referred to the trains which in 1938 took 22 minutes to reach a certain place, while today they take 29 minutes to do so, but this is unfortunately not the whole story. If the hon. member’s research department had done their work, they would have noted that a few stations have been added in the meantime, in other words, that there are now a few more stops on the route than there were in 1938.

It is very interesting that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti came here to complain today about the enormous increase in capital costs but we do not get an indication of where capital expenditure should in fact be reduced. To be practical about this matter, we should say that the only effect which capital works have on the budget, is the burden of interest charges which they entail. If the hon. member were to investigate the rise in the burden of interest of which the Railways during the past number of years compared to its increased revenue then he would have to concede that the rise in costs was completely in proportion to the increase in revenue.

There is one idea I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister at this late hour, because this is a matter which has for many years earned the attention of the average railwayman and which has remained an enormous need as far as the average railwayman is concerned. On occasion I have described the Railway Sick Fund as probably being one of the best in the world, but nevertheless the lack of a free choice of doctor or specialist has all the years been a very thorny matter to the average railway worker. The Conradie Committee, who investigated this entire matter, made three basic recommendations in this connection. In the first instance it was recommended that the basis upon which contributions to this fund are made, should be changed. Secondly it was recommended that the proposed improved provident scheme should fundamentally comprise the same elements as those of a medical aid scheme, except that free choice of doctor or specialist is excluded from it. Thirdly, they recommend that the establishment of a medical aid scheme should in due course be proceeded with.

The first two recommendations of this committee were accepted and they are already being implemented, but the third recommendation, namely, the establishment of a medical aid scheme in the true sense is still being withheld. Talks on it may be reopened on the initiative of the Management or the staff. The advantages obtained under the improved aid scheme, are basically the same as those under a medical aid scheme, except as regards the restriction which I mentioned, i.e. the free choice of doctors. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the real factor is which prevents the establishment of a full-fledged medical scheme being proceeded with. What influences the choice at this stage? Is it the fact that the Management is not yet in favour of this or is it that the staff association, for specific reasons, are not in favour of it? I believe that an additional payment of 20% is an inherent feature in most medical aid schemes while the improved aid scheme is basically insurance-orientated, in other words that at this stage a 100% cost cover still exists if the additional payment of R1 in respect of prescriptions for medicine which contributors have to make, is not taken into account. If this 20% additional payment were to be a requirement for a change-over to a full-fledged medical aid scheme with such a free choice, then one could accept that there might be hesitation on the part of a large section of the staff because they would think that this additional payment will in fact cause inconvenience under certain circumstances. For that reason I should like to ask the hon. Minister today whether it is not possible for the Management to go into this matter and whether it is not possible for an effort to be made to find methods by which servants who could be adversely affected by the additional payment of 20%, to be assisted. One feels in any case that railway pensioners ought not to make a higher additional payment than 10%. I want to ask whether a special auxiliary fund could not perhaps be created for this purpose or that the existing Railways Auxiliary Fund could be utilized for this purpose so that people who find themselves in a situation where they have to pay enormously high medical expenses, could raise a loan from it at a low interest rate or free of interest. Another possibility is that, where the case is a particularly deserving one a grant should be made from the auxiliary fund in an effort to cover the additional payment of 20%. If I am today advocating things which are already receiving attention, I should be very grateful if the hon. the Minister would inform us about this, because the ordinary public are profoundly ignorant of this entire matter. I should be particularly grateful if the hon. the Minister would indicate whether that which the railway workers have been looking forward to for so long, namely the arrival of the day when they would have a free choice of doctors and specialists, is not too distant.

While there is much unanimity with the other side of the House, I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister. I hope the unanimity still exists. I should like to thank him for the many opportunities he grants the Railways group on this side of the House to bring certain needs to his attention from time to time. There is also the particular opportunity which he grants us to discuss the situation of the Railway pensioners in depth with him from time to time. Unfortunately the Opposition tried to make a political lollipop of these people’s need in this House. I think the hon. member for Maitland tried to act reasonably, although I would still like to address a remark at him. The hon. member for Durban Point, in particular, came riding up like a knight of old and tried to create the image among the public that he was the only person who was fighting for these people; that he was up against a brick wall, a heartless National Party Government and a Nationalist Minister who refused to give way. He wanted to create the impression that he was the only man who was pleading for the needs of the pensioners. It would be closer to the truth to say that the hon. member is a Sancho Panza on a very wretched political donkey when he raises this matter. We have the opportunity to discuss this in depth from time to time and I know that the hon. the Minister’s door will not be closed to us in future.

The hon. member for Maitland came forward today with a very sound idea which at first sight has much merit and which rouses a great deal of sympathy in one. I grant him the sympathy he will be receiving through it, because he needs this very much from time to time. He said that if the hon. the Minister should wish to effect an equalization of pensions, even if it were to cost R20 million, the hon. the Minister could feel himself entirely at liberty to come to this House, and that he would be the first man to vote for this, even if it gave rise to increased rates. This would have been a beautiful thought had one not known what the hon. member had advocated earlier on in the week and had one not read the record that he was one of the greatest advocates of the Railways not paying for uneconomical services and not being held responsible for socio-economic services. I do not know how the hon. member wishes to collect the R20 million by way of increased rates without abandoning the principle which he advocated. It is too easy to advance such minor arguments in order to score a political point off someone, but in practice it simply does not work this way. As far as we are concerned, the debate has reached its end and we thank you once again.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I was out of the House when he made reference to more stations on the Simonstown line. I would like to know the names of those stations because they were all there.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would give me the names of the present stations, I shall undertake to give him the names as far back as 1938.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to reply to the Third Reading debate. Firstly I want to begin with the hon. member for Maitland, who introduced the debate. He spoke about inflation, and said that I was entirely indifferent. I had allegedly said that inflation was not being stimulated. Those things are not true, because I accept co-responsibility for inflation and the combating of inflation together with the other members of the Cabinet. We are as much in earnest about this matter as he or any other person. Besides, I never on any occasion said that this Budget and the rates increases would not be conducive to inflation. It is indeed the case to a greater or lesser extent, and that is where the difference lies. It is true that we regret having had to increase our rates, but hon. members know that I did not really have any choice. Circumstances and the increased expenditure compelled me to increase the rates. At least that is as I see it and as I am doing this in the best interests of the S.A. Railways.

As far as inflation is concerned, there is one aspect which I am very concerned about. It is the allegations which were made here in this House and blazoned abroad, but which are not correct. Perhaps the allegations were made entirely in good faith, but they leave the general public with an impression which is so wrong. I am referring in particular to the hon. member for Durban Point. He said in this House that the increased rates on livestock would inevitably cause meat prices to rise. Secondly, he alleged that the increase in the meat price could be as much as 10 to 15 cents per kg. The hon. member is shaking his head, but he did say so. What worries me is that the newspaper published the hon. member’s allegations. Not only did the newspapers publish the allegations, but the radio and television services also reported the hon. member as having said so. One wonders how and when such allegations are refuted among the people outside. I obtained information from a leading cattle farmer. This specific farmer is 400 km from the market. Up to now it has cost him R16 a head to get his cattle to the market. The new rates will increase his costs to R24 per animal. After the animals have been slaughtered, each carcase has an average weight of 250 kg. If one were now to make a distribution,’ it means that the additional costs—and I am making this calculation on the assumption that the extra costs will be passed on to the consumer—of R8 per animal over 400 km will amount to 3,2 cents per kg if the weight of the animal is divided into this. If one were to make provision for the bones, and so on, the calculation would amount to a maximum of 4c per kg.

That is precisely what I said.

The hon. member … [Interjections.] In the first place I am saying that if the increased rates are passed on to the consumer—this is a point which one could argue, yet it is something which is very unlikely—it would amount to a maximum of 4 cents per kg. That is what the increase would have amounted to.

In the meantime the hon. member has announced to all and sundry over the radio and television—he appeared on television but unfortunately I was not watching at the time—that the increase would mean an increase in price of 10 to 15 cents per kg. I should therefore be very pleased if the communication media—the Press, television and the radio—could rectify these matters. I hope they find it possible to do so, for it is not in anyone’s interests that such allegations should be made without being rectified.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the 4 cents is not merely the increase in price at the abattoirs, before the meat is sold therefore.

Yes, of course!

Of course that is the case! [Interjections.]

I am saying that it is not the case, for I have already made provision for the bones. The price was 3,2 cents on the hook. I made provision for the bones and this brought me up to 4 cents. I have therefore made provision for this already, but the hon. member still wants to give the butcher a profit as well. With the butcher’s profit already included, it only amounts to 4 cents. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, my time is limited, and there are a few other matters I should like to dispose of.

I cannot agree with the hon. member for Maitland at all when he argues that we should reduce our percentage depreciation even further. What this amounts to, in other words, is that we should make it even lower. Surely this is the case, for depreciation is an expense. It is contained on the expenditure side, and the depreciation makes provision for the Renewals Fund. However, the hon. member went on to say that we should not have made as much money available as we are in fact making available in the Renewals Fund. I cannot agree with the hon. member. We must maintain a relationship between the money which we make available from our own funds for capital purposes and money which we have to borrow on the loan market.

But surely this is the way Mr. Schoeman did it.

That may be so. Mr. Schoeman did so on occasion, and that money still has to be repaid.

What were the accusations then?

The hon. member then said that the little nest-egg of R20 million which I have in the Rates Equalization Fund should also have been thrown in. In other words, if anything goes wrong this year, I would have nothing at all, no nest-egg left.

Then you simply increase the rates again!

Then I would have no nest-egg left, and then I close the year with a loss which I would not have been able to repay from any source. Therefore I cannot agree with the hon. member on this point at all. The hon. member for Maitland argued further that I had not yet replied as far as the amounts were concerned. I shall now furnish him with the amounts. According to the calculations which have been made we are making provision here for wages and salaries etc., to a total amount of R998 million. This is more than the R931 million which appears in the White Book, under the heading: Summary of Staff. The pension and sick fund contributions by the Administration and the R20 million for work revaluation have not yet been included in the R931 million. In other words, the total amount which we are providing for wages and salaries this year is R998 million. I want to break it down as follows: Salaries and wages, R810 million; bonuses R11 million; vacation bonuses, R21 million; other allowances, R7 million; and overtime and Sunday time, R146 million. This is the total amount for which we are making provision. This year our expenditure in respect of those various items is R884 million. This is according to calculations up to the end of this financial year. The difference between the two is R114 million. If you now deduct from that R114 million, firstly the amount of R20 million for which we are making provision for the work revaluation of non-Whites, then there is a balance of R94 million.

If one takes into account that we expect an increase of 5,5% in respect of goods traffic and one makes provision for that in this year’s expenditure on wages and salaries, then one still has to deduct a further R50 million. [Interjections.] Of course, yes, for there is after all an increase in the amount of traffic. We are making provision for increased goods traffic of 5,5%, and that is why we have additional expenditure. Surely we cannot have more traffic while the expenditure remains the same. This leaves an amount of R44 million from which provision has been made for particular projects, inter alia the Ermelo-Richards Bay line on which we expect to convey 9 million tons of coal in the coming financial year. It also makes provision for the rationalization about which we had so much to say here. All those extra things have to come out of the remaining R44 million. I think this gives the hon. member a better picture of the entire matter. The hon. member also discussed pensions. He referred to social pensions and said that a social pension amounted to R128 per month today for a husband and wife. Do you know what it was during the time of the United Party? It was R20. Social pensions have therefore increased by more than 600%.

But then a pound was still a pound.

The hon. member referred to container wagons and steel. In reply to that I just want to tell him that Iscor imports the steel according to a pool system. The Railways does not import steel. These wagons are built for us by Dorman Long according to tender. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate any further on this.

I am very aware of the interest of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North in Railway matters and particularly in the railway worker.

As it happened, he also discussed pension matters, about which I shall say a few words in a moment. The hon. member for Orange Grove discussed salary increases … I stated explicitly here that if salary increases are granted, rates increases must also be expected. In any case, surely the hon. member will not say that he does not want to see salary increases being granted, for the staff last received a salary increase on 1 June 1974. But he tells me that I should not increase the rates. Where on earth must I now find the money to pay increased salaries if I may not increase the rates—only a Prog will know. No other person in his right mind would be able to make such a calculation. The hon. member also referred to underground railway lines. I just want to tell him that we are still in the process of implementing the Driessen Report. A metropolitan advisory committee will be established for each metropolitan area, and as a result of that recommendations will be made. The Railways will always be prepared to work in close co-operation with the various bodies, as it is in fact already doing.

The hon. member for Port Natal discussed the students in particular. He is aware of the situation: as he himself said, he was a waiter on the Railways in his student days. We employ students, as frequently as we can and wherever it is necessary, to do that kind of work. We employ them as waiters, stokers, checkers, etc., and we shall continue to do so. The hon. member referred to the horns of the diesel locomotives. The hon. member for Walmer also referred to them yesterday. The hon. members for Port Elizabeth are also aware of this problem for it is in fact a problem. Recently we went so far as to refer the entire matter to my legal division, and asked them whether we should not rather place the responsibility on the road-user, even though this would mean that statutory provisions would have to be changed so that the Railways have the right of way at level crossings. In other words, it should not be the responsibility of the Railways if an accident occurs; it should be the responsibility of the road-user. Then we would be able to eliminate this use of horns completely. An exhaustive study was made of this matter, and my law advisers made a recommendation to me. We concluded that the risk was too great. In other words, we feel that we shall have to continue sounding these horns.

But they also make a fine sound!

However, we shall give further attention to the matter to see whether we cannot soften the shrill sound of the horn, which is such a nuisance. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Amanzimtoti discussed capital expenditure. I shall shortly deal with that in general, but first I just want to refer in particular to what he said about containerization. This is a matter which is being passed on to us and we simply have to keep pace with it, otherwise we will lag behind strategically. Containerization is being applied everywhere in the world today and whether we like it or not, we have to adapt to it. It is costing us an enormous amount of money, but do not think we can afford to lag behind.

What happened in Australia?

It does not matter what happened there. Nor do I know what reply the hon. member wants. In our own interests, however, we simply have to do what we find ourselves called upon to do.

In the time I still have at my disposal I should like to make a few observations by way of summary. In my opening speech I said that our revenue had been as we had expected, but that our expenditure had increased very considerably. The fact that our revenue had been what we had expected, is an indication that we had been reasonably active and that the demand for services was there. In spite of the so-called levelling off in the economy, or the slump to which such frequent reference has been made here, the amount of traffic which the Railways had to handle increased. Ton/kilometres in fact increased, and we expect a further increase in this respect. Another interesting feature of this Budget— and here I should like to refresh hon. members’ memories a little—is that there were no complaints about the handling of traffic by the Railways. The only thing which in any way resembled a complaint was the hon. member for Walmer’s reference to the late departure of aircraft. Apart from that there were no complaints about the Railways. One heard no complaints concerning the conveyance of coal, and we were also able to convey the maize in the way my friend, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, wanted. We also conveyed timber and fruit, and in spite of the disruptions in many spheres as a result of washaways—almost every day I find reports on my table of washaways in various places— there were in fact no complaints in this Parliament about the service the Railways have recently been rendering.

We have stopped complaining about the delivery time …

Today we are geared to mass exports as never before. But this requires a tremendous amount of capital. I am thinking for example of Richards Bay and the construction of the central yard between Johannesburg and Pretoria. I am also thinking of the fact that we speeded up the electrification programme—as hon. members can recall—as a result of the fuel crisis. This required additional capital. Major projects of this kind really do require major capital expenditure.

I now want to consider the various services, and first of all I want to consider the services per rail. I should like hon. members to take into consideration that besides our own increase in traffic, we also have to make provision for the circumstances which are, as it were, being forced upon us now by the closing of the border between Mozambique and Rhodesia. Hon. members opposite signified their assent to our handling the traffic as far as it is in any way possible, and we shall do so. I have also stated that we shall try our best to do so. This does not apply only to Rhodesia, but also to other countries in Southern Africa such as Zaïre and Zambia, for whom we should like to handle traffic if they wish us to do so. However, these things cannot be done without our making the necessary provision for them. These are all things which result in heavier pressure on the Railways. Nevertheless we received no complaints during the course of the debate.

If one considers the Airways, one finds that the addition of the aircraft which have now been purchased will make the S.A. Airways one of the most modern airlines in the world. There will be ample provision for overseas and internal services, and this will improve our image in the world. What is more, it is also a very valuable earner of foreign exchange for South Africa. We expect that the irritations that have recently occurred will soon be eliminated. The booking system will also be improved.

As far as our harbours are concerned, I can say by way of summary that we had many complaints and difficulties last year, but that this is no longer the case. In the Durban harbour things are functioning normally and in the Cape Town harbour there is capacity. I heard nothing about the fruit traffic through Cape Town and consequently I take it that things are going well. There is no problem. Richards Bay will give us a new harbour and, as the hon. member for Simonstown rightly commented, this is the first new harbour we are building since Union. As I have said, this will afford us sufficient harbour facilities for many years.

Order! Hon. members are conversing too loudly.

With reference to the hon. member’s speech, I want to tell him that Saldanha is still there too. At present Saldanha is under the control of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, but legislation will soon be introduced in Parliament, if it has not yet been introduced, which will transfer the control of the Saldanha Bay harbour to the S.A. Railways.

So you won the argument.

No, I did not win anything, for they stated voluntarily that they were unable to accept the responsibility. At present there is no pressure for the harbour to be developed as a commercial harbour, but that this will in due course be done is not to be doubted.

Will they first clear up the mess before they hand it over, or will you have to do that?

Iscor looks after their part, and I shall look after the rest.

As far as the pipelines are concerned, we are working on a new pipeline which will convey white products and which will meet our needs for many years. This is the picture as far as it affects the various services of the Railways. I am pleased to be able to say that there were no complaints here, and this is how we would like it to be. We do not want there to be any complaints in Parliament about a shortage here, a bottleneck there and a difficulty elsewhere. We should like to keep things like this, and that is why we are making the necessary provision.

As far as the staff is concerned, all signs indicate clearly that we will have to specialize to an increasing extent. Important work on the Railways is being entrusted to specialists— especially trained men—while the less important work on a lower level is being left to the available labour. In this way we are managing with fewer highly trained and scarce members of staff. The highly trained staff is our scarce staff. It goes without saying that we will employ increasing numbers of non-Whites, as we have been doing in negotiation with the various staff associations.

The hon. member for Tygervallei put certain questions to me in regard to the Sick Fund. I should like to furnish him with the following information: Arising out of representations made during 1972 by the Federal Consultive Council of S.A.R. and H. Staff Associations a committee was established to inquire into the Sick Fund. Three fundamental aspects are covered by the recommendations of the Sick Fund Committee, namely (1) the alteration of the basis in terms of which contributions are calculated; (2) the introduction of an improved provident scheme; and (3) the introduction of an auxiliary scheme. Aspects Nos. (1) and (2) were accepted and put into operation with effect from 1 April 1975. As from this date Railway servants have been receiving improved benefits in respect of dental services, maternity benefits and opthalmic services. The scheme also entailed, inter alia, that panels of Railway doctors are as far as possible being limited to 1 500 beneficiaries, in order to offer a wider choice of doctor. The contribution scales of members were at the same time raised by approximately 25,6%, and the levy per prescription was raised from R0,50 to R1. As far as the aspect to which the hon. member made particular reference is concerned, namely aspect No. (3), I can point out that the Federal Consultive Council was not prepared to commit itself at that stage to the question of the introduction of an auxiliary scheme. However, it was decided that depending on future developments, negotiations on this aspect could take place between the Administration, the Sick Fund Committee and the Federal Consultive Council, at the request of any of the abovementioned bodies. This is the position in respect of the Sick Fund.

I said a moment ago that one could discuss the matter of pensions at great length. However, hon. members must remember that our officials who are pensioners are linked to certain pension schemes. Over and above the pension, anything contributed by the Railways is on a par with social welfare work; in other words, it has not been earned. This is an aspect which is very important and should be borne in mind. The question which arises is whether those additional services are the responsibility of the S.A. Railways. It is correct, as the hon. member for Tygervallei said, that the transportation group of our party has on several occasions already had discussions on pensions, and in addition there are the representations we receive from time to time from pensioners. However, I want to emphasize once again that as far as pensions are concerned, we cannot deal with them in conjunction with an ordinary Budget. It is traditionally the case that pensions are considered when consideration is given to salary increases. Therefore it is possible for attention to be given to pensions at a later stage.

I should like to express a few thoughts on the provision of capital. In this House emphasis has been placed on the positive aspect of our provision of capital, but unfortunately, too, on the negative aspects, for suspicion has been cast on the capital estimates, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti did. It was stated, inter alia, that the provision of capital is not making the necessary contribution to the welfare of the country, that too much is being provided—I think this is the important aspect—and that it is inflationary. Let us first consider what the function of our capital estimates is. In the first place its function is to replace obsolete assets. By this I do not mean only obsolete in the sense that they have become worn out, but also assets which have to be replaced for economic and technological reasons. The emphasis lies particular on “technological”.

In the second place it has the function of meeting the growing need for transportation. In the third place it has the function of enhancing productivity. These are three important considerations as to why such provision has to be made. Naturally we have problems in obtaining capital, for capital is not very readily available. Therefore it is necessary for us to consider our list of priorities. There are hon. members, however, who doubted whether we had in fact drawn up a list of priorities. Recently, in December, when we considered our capital estimates, we drew up our list of priorities and considered what was last on the list. We then cut down on our expenditure in respect of Richards Bay by R1,5 million; we cut down on the expenditure in respect of vehicles for the road transportation service by R3 million; we cut down on our expenditure in respect of containerization by R4 million; and we cut down on our expenditure in respect of rolling stock by R13 million. The items on which we were unable to cut down were for example the Nyanga/Mitchell’s Plain railway line which was the penultimate item on the list of priorities. We felt that we were just not able to cut down on that. Another item which was also low down on the list was the quadrupling of the Hercules/Winternest line, and also the railway line from Mabopane via Belle Ombre to Pretoria, both items requiring large amounts. We considered cutting down on those items, but concluded that we were just not able to do so because they were too important. The next one we considered was the Thabazimbi/Ellisras railway line. This is the new line which has to be constructed for Iscor. Owing to the requirements of Iscor we decided that we were unable to cut down on this. Consequently we eventually decided on these cut-backs which I indicated here. I am mentioning this for the sole reason of giving the hon. members an indication of how carefully we consider cut-backs on our capital expenditure, particularly this year. However, we do not want to place ourselves in a position where we are going to cause ourselves future bottlenecks, which will cause the costs to rise.

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

Yes, but my time is very limited.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he consults with the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council to establish whether the amount being spent on the transport infrastructure is within the capacity of the nation to expand as a whole.

The General Manager of the Railways is a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, and naturally there is therefore a close connection.

I think I should conclude now. What I still want to say is just that the Railways have over the years succeeded in increasing its productivity. Over the past ten years the productivity index of the Railways has risen by 20,4%, or 2,1 % per annum. The expert calculations which have been made for me indicate that in respect of capacity on the Railways we have a margin of only 5%. I think that hon. members will agree with me that this is not a very wide margin, and that it was therefore necessary for us to make provision in the capital account for the possible bottlenecks which could arise.

Finally I want to point out that the Railways is these days more than just a transport organization. The Railways is today, in Southern Africa, playing a role as far as the relations between various countries are concerned, as we have already indicated. The Railways is making a valuable contribution in the sphere of détente and better relations between our country and our neighbouring states. Hon. members are aware of what we intend doing for Rhodesia and of the co-operation which we have from Mozambique to convey our goods. Hon. members are aware that we may perhaps have to help Zambia and Zaire with their transportation. Owing to those circumstances, as were also pointed out by the hon. member for Bethlehem, the Railways is, with its activities, playing a very important strategic role. Hon. members may rest assured that the Railways will continue with its activities to the best advantage of our people and our country and its interests.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of the provisions of section 23 of the National Road Safety Act, the National Road Safety Council is required to submit to the Minister a report on its activities together with its audited financial statements at the end of each financial year. Such financial year extends of course from 1 April to 31 March of each year. In terms of the relevant section the Minister is also required, as is the practice, to table the reports in this House and in the Other Place.

Owing to the statutory requirement that only audited financial statements may be tabled, practical problems are being experienced in having the documents ready shortly after the close of a financial year.

In order therefore to obviate that the reports on the activities of the Council are already a year old at the time of their tabling, and in order to afford hon. members here and in the Other Place, as well as the public, an opportunity of taking cognizance at the earliest possible stage of the activities of the Road Safety Council, I consider it necessary to request approval for the amendments contained in this Bill, i.e. to provide that the report year on the activities of the council and the financial year in regard to financial matters shall not extend over the same period.

Hon. members will agree with me that road safety is a social matter which concerns all levels of the community and it is therefore necessary that all of us have an opportunity to scrutinize the activities of the Road Safety Council and take cognizance of what has been done and what is still being envisaged as soon as possible.

As far as clause 1(2) is concerned, I may explain that the report year for 1974-’75 under the existing Act extends from 1 April 1974 to 31 March 1975, and contains an audited balance sheet as well as a detailed statement of revenue and expenditure for the same period. This report will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament in the course of the next few days. For the period 1 April 1975 to 31 December 1975, however, it is not practicable to prepare a separate report and to incur printing costs in this connection, and consequently the Government Law Advisers have recommended that the period of 21 months from 1 April 1975 to 31 December 1976 be deemed to be a period of a year.

That, Mr. Speaker, is briefly what is being envisaged with the proposed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has explained to this House, the underlying purpose of the Bill which is before the House is to separate the financial year and the report year of the council, which in practice will mean publishing two reports, as it were. As far as the activities of the council are concerned, I think that it is essential that a report on the council’s activities be made available to the House as soon as possible. It deals with a matter which is of the greatest importance to South Africa. Perhaps I should mention here that one has some doubt as to the success of the council’s operations if one considers the fact that we have just as high an accident rate on our roads today as we had a few years ago. This is a matter which must very definitely receive the attention of this council as soon as possible towards the end of the year.

I think that the hon. the Minister is very wise to come to this House with a proposal which means that we shall have the report on the activities of the council available to us early in the session so that the matter may be considered. So the practical effect of the proposal is, for the sake of argument, that if we were to receive the report on the activities up to 31 December of the previous year, while the financial statement which accompanies it will cover the period up to 31 March of the previous year. Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances we have no objection to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches also support this Bill. It is obviously to our advantage to receive the report of the National Road Safety Council at the earliest opportunity so that this House can examine the important work that this council does and the public at large can be made aware of it as soon as practicable after it has happened. We have much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of a series of Bills having passed through this House, a series of Bills which have as their object the protection of nurserymen, of plant breeders, and assistance to the industry in the propagation of plants and plant species, this I believe will be to the benefit of the country as a whole. These Bills, and the one we are now dealing with in particular, are most important to agriculture. It is important that we should have proper stock and healthy stock to produce food for our people in this country. It is also of importance to every householder who has a love for the soil, as most South Africans do, and who has a little garden and wishes to produce either flowers or vegetables. Whatever it is that they produce in that garden, this Bill is of importance to those people as well. I believe that from these Bills we are going to derive tremendous benefit for the country as a whole. In the Committee Stage we did move certain amendments and I wish to commend these amendments to the attention of the hon. the Minister. They were handled by his Deputy during that stage of the debate. I wish to reiterate that we believe that these amendments are important, particularly the amendment to clause 22, to protect these seedsmen and nurserymen themselves when an inspector comes; also the amendment which we moved in clause 37 to restore to the courts the discretion which this clause appears to remove from the courts in deciding whether or not an employer or a principal was part of an offence committed by his employee.

The hon. the Deputy Minister did give an undertaking that he would have another look at these two amendments, with the possibility of amending the Bill in the Other Place. I would sincerely commend to the hon. the Minister that he should do this in the best interests of what, I wish to repeat, is a series of Bills which can only work to the benefit of the industry in this country. We wish all nurserymen and seedsmen well and we wish the department well in the administration of these measures which can work to the benefit of the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member on the Opposition side adopted the attitude he did towards the Bill. I am very glad that they do not oppose the Bill. I had the opportunity a few days ago of conversing with one of our most foremost researchers and nurserymen at one of our research institutes. I was greatly impressed once again by the fact that plant improvement is making excellent progress. In spite of the fact that there is a dire shortage of researchers and experts at our research stations, things are going very well. At the moment, sixty new peach cultivars have already been developed. They have not been released yet, but they vie with each other in excellence. In addition, there are 20 new table grape cultivars, all of an equally high standard, of which at least six qualify to be included on the export list. We have come to a stage now where we can select the best from the best. We are very proud of that achievement. At the same time, the Plant Improvement Organization is also making use of the best material which is available overseas. At the moment, Prof. Strydom of the University of Stellenbosch is evaluating cultivars in America for South African conditions. He is returning at the end of March and we are looking forward with interest to what he will have to report on his return. The idea is to evaluate imported cultivars before they enter South Africa, to ensure that no undesirable cultivars enter which have to be evaluated at a high cost here just to find that they are useless.

For this reason cultivars are now evaluated overseas according to the information available, and when they have been accepted and imported, they are further evaluated here. So you can see what we are aiming at, and this process has already gained momentum. We should like to see plant improvement protected, and I am glad that we have reached this stage with the Bill. I pointed out in a previous speech that the societies concerned had had discussions with the department on behalf of the S.A. Nurserymen’s Association and the Association of Seed Dealers, and that they had all approved of the Bill in its present form. As the hon. previous speaker said, the Opposition had problems with a few of the clauses in the Bill during the Committee Stage. I want to agree with them that there are clauses which are very drastic and which seem at first sight to lay down excessively high requirements. The hon. member for East London City said that I would have to account for my attitude to my association. I want to tell the hon. member that I speak on behalf of my association, too, in adopting the standpoint that I do. Precisely because my association places a very high premium on the integrity of its members, we are prepared to support stringent measures such as this one. I should like to refer to clause 37 again. The hon. members had problems with it and I agree that it is an onerous clause, but can the requirements we lay down for an employer ever be too high? Is it asking too much to expect of him to ensure that the other person’s interests are protected? If I walk into a shop and I buy a penknife, then I see what I buy. If I walk into a nursery and buy a 1 000 peach trees, from which I intend to make a living, at the same time fitting into a broader economic set-up, three or four years pass before I see what I have bought. For this reason we must provide in our legislation for the protection of the producer. This clause will mean that employers will have to exercise strict control, and only strict control will enable us to have success in plant improvement. Only by means of strict control can the best interests of the fruit industry in South Africa be served.

Consequently it is a very great privilege to me to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the two proposals made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will be considered. The hon. member may take it that clause 22, as proposed by him, will be accepted in the Other Place; it will be amended in accordance with his proposal. As far as clause 37 is concerned, there are certain technical problems, as the hon. member for Middelburg has indicated. If one sells a person a yellow cling peach tree and he finds after three years that it is an Early Dawn peach of which he has planted a 1 000 or 2 000 trees, there will be trouble. This is something we have to investigate. I should like to tell the hon. member that we are considering how we may accommodate his proposals. The hon. member for Middelburg is the chairman of the Nurserymen’s Association, and what he says is quite right. I opened the congress of his association and I saw there that they welcomed this legislation. It does not only protect the producer of good plant material, but the buyers, the public, as well. I want to thank the hon. member for his positive contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The provision of and control over slaughtering facilities was the subject of an investigation by a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. F. J. de Villiers during the early sixties. The findings of this commission of inquiry led to the passing, in 1967, of the Abattoir Commission Act. In terms of this Act, an independent body of experts, known as the Abattoir Commission, was established to deal with and exercise control over the abattoir industry, in accordance with a policy determined by the Minister of Agriculture. Under the guidance of this commission, considerable progress has been made over the past decade in creating and modernizing slaughtering facilities to comply with present and future requirements.

However, in recent years there has been a development in the abattoir industry which was not foreseen at the time. Owing in particular to the high cost of providing modern slaughtering facilities, local authorities, who have traditionally provided these services, have increasingly indicated that they are no longer interested in the provision of slaughtering facilities. Although the above-mentioned Act explicitly provided for the taking over of abattoirs by the Abattoir Commission, the intention at the time was that this should serve as a last resort, for preventing the closure of essential public abattoirs, for example, if no one else could be found to manage them. The exception became the rule, and the commission was forced, in the public interest, to take over from local authorities several abattoirs, such as those at Pretoria, Benoni, Springs, Germiston, Durban, Pietermaritzburg and Johannesburg (Newton and Wynberg). However, some of these abattoirs are so obsolete that they are no longer serviceable, and the Abattoir Commission is presently undertaking the erection of new abattoirs for Johannesburg at City Deep and for the Durban/Pieter-maritzburg complex at Cato Ridge.

The result of this development is that the primary function of the Abattoir Commission i.e. to serve as an independent body for controlling and rationalizing the abattoir industry, is being frustrated by its own subjective involvement in the industry. This is creating an embarrassing situation for the commission, particularly when, as the controlling body, it has to determine its own tariff and those of rival abattoirs, for example. As one can understand, the present arrangements are resulting in a conflict of interests for the commission, which is undermining confidence—especially on the part of the producers—in the control exercised over abattoirs by the authorities.

The intention is now to rectify this problem by reorganizing the functions of the Abattoir Commission in the manner set out in the Bill. It is felt that the commission should rather be converted into a State corporation operating on business principles and that it should in future concern itself exclusively with the management and conduct of abattoirs. Consequently the Bill provides in the first place for a South African Abattoir Corporation which will be the legal successor of the commission as far as its assets, liabilities, rights and obligations are concerned. The corporation will also take over the commission’s staff.

The object of the corporation will be to acquire or erect abattoirs in the public interest and to conduct and manage such abattoirs on a utility basis and in an economic, orderly and effective manner. The intention is to subject the acquisition and erection of abattoirs to strict ministerial control, and to do the same in respect of the abattoir tariffs, which will be the corporation’s only source of operating capital. As far as the administration is concerned, the corporation will be as free as possible of external control and will consequently have to operate on a business foundation within limits set by the moderate tariffs. The administration of the corporation will be in the hands of a direction of five members appointed by the Minister, one of whom must be a representative of the Meat Board, and another the representative of the new Abattoir Commission whose function I shall now explain.

As regards the functions of control exercised by the commission, it is proposed that they be vested in the Minister of Agriculture, in accordance with the arrangements already applicable in respect of fresh produce markets. The intention is that the Minister will be assisted in the performance of these functions by an expert advisory body which will not be a juristic person, but will have to fit into the existing sphere of administration of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. This advisory body will be known as the Abattoir Commission and will consist of three to five members who will be appointed by virtue of their expert knowledge concerning the meat and abattoir industries. In order to avoid duplication, the Bill provides for the Meat Board and the proposed corporation to perform certain auxiliary functions for the new Abattoir Commission, such as the provision of technical advice, the conducting of cost investigations at abattoirs, etc., which will make the employment of additional specialized staff by the department unnecessary.

An attempt has been made in drawing up the Bill to simplify control by the Minister and the new Abattoir Commission as far as possible. It is proposed, inter alia that the present system of registration of abattoirs be replaced by a simpler system of operating control over abattoirs. Furthermore, smaller abattoirs are completely exempted from control. In addition, control will be concentrated on certain controlled areas, while outside these areas it will be exercised only in a general sense.

The existing slaughter levy is not being abolished. The intention is to continue the levy and to pay the money into a special account controlled by the Minister. The money in the account will be available for direct utilization on behalf of the abattoir industry, for matters such as rationalization.

In conclusion I should like to point out that all interested parties were consulted in drawing up the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has explained the proposed legislation to us, and I want to tell him right at the outset that this side of the House will support the Second Reading. Before I come to the legislation, however, I should like, on behalf of this side of the House, to place on record our appreciation for the work which has been done by the Abattoir Commission since 1967. We supported the 1967 legislation as well. In fact, it is in consequence of the outstanding work done by the Abattoir Commission since 1967 that its functions and activities have increased to such an extent that the hon. the Minister has had to introduce this legislation today.

The Abattoir Commission was the result of an inquiry conducted by Dr. De Villiers in the early sixties. I believe that the foundation was laid at that time for the rationalization of our slaughtering facilities in South Africa, as well as for the creation of better facilities. It is calculated that in 1960, the Witwatersrand only needed to slaughter just over half a million head of cattle a year. By 1990, according to experts, approximately 1,6 million head of cattle will have to be slaughtered for the Witwatersrand. This means, therefore, that within a period of 30 years after 1960 there will have been a threefold increase in the number of animals slaughtered in that area. For that reason one may take it that slaughtering facilities in South Africa will require more and more attention and that the necessary facilities will continually have to be created.

The hon. the Minister emphasized once again in his Second Reading speech that we would have to improve our slaughtering facilities and that this would be the function of this commission and of this corporation. What is alarming, however, is that where this commission initially believed that that the commission will have to do considerably more even than was envisaged in 1967. One can understand why matters have taken this turn. The erection of abattoirs has become extremely expensive and for that reason local authorities are simply not interested in it any longer. It is too expensive for them. If a service or a facility which used to be available in the past is no longer available, a vacuum arises which has to be filled. There is no argument about that. In this case it is going to be the proposed corporation which will take over the functions of the commission.

Especially if local authorities are not interested—nor do I believe that provincial authorities will be interested—we have no alternative other than a bigger share in this kind of matter for the central Government. The hon. the Minister said in his speech that the smaller abattoirs in South Africa would eventually be excluded from control and that the control would therefore be exercised only in a general sense. Of course, I do not share the hon. the Minister’s optimism in connection with this matter. Looking into the future, I foresee that not only slaughtering facilities in our urban areas, but also those in our rural areas, our production areas, will require more and more attention.

I said in a debate in this hon. House last year that it was impossible as well as unfair towards the transport industry to ask the Railways to make a large number of trucks available for transportation of live animals, and that we should rather create the necessary facilities for slaughtering animals in the production areas themselves. The carcasses can then be conveyed from there to the urban areas, to the consumer. However, I have to express my disappointment again today, just as I did in 1967, about the fact that there is a clause in this legislation, clause 28, which gives the hon. the Minister the right to impose a certain levy on the slaughtering of animals. This has nothing to do with the slaughtering tariffs which he may determine. We have no objection to that, because one cannot expect that if animals are slaughtered, the producer should not be responsible for it. Here a facility is being created, not only for the farmer, but in particular for the consumer in the urban areas. However, who has to pay the cost to the commission? Once again there is only one man who has to pay it; the producer. If he had been the only one who would enjoy the immediate and eventual benefit of it, that would have been in order; then we on this side of the House would have had no objection.

Do you want the consumer to pay?

The hon. member for Carletonville usually has a good memory. He will remember that we said in 1967, nine years ago, that it was a statutory body which was being created by legislation. We said that the commission was going to provide important advice to the Minister and to the co-operations; it was being created by means of legislation and its expenses should be covered from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This argument still holds. When the hon. the Minister introduced it at the time, we wanted to impose a restriction. To a certain extent we succeeded in doing so, but on a later occasion—I think it was in 1973—when he introduced another amendment, he changed the Act in such a way as to enable them to impose any levy in order to pay the expenses of the commission. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is not in my power to do this, because I cannot suggest that it come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Under the rules of the House I am not able to do so. However, I want to tell the hon. gentleman that we are going to vote against clause 28.

There is a request we shall put to him. It lies within his power to move such an amendment and we shall support him whole-heartedly if he will move an amendment to clause 28 to provide that there will be no levy and that the expenses incurred by this commission will be covered by a contribution given by Parliament and derived from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Then it will be equitable, and it will be fair to the producer.

We have been conducting a debate over the past few days about a 50% increase in the transport costs of livestock on the Railways. We have pointed out the the hon. the Minister of Transport that the farmer is already getting a reduced price for his meat in comparison with a year ago, and now he still has to pay an increased transport cost on it. We say to the hon. the Minister that this is another additional burden. This has been the situation over the past nine years—we know this is so—but it is a new principle which was introduced in 1967. The hon. the Minister must bear in mind that the farmer is prepared to do his share and that he will always do what he can to improve his own industry. And this is the way it should be. But here the farmer of South Africa has to pay. If one looks at clause 28 and at the clauses which follow it, as well as at preceding clauses, one sees in clauses 16 and 17, for example, that when an abattoir is closed, the cost involved must be recovered from levies, including the levy imposed on the farmer in terms of clause 28. That is why I say this particular clause is unfair, because we are creating a facility which will benefit the city-dweller, the town-dweller and the consumer as well, and why should we alone be responsible for the cost entailed by this? We are not entitled to add a single thing. From the moment you load your animals on the farm up to the time when you receive your statement of payment, you have to give up anything between 25% and 30% these days in transport costs and levies for the stabilization of the price of your product.

But that is for the benefit of the producer.

Oh yes, I agree with that. I want to say that as a result of the increased railway tariffs of the hon. the Minister of Transport it presently amounts to close on 30%. Why? I say it is unfair.

This is an excellent piece of legislation. We are going to fill an important vacuum and we say that this corporation has to be created, because no one else is interested in providing these facilities. We shall not be prepared—I do not think we shall be prepared—to bear all the costs involved. Consequently we say to the hon. the Minister that this legislation will be and must be successful, but in respect of the clause concerned he must concede to the Opposition that our attitude is not unreasonable.

It is not unreasonable and I am not arguing, but where is the money to come from?

Sir, I find the desperation expressed by the hon. the Minister rather too strange to believe. He says he agrees with us, but he will never get the money. Sir, I do not know then what is becoming of this great fight against inflation in South Africa. Here we all have to co-operate, after all— every sector must play its part—but the hon. gentleman sits back and says that he will not get the money and it is the responsibility of the farmer alone. That is what it amounts to.

There is another point in this legislation that I want to discuss. It may not be a very important point, but in the earlier legislation of 1967, the commission was able, in terms of section 4, to “grant financial assistance for study and research relating to abattoirs”, for example.

†I presume that would be to universities and to Faculties of Agriculture in order to establish bursaries and loans for post-graduate students who would like to further their studies in the direction of promoting the abattoir industry in South Africa. Now, according to the piece of legislation which is before us, there is no such provision. Does the hon. the Minister intend that the Meat Board, for example, should grant facilities in that direction? Why is this particular provision not in the present Bill?

*I should like to have a reply from the hon. gentleman on that point. Sir, I believe that this corporation will eventually play a tremendously important role in South Africa. I foresee the day when the abattoir facilities will be of such a nature that almost every abattoir in South Africa will be an abattoir from which meat may be exported from South Africa. I foresee a time when they will all be able to comply with the standards. Consequently it is the wish of those of us on this side of the House that the corporation may have great success and that we shall have no problems with the availability of slaughtering facilities in South Africa in the future. We support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in one respect I want to agree with the hon. member for Newton Park, and that is that one should express one’s gratitude on this occasion for the good and important work done by the Abattoir Commission since 1967 in respect of abattoir activities in South Africa. The Abattoir Commission worked under very difficult circumstances, more difficult than its task had originally been expected to be, in 1967. The main recommendation of the De Villiers Commission was that the divided control over the abattoir industry in South Africa should be co-ordinated and rationalized. Accordingly, this was the main task of the Abattoir Commission, and now, in terms of clause 2, this will also be the main function of the Abattoir Commission that it will be constituted. For the performance of this function, certain extensive powers are being granted to the Commission according to which abattoirs in South Africa are to be controlled.

One matter which the commission had to contend with had probably not been anticipated, and this was that because of the high standards which abattoirs were required to comply with in terms of another Act which runs parallel to the Abattoir Commission Act, namely the Animal Slaughter and Hygiene Act, and Act which required abattoirs to comply with extremely exacting health requirements, the management of abattoirs had become extremely expensive. The hon. member also mentioned this. The standards were so high that the situation developed where most municipalities did not see their way clear to managing them any longer. It had become too enormous an undertaking. By means of the Abattoir Commission the Government exercised control so that the profits which abattoirs could make were limited. The result was that many of the large abattoirs— eight of them in our most important urban areas—were transferred to the Abattoir Commission. It had to take over these institutions at great capital expense and manage them itself.

The problem arose that while the Abattoir Commission had to advise the Minister on the Abattoir industry in South Africa, the tremendous rate of a take-over caused it to become subjective instead of objective towards the abattoir industry. Therefore, this legislation provides for a division to take place between the control function and the operating function. The control function is transferred to the Abattoir Commission while the operating function is transferred to a public corporation, the Abattoir Corporation.

However, during the nine years yet another problem developed. In spite of the findings of the De Villiers Commission that abattoirs should be run by the local authorities as had traditionally been the case, we provided in our abattoir policy after 1967 that private initiative in the form of large meat enterprises could also enter the industry. Even they, after they had applied to build abattoirs and had been granted permission to do so, were reluctant because of the enormous capital requirements, and even they did not get round to building abattoirs. Therefore I want to predict that the abattoir industry in South Africa will be controlled, managed and conducted mainly by the Abattoir Corporation.

The hon. member for Newton Park objected to clause 28. This concerns the co-ordination of the various parties involved in the abattoir industry. The first is the Meat Board, the second is the corporation and in the third place there are the producers. Clauses 34 and 47 of the Bill co-ordinate the various parties. The Abattoir Commission cannot continue its control function if it does not receive its statistics, its figures and its information from the Meat Board and from the corporation. For that reason clause 34 specifically makes provision for the Minister to be able to obtain statistics and information by means of these organizations so that he can in accordance with the statistics and costs surveys determine the slaughtering levy. The corporation’s board of directors, as hon. members will notice in clause 47, must include a member of the Meat Board and a member of the Abattoir Commission. Therefore, there will be good co-ordination. This naturally means that the producer will obtain representation on the Abattoir Commission by way of the Abattoir Corporation. One could regard this as a kind of indirect say which the producer is obtaining.

I now come to clause 28, which deals with the levy. It is not possible to cover certain operating costs if one does not impose a levy upon a unit. The unit which must be used is the animal in the abattoir. When it is slaughtered, a levy must be imposed upon it. This is the unit which one must use, and this unit is supplied by the producer, be it an ox, a sheep or a pig. The meat scheme provides that there must be a floor price. Therefore, the levy which is to be imposed upon the slaughtering of the animal is in fact a part of the farmer’s expenses. When one comes to determining meat prices, or to a floor price as provided for by the scheme, then one must necessarily take slaughtering costs into consideration, because they are part of his expenses. In this way the determination of a floor price protects the farmer against increased slaughtering costs. The purpose of a floor price is simply to prevent meat producers from producing meat uneconomically. If one makes provision for this in the floor price, then this necessarily means involving the consumer. In the process the meat becomes more expensive after all, and therefore the consumer is affected in some way or another. This is a service which is rendered, and in this way everybody must contribute to it. Therefore I do not quite agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that the whole burden is being laid upon the farmer. He already enjoys a reasonable amount of protection, and the provisions of the legislation will enable him to protect himself.

Another matter which I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members is the fact that the Bill provides for only certain areas to be placed under control. Provision is made for certain areas to be proclaimed. Therefore, most rural areas are excluded from control. I should like to ask the hon. Minister whether this would necessarily mean that the proclaimed abattoir area would not be the same area as that of the scheme of the Meat Board. The position is that in many of the adjacent urban areas tremendous growth and development are taking place. In such cases, too, abattoir co-ordination and control is of the greatest importance. We experience a tremendous number of problems in rural areas and towns. Hon. members know to what extent our local authorities compete with one another and for this reason there is never any co-ordination, and at times there is duplication as well, which leads to enormously high slaughtering costs. I think the hon. the Minister should look at these rural or semi-urban areas to see whether he cannot make this applicable there as well. In doing so, one would be able to effect co-ordination there as well. If necessary one could move in the direction of regional abattoirs. We support this legislation because it is a great improvement on the old Act, especially in view of the fact that the present Abattoir Commission, under the present circumstances, cannot perform its functions properly. This new legislation was very essential for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased with this Bill which is under discussion. It has been drafted along the lines which I have been mooting over the years, as some hon. members in this House will recall. This subject of abattoirs is something which has come under the searchlight from time to time over many years. As has already been said, the Abattoir Commission was appointed in 1967. Our problem has always been the siting and the standard of abattoirs in South Africa. One knows full well that it is a very costly business. I have always believed that the real secret of success in the meat industry is to be able to conserve the meat in the flush seasons and then to distribute it economically in the lean seasons. I should like to remind the hon. House what I said about this very subject in 1971. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 33, col. 5622 where I said the following—

Then I went on in column 5623 to say—

Decentralization is therefore something which I myself and others on this side of the House have been mooting over the years. As I mentioned, what is important—and I think it is something on which we shall have to concentrate in the years to come—is the strategic position of abattoirs, whether they be sited centrally or at other vantage points. I have already mentioned in the past that a place such as Upington could be a vantage point to decentralize too. Places like De Aar and Berlin in the Eastern Cape as well as a larger city like Bloemfontein in the Free State could also be considered.

What about Windhoek?

Yes, Windhoek too. All such strategically situated places can be considered. The standard of refrigeration trucks of the S.A. Railways is important too in order to make this a successful exercise. What has been our problem over the years is the financing of abattoirs. We know that agriculturists have come down to Cape Town during sessions to ask about establishing private abattoirs for example at Upington. De Aar has been suggested by others, but the problem has always been how to finance these schemes. Now we see in chapter 2 on page 37 of the Bill something which is very close to the answer, namely the establishment of a corporation which will manage and finance these projects. This is the answer we have been looking for and I believe it is something which all of us in South Africa, the producers, the butchers and the consumers, will be very pleased about.

The terms of reference of the Abattoir Corporation which is suggested here are very wide. They give the hon. the Minister wide powers and I personally welcome this. It is something we must be able to control completely all the time, and there must be a person to whom the corporation is responsible, and nobody is more suitable than the hon. the Minister himself. The corporation will of course be responsible for the control over all matters in connection with abattoirs. Here I have a problem. A commission is being established in terms of clause 2. It is a commission which will act in an advisory capacity, as an advisory board. I believe we should not have too many boards advising the hon. the Minister. I fail to see the object of the commission acting as an advisory board. I should prefer to see the Meat Board act in an advisory capacity. The members of the Meat Board are there, and if we do not have confidence in them, then we should put people there in whom we have confidence. I believe they are quite capable and should be capable of advising the hon. the Minister at all times. We should not have this other advisory board arising from the commission. After all, we have the Dairy Control Board which is a good body doing good work. We also have the Wheat Control Board. Why ehould we not have the Meat Control Board acting in the same manner?

It is accepted that a very high standard of abattoir is required in South Africa. Here too we have always met with problems from the local authorities. We now come back to the argument of the levy. Local authorities have always in the past levied the producer on every animal which had entered that particular area or that particular abattoir. There are other incidental expenses such as municipal fees, etc. A levy has always been raised from the producer. When it comes to the financing of abattoirs, I know many of our smaller villages have found it impossible to finance abattoirs to the standard required. Even in my own constituency of East London North, we have an abattoir which is well below the standard required, especially for export. If we have to start improving it, we know what it will cost the ratepayers of East London North. It is humanly impossible for those people to improve the standard of that abattoir and to pay increased rates today. My hon. colleague from Newton Park has mentioned clause 28, dealing with the levy. This is a problem. I agree with what he said and I support his suggestion, but on the other hand I must agree with much of what the hon. member for Bethal has said. He has a good point, and it is something we shall have to discuss in the Committee stage.

Statistics from the South African Agricultural Union reveal that the agricultural industry as such has only enjoyed a net profit throughout the country of 2½% to 3%. These are reports of recent years we have seen. I want to know what commercial institutions and what industries in South Africa would be prepared to function on a net income of 2½% to 3%. It is only the agricultural industry which has to be prepared to run at such a small net income. The tariffs raised in the recent Railway budget are going to create a problem under clause 28, which deals with levies. However, what I do like about the Bill is that it will certainly guarantee more stability in the industry. Stability, and more stability, is what the farming industry needs. Stability is what the butchers need, and stability in the meat industry is also what the consumers require very urgently. I am very happy that we on this side of the House can support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply very briefly to what the hon. member for East London North said. He had certain reservations about the function which the Abattoir Commission will have to fulfil in terms of this measure. However, I do not know whether the Marketing Act, as it reads at present, makes at all adequate provision for empowering the Meat Board to exercise a controlling function over abattoirs as well. I do not think it is possible. If the hon. member were to read the De Villiers report of 1967, he would see in that report that it was strongly recommended, after all the parties had been consulted, that the controlling function over abattoirs should be removed from the Meat Board and conferred on the Abattoir Commission. I think the hon. member will concede that the Meat Board in fact has a marketing function only and in this respect only exercises control in controlled spheres. In other words, it operates in a very limited sphere, for it may only exercise its marketing function in controlled areas. If one were now to confer the proposed powers of the Abattoir Commission in the measure before us on the Meat Control Board, problems would crop Up since it is being intended to make the operational area of the commission far wider than only the controlled areas. We also know that we shall experience problems in respect of South West Africa, because the Meat Board does not operate in South West Africa either. These are the few problems which I foresee.

It is very interesting to read the conclusions and recommendations of the De Villiers Commission of 1967. In the short space of nine years since, the entire set-up of the abattoirs has changed. In the De Villiers Report, as the hon. member for Bethal has already stated, there was a very strong recommendation that abattoirs should fall under municipalities exclusively. But during the past few years in particular we have seen the set-up of the abattoirs and the costs involved changing to such an extent that local authorities, with the limited tax resources at their disposal, and the limited possibility to obtain capital, were unable to manage abattoirs on their own. At various places the Abattoir Commission had to intervene and take over abattoirs when they were threatened with a close down. The costs connected with the control of abattoirs have risen tremendously, especially as a result of the fact that many of these abattoirs had to qualify for export. Because export regulations are very strict, it was in some respects impossible for local authorities to comply with all the regulations.

The hon. member for Bethal, for example, also referred to the health regulations. Because of the inability of local authorities, matters took such a turn that the Abattoir Commission had to take over various abattoirs which were being threatened with a close-down. Should the latest negotiations succeed there will soon be only one abattoir which still falls under a local authority, and that is the Cape Town abattoir. Therefore, one can see how matters have taken a completely different turn in the short space of four years. Whereas the Abattoir Commission, in the initial stages, only had a controlling, co-ordinating and rationalizing function, matters have changed radically during the past few years and an operational function has been added. With the building of the City Deep abattoir in Johannesburg and the proposed Cato Ridge abattoir at Pietermaritzburg, the matter has assumed such tremendous proportions and such an enormous capital amount is involved that even the operational function has become very difficult for the commission to carry out. Particularly in recent times serious misgivings have been expressed in certain quarters concerning the activities of the Abattoir Commission, as a result of certain circumstances already mentioned by previous speakers, primarily because of its subjective and physical involvement in the industry of course. However, I must say at once that this criticism and these misgivings are to my mind quite unjustified and unfounded. I want to associate myself with previous speakers and say that to my mind the members of this Abattoir Commission deserve the gratitude of every person involved in the meat industry in this country. I think it is of cardinal importance that we realize that slaughtering facilities in the meat industry could have become chaotic had it not been for steps taken by the Abattoir Commission. For that reason I think they really deserve the gratitude of everyone involved in the meat industry in South Africa.

To my mind the measure before us is for the most part aimed at eliminating the prejudice and misgivings I mentioned and at transferring the complete conduct of abattoirs to a State corporation which will operate strictly in accordance with business principles. The controlling function will of course be accordingly entrusted the proposed Abattoir Commission, a body which will provide the hon. the Minister with the necessary advice, since this function will now be transferred in its entirety to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I am also pleased that there will be proper liaison since a member of the Meat Board as well as a member of the proposed commission will serve on the Abattoir Commission.

However, I should like to go a little further and look into the future as far as the effect of this Bill is concerned. While it is now possible for the State President to proclaim a certain area, I think it is necessary that one should give very serious consideration, especially as regards the costs for the industry, to the immediate proclamation of areas where growth points are developing in our country—I am thinking for example of the enormous development which is going to take place at Saldanha—the establishment there of one abattoir which would serve the whole area instead of a few small abattoirs, which would of necessity cause the costs of such an undertaking to soar. I think it will be necessary for the Abattoir Commission to keep the hon. the Minister constantly informed of developments in this regard and that we will be able to render a much better service to the industry with a large regional abattoir than with a number of smaller local abattoirs. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister as far as this aspect is concerned, to instruct this commission from the outset to make an immediate survey and to ensure that where such growth points develop or developments of this kind take place, they should advise him immediately in respect of the proclamation of certain areas.

I would like to associate myself with what the hon. member for East London North said about abattoirs in production areas. I did not have the time during the Railway debate which has just been concluded to discuss this matter a little further. It is a fact that we have over the years tried on the level of Organized agriculture to make slaughtering in production areas possible, but there have been certain factors which prevented this. It is an unfortunate fact that the abattoirs at Cato Ridge and at City Deep are going to give rise to enormous costs which will have to be met. Nevertheless I think that as soon as this new legislation is promulgated, the hon. the Minister should instruct the commission to consider, in conjunction with the South African Agricultural Union and the Railways, the possibility of slaughtering in production areas and that one could select certain areas in the small stock areas and in the large stock areas in which to establish such abattoirs. I think such a discussion could take place to very good effect and an investigation could be directed in which all aspects were taken into consideration, including the fact that the abattoirs at City Deep and Cato Ridge have already been built. I think the future of this industry should be investigated. I think this could be done to good effect, especially in view of the fact that transport costs are escalating and that one should make every effort to try and reduce these costs.

I should like to join the ranks of the other hon. members who welcomed this legislation. I think it will be to the great advantage of the industry. We would very much like to assist the hon. the Minister in making a success of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said, inter alia, that the object of this legislation was to place all abattoirs under the control of the corporation. In my opinion the object, as defined in the Bill, is not in accordance with what the hon. member said.

The hon. the Minister has once again come forward with excellent legislation. It strikes one that he has come forward in this House with several good Bills this session. I should like to say that there are certain factors which are very important in this discussion. The first is that the production of meat cannot keep abreast of the rapid increase in the population in South Africa. Indeed, this is a phenomenon one finds throughout the world. The per capita consumption of meat is dropping. At the same time the cost of meat to the consumer keeps on rising. For that reason this Bill is very important. One accepts the object of the legislation is to make the industry as a whole more efficient and in this way to ensure better prices for the producer and to keep the consumer price under control so that it does not rise too rapidly. If we want to examine the Bill, we must do that on this basis.

I should like to comment on certain clauses. I shall commence with clause 16(1), which deals with the closure of abattoirs. Subsection (1) provides that if the Minister is of the opinion, after consultation with the commission, that the closure of an abattoir is in the general interest, a particular abattoir may be closed. I think this provision has been phrased in very wide terms. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not want to give this House further information about the circumstances under which it may be deemed advisable to close an abattoir.

In clause 17(2) we read—

Once again I think that this has been put too widely and may create the impression that the Government deems it advisable to close a particular abattoir, the owner of such an abattoir will not receive his right of compensation for the closure of the abattoir. I think that it is important that the hon. the Minister set the minds of all abattoir operators and owners at rest that any compensation will cover the costs and damage which they will suffer as a result of that closure.

Clause 21(4) provides that no person shall demand a lower tariff than the tariff fixed by the Minister. One can see the sense in the Minister laying down that an operator or owner of an abattoir should not simply be able to demand higher tariffs. But in the case where an operator of an abattoir finds it possible to demand lower tariffs as a result of more efficient management, surely this would promote the anti-inflation campaign and then one cannot understand why the hon. the Minister finds it necessary to prohibit an abattoir operator or owner by legislation from demanding a lower tariff if it is within his power to do so. The operator may find that he is able to demand a lower tariff due to the more efficient management of an abattoir. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this particular provision so as to afford the operators of abattoirs the opportunity to demand lower tariffs if they wish to and in this way to make meat available to the public at lower prices.

In clause 22(3) provision is made for orders which may be issued to operators or owners and no mention is made of a time limit for giving effect to the directives embodied in the order. It is felt that when an order is issued to an operator or to the owner of an abattoir, it would most likely be very difficult for him to react immediately to the directives embodied in that order and that it would be reasonable if the Minister made provision for a reasonable time limit in this provision.

Clause 27(6) provides—

When inquiries of this type take place, it is, in my opinion in the public interest, in the interest of the consumer, of the producer and of all the people and bodies who are concerned, for them to be able to attend such an inquiry. I feel that the attendance of inquiries of that nature should be open to the public as a whole. The impression should not be created that there is anything secretive in connection with these inquiries—in other words the impression must be created that the public is welcome to attend inquiries of that nature.

In clause 38(1) mention is made of “Purporting to be an affidavit”, a writing purporting to be an affidavit. This is an expression which often occurs in the legislation which has been before this House this year, and I should like to ask why it cannot simply be described as an affidavit. After all, an affidavit is a writing upon oath made before a commissioner of oaths to be generally accepted by all courts and investigating officials and I do not think that it is necessary or that there is any reason to refer to it as “purporting” to be an affidavit, or to describe this writing in this manner. Why cannot the legislation simply refer to an “affidavit”? After all, it is a document which is clearly defined and acceptable in legal process.

In clause 39(1) the onus—and this, too, is something which has appeared in several other pieces of legislations—is placed upon the employer, in respect of offences by his staff, to prove that he is innocent. In other words, in terms of this provision an employer or owner is automatically deemed to be guilty and the onus rests on that employer to prove that he is not guilty. This is something with which we cannot agree. It is in conflict with basic principles and therefore we believe that it does not belong in legislation of this type.

Finally I want to refer to clause 72. Here, once again, we have something which has also appeared in other legislation recently introduced in this House. It is provided in this clause that the department’s officials are not liable in respect of anything done in good faith by any member of the department or in terms of the provisions of the Act, in other words that in spite of the damage which an owner of an abattoir or any other body or person concerned may suffer in consequence of action taken by officials of the State, the Government does not hold itself liable in that regard. The Government indemnifies itself merely on the standpoint that such action was taken in good faith and in terms of the provisions of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, subject to the comments which have been made, I should just like to tell the hon. the Minister that we will support the Second Reading of this Bill, provided that the hon. the Minister will give satisfactory answers to the representations we have made in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the previous speakers on both sides. What strikes one particularly is the great sense of peace which prevails here. In point of fact, I want to say that a great peace has “broken out”. This makes one think involuntarily of the peace of Hohaganas in South West Africa in the year 1858, when all the peoples met and signed a peace treaty. The first clause of the peace treaty—it was drawn up in High Dutch—provided that the people that was attacked did not have the right to defend itself. While they were celebrating, Jonker Afrikaner attacked the Ovambos, robbed, plundered and murdered them. Therefore I want to warn the hon. the Minister that he should be careful, because while we are celebrating here, an attack may be planned against him. We remain sceptical. Nevertheless, it is pleasant to discuss the common problem of the agricultural industry in such a calm atmosphere as this.

When one looks at the Bill which is before us, it is necessary first of all to look at the old dispensation. We see that the Abattoir Act, Act No. 86 of 1967, which is now to be repealed, provides for the functions of the Abattoir Commission, functions which, as we have already said, are mainly of a regulating nature. The modernization of abattoirs at high cost, especially to comply with high hygienic standards which were laid down, as well as mechanization at high and ever rising costs, made it possible for fewer bodies to meet requirements and therefore fewer bodies were prepared to modernize or to mechanize. Economic factors were therefore responsible, in the first instance, for the Abattoir Commission becoming deeply involved in the operating function. So there was necessarily a conflict of functions. Whereas it used to be objective, it has now become subjective. The new Bill seeks to rectify this and the functions are very clearly outlined; I am particularly thankful that control is being reduced.

Section 13(1) of Act 86 of 1973 provides that no animal may be slaughtered at any place, other than a registered abattoir. The implementation of section 13 presented major problems to the municipalities in the smaller rural towns. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet referred to controlled abattoirs. If one looks at the smaller abattoirs throughout the country, one finds that on a percentage basis, local authorities still are the largest owners or operators of abattoirs. Modernization is an expensive process and consequently the small municipalities have been unable to embark thereon. The fact that urban municipalities either have had to throw in the towel or close their establishments and hand them over to the Abattoir Commission is in my opinion sufficient proof of that fact. In terms of clause 35 of the Bill the Minister may now make different regulations in respect of different classes of abattoirs. The Act piloted through this Parliament a year ago, had far-reaching effects for municipalities. In the year when the great slaughter took place in the ranks of the United Party here, the Act also imposed a prohibition on the cutting of sheep’s throats. Section 42 provides that certain abattoirs may be exempted from control altogether, as was stated here by the hon. the Minister this afternoon. The spirit of this new legislation is therefore clearly aimed at control in the larger centres where hygienic standards must be high and where control is essential. This is where livestock is slaughtered by the thousand. If one takes note of the conditions which prevailed at Maitland in earlier years one never wants to see a repetition of those conditions. This must definitely also bring relief for smaller places, where stricter control has resulted in an unbearable burden.

Because of the low turnover, often one unit per animal, it was impossible for these small municipalities to modernize and because of the small turnover the Abattoir Commission will not be interested in taking over such an establishment either. The result was that those abattoirs simply had to close, as again happened quite recently in the Cape Province, with the detrimental effects which this has. The retailer must now acquire his own vehicle which complies with the regulations and because of the small turnover he will not be able to recover those costs. The only alternative is that the retail business will have to close, and if this should happen the man who possesses a vehicle may fetch his meat elsewhere. But what about the large section of our population who do not have their own transport? That is why I welcome the spirit of this Bill, that is, that strict control will be exercised and that the smaller municipalities will be exempted from control. This does not imply that unhygienic standards will be allowed. The Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act lays down very clearly the conditions under which an animal is to be slaughtered. Even where this Act does not apply or is not made applicable the local health regulations are sufficient to ensure hygienic conditions. Municipalities have improved their own regulations over the years and have made them more strict, because they have had to take into account the so-called bush butcher whose activities have had to be curbed in order to obtain the small income from slaughtering for a local authority which is struggling as it is. Since we are discussing the Hygiene Act, I should like to point out to the Minister that it may be useful for him to look at this Act. New, modern installations are required, but do they work? If we look at the immensely high standards and if we look at the freedom given to architects and builders to draw up the most expensive plans, only the best imported materials are good enough …

I am not arguing with you.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister says that he is not arguing with me because I do not want to argue with him in the least. I really feel like asking that the hon. the Minister become the Minister of Transport too.

And the Minister of Finance too.

Yes, and the Minister of Finance too. I have referred to the fact that the local authorities have a major interest in the matter. According to information at my disposal, the United Municipal Executive of South Africa has decided, in consequence of representations made to it and in consequence of the numerous problems experienced with the building, management and operation of abattoirs to appoint a study group to inquire into the conflicting requirements set by various State departments and to publish a handbook which will be applicable to all municipalities. Because the local authorities have such a major interest in this matter and because a study group has already been appointed and will begin sitting on 15 March 1976, I want to ask the hon. the Minister when the study group has completed its work and the report has been published, to look at that report as well and if there are any positive proposals, to consider making them applicable by legislation at a later opportunity.

The hon. member for Newton Park waxed lyrical about the so-called levy. It is well and good his pleading here for the interest of the farmer, but I should like to read out a single sentence from the report of the Abattoir Commission—

It goes on to mention that the maximum levy for which provision was made in that year, was six cents per head for cattle, horses, mules and donkeys. For pigs it was 1,5 cents and for calves 3 cents per head. In 1973 the hon. the Minister introduced an amendment in Parliament and they were granted an increase. If we now speak of a levy of 10 cents per head, then I want to …

Now the sky is the limit.

I agree with that, but if we look at the original Act, it is not laid down in the Act either, but I have the greatest confidence that the Minister will ensure that nobody is exploited. I agree that we should see to the interests of the farmer, for example the interests of the farmer in South West Africa who market an average of 200 cattle per year. To him it means R20 per year. Increased railage and bus tariffs amount to R11 per animal for that farmer. Therefore railage alone is increased by R2 200 on 200 animals per year. I should rather associate myself with the hon. member for Bethal and ask for regional abattoirs. We have the abattoirs, the facilities in South West Africa, namely in Windhoek, Otavi and Okahandja. The only thing the hon. the Minister has to do, is to apply the powers conferred on him by the legislation and declare those areas controlled areas, so that the floor price may be made applicable there too. It will assist us a great deal, and I trust that the hon. member for Newton Park will see his way clear to support us in this.

I have no objection.

I have no objection if it is possible to abolish that levy, but our concern is really not the small amount.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister for the insight shown by him with this Bill, and we trust that he will continue to look after the interests of the farmer in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Omaruru dealt with the question of control which this Bill seeks to introduce. He also mentioned in passing the question of mechanization. I rise mainly in connection with clause 31 and to put forward to the hon. the Minister for his attention a suggestion which will make for the smoother working of this particular clause. I raise this during the Second Reading of the Bill in order to give the hon. the Minister ample opportunity to consider an amendment which I wish to propose during the Committee Stage in relation to this clause, the clause which deals with inspectors. The amendment which I will pass on to the hon. the Minister in due course, will make for the smoother administration of this particular provision, particularly in regard to the functioning of the inspectors. As the clause stands at present, it lays down that inspectors shall on demand present their certificates of authority. It is desirable for the inspector to be required to exhibit his certificate of authority prior to conducting an inspection on the people involved in the administration of this particular measure. If my amendment is embodied in the Bill it will make for the smoother working of this measure and for a better relationship with the people being affected and will also protect the owners and those involved in abattoirs against any likelihood of their being inspected by bogus inspectors.

As in the Plant Improvement Bill?

Similar to the Plant Improvement Bill, yes. I understand from the hon. the Minister that he is prepared to accept the principle of such an amendment and I will be moving it in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, there is one problem which arises when all of us agree on a Bill. Then we usually start talking so much that eventually we might start disagreeing again. I should like to start by referring briefly to the general objection which has been raised by the Progressive Party with regard to clause 39 of the Bill. They raised a similar objection to the Plant Improvement Bill. Their objection is that an employer can be held criminally responsible under certain circumstances for offences committed by his employees.

As far as both Bills are concerned, I have done some looking up and I have found that clause 39 of this Bill is exactly the same as section 55 of Act No. 86 of 1967—the present Act. I have also tried to see whether this particular clause or the section of the Act caused any practical problems in the past, and I have been unable to find any verdict of a court in which a final ruling was given about the application of this section of the Act.

Therefore I can come to two conclusions, i.e. that this section has caused no problem in the past with regard to the application of the Act and, in the second place, that the deterrent value of this section has been so effective that employers are careful to ensure that their employees do not contravene the provisions of the Act. Furthermore, clause 39 does not create a general responsibility on the part of the employer with regard to the actions of his employees.

This Bill creates specific offences, which are closely related to the provisions of the Act, and offences in respect of Acts or omissions which fall under or should fall under the intimate knowledge of an employer. With a view to the strict enforcement of this legislation it is necessary that employers be held responsible for the actions of their employees in any case, except if they can escape from that responsibility in terms of the provision which is made.

I should also like to refer briefly to the objection raised by the hon. member for Bryanston to the provision in clause 21, in terms of which the owner of an abattoir is prohibited from asking lower tariffs than those which have been fixed by the Minister. There is a good reason for that. If the hon. member for Bryanston has read the clause properly— and I assume that he has—he will have seen that the Minister may fix tariffs on the recommendation of the Commission or on application by the owner. Tariffs may therefore differ from abattoir to abattoir. What possible reason could there be then for the owner of an abattoir to fix lower tariffs than those the Minister has fixed on his application or recommendation? That could only happen in cases where the owner of an abattoir gives preference to certain clients to the detriment of other clients. Therefore I believe it is necessary to oblige the owner of an abattoir to impose the same tariff on all his clients—in this case, the tariff as fixed by the Minister. If the owner wishes to impose a lower tariff, however, he has the right to approach the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and to consult him about the proposed lowering of tariffs. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister would not refuse any reasonable request.

Another important aspect of this legislation is the possible erection of regional abattoirs. It is a very important aspect of this legislation, especially where we are dealing with areas which may develop in future. Here I should like to refer in particular to the tremendous development which is at hand in the south-eastern Transvaal. I believe the new corporation will have to be careful to ensure that mistakes made in the past are not repeated if a regional abattoir were to be erected somewhere in the south-eastern Transvaal.

The idea of a central regional abattoir sounds attractive, but the transport costs to a central abattoir will have to be kept in mind, especially in that particular region of the south-eastern Transvaal where most types of small as well as large stock are locally available to the consumer. A regional abattoir, which would replace local abattoirs, could therefore create extra transport costs and other costs.

Finally, I should like to refer briefly to the provisions with regard to the closure of an abattoir. I am referring in particular to the provisions of clause 18(1), in terms of which a local authority is prohibited from closing down an abattoir, unless it has given to the Minister a written notice in the prescribed form at least 180 days before the date on which it wishes to close down the abattoir concerned. As far as I know, quite large private abattoirs still exist throughout the country. I refer in particular to the abattoirs at Vereeniging and at Balfour. In my opinion, this particular clause should perhaps refer to the closure of an abattoir, not only by a local authority, but by any owner of an abattoir.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that it is necessary to reply to what the hon. member for Barberton has just said. He has said nothing contentious and nothing with which we cannot agree. I shall deal with the hon. member for Bryanston in the Committee Stage on the particular matters that he raised. However, I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister very briefly the whole question of why and how this Bill has been introduced in this particular fashion. We have at the moment an Act which provides for an Abattoir Commission with a dual function; control, over the erection of abattoirs and physical control and management of abattoirs. In this Bill we are now being asked to separate those two functions. So far so good. We can agree with that entirely. I believe the establishment of the Abattoir Corporation is a step forward in the direction of taking over the actual physical control and powers of the commission as it stands at the moment, followed by the establishment of a commission to handle the other control measures.

Mr. Speaker, that would have been all right, but now we find that there is a radical departure from that in this particular Bill. The departure is this: In terms of the Abattoir Commission Act, the Abattoir Commission has certain powers. In terms of the Act as it stands today, the commission has the power to register abattoirs, to erect abattoirs, to alter abattoirs and to prohibit the erection of abattoirs. All those powers are vested in the commission, but now we find in this Bill that the Minister takes those powers unto himself. No longer are those powers vested in the commission, with the consent of the Minister, but now the Minister takes the power to act after consultation with the commission. This happens in every case. Unfortunately time does not allow me to detail them. In other words, the commission, instead of being a body, as it is at the moment, with the power to control, the power to do everything, the commission now becomes solely and simply an advisory body.

It is simply there to advise the Minister and when the Minister requires any information or requires to do anything he may act after having consulted with that commission. Now I do not know whether there is any real reason why this has happened. I must say that I personally am not altogether happy with the situation. I want to mention one particular aspect, and that is that I believe the hon. the Minister is laying himself open to a lot of vilification and a lot of trouble by taking for instance the powers he is taking in clause 10 to allow or to disallow the erection of an abattoir in a proclaimed area. He is making himself the Lord Pooh Bah by saying it is solely, wholly and completely his responsibility, with no reference to anybody else. He is not even making provision for an appeal from his decision. I believe that this leaves the hon. the Minister wide open to the most terrible criticism and I do not believe that that really is what he should be doing or that it is really what he wants to do. The only appeal that can lie against a decision of the hon. the Minister, if this Bill is accepted in its present form, will be to the courts on the grounds either of mala fides, which is an extremely difficult thing to prove, and I do not believe that this hon. Minister would ever act mala fide anyway, or on the point that the Minister failed to apply his mind to the Act. Once again, I do not believe that these are the only grounds on which an appeal should be allowed. In terms of our agricultural legislation at the moment control boards make decisions and those decisions are appealable to the hon. the Minister. I believe that some such similar system should be introduced here and that the Minister should not take upon himself the sole right to decide, without there being any right of appeal.

We then come to the question of the commission which is to be appointed, of three to five members. Again the hon. the Minister takes upon himself the whole right and responsibility of appointing these people without consulting with anybody, without acknowledging anybody. Like my friend from Newton Park, I believe that the S.A. Agricultural Union at least should be acknowledged in the Act. I know the hon. the Minister will tell me that he will consult with them and that he will consult with the Meat Board, but I believe that they should be acknowledged here in the Bill and that he should bring an amendment to the Bill allowing him to acknowledge those people and to consult with them and to appoint the people whom the Agricultural Union feels should be appointed to this particular commission.

I have another problem with this Bill. The Minister is introducing into this a concept of proclaimed areas; he is going to proclaim certain areas where the provisions of this Bill will apply. He takes in clause 10 the power to control the erection of an abattoir in a proclaimed area. The first question which arises is this. Is it his intention to proclaim the whole of the Republic or will it be only certain areas? If it is to be only certain areas, will there be no control over the erection of abattoirs in the unproclaimed areas? I think the hon. the Minister sees my point. There is no provision anywhere in the Bill for the control of the erection of abattoirs in unproclaimed areas. Similarly there is no provision in this Bill whatsoever for the registration of abattoirs. There is no provision for the registration of existing abattoirs. They should all be registered under the Act as it stands now, but there is no provision for the continuation of the registration under this Bill. If I read this Bill correctly, the hon. the Minister will exercise all these powers in these proclaimed areas, and the next question is this. What is going to happen in the unproclaimed areas, or outside the proclaimed areas.

They can build if they want to.

He intends having no control at all?

In certain areas.

Therefore, outside the proclaimed areas there will be no control at all. In other words, this is a marked departure from the present policy, where there is supervision over all abattoirs in all areas, because in future there will not be control over all of them.

Now I come to clause 28 and the question of the application of levies. Levies will be applied in terms of clause 28 to all abattoirs inside and outside the proclaimed areas. Now, if this Bill applies only in the proclaimed areas, then he cannot apply this section to abattoirs outside the proclaimed areas. He must have a look at that as a well. There is another question, viz. that in terms of section 13 of the present Act, there is a prohibition on the slaughtering of animals. It says that no person shall slaughter any animal or perform any service or permit any animal to be slaughtered for any service to be performed at any place other than a registered abattoir. That prohibition is not included in the new Bill. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell us why it is that there is no longer any prohibition on the slaughtering of animals? Sir, if that provision is not included I do not know of any other provision in any other Act which prohibits the slaughtering of an animal at some other place. The Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act does so to a certain extent, but I do not think it fully answers the questions I have raised. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will have a look at that as well.

When we come to the Abattoir Corporation, we find that this will take over most of the powers of the existing commission. There is one danger that I want to point out to the hon. the Minister and that is the danger which comes from monopolies and the danger which comes from a large corporation being the only body performing a particular service. Firstly one finds monopolistic tendencies, and secondly inefficiency can creep in. As long as we can continue to maintain in the application of this Act a measure of participation by private enterprise, whether that private enterprise is by individuals or companies or whether it is by way of a local authority, I believe that this will be a healthy sign. I believe it is important that the hon. the Minister should in the application of this Act see to it that private enterprise is maintained in the industry in the interests of the industry as a whole.

With those few words, Sir, I must endorse what my friend, the hon. member for Newton Park, has said, viz. that we will support this Bill, but I would like to have answers from the hon. the Minister on these matters.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park disappointed me greatly this afternoon. Over the past few years he gave me the impression that as far as he was concerned, we did not play politics in agriculture, and I believed him. When we had to determine the prices of agricultural products and I asked him whether he was satisfied with an increase of 3c a litre in the price of milk, for example, he said:“You are the Minister.” He never gave me the impression of being concerned about the producer only; he gave me the impression of wanting to maintain the balance, just as I do, and of believing that we should take the producer and the consumer along with us.

That is so.

Now the hon. member rises and says that he supports this Bill, but because of certain things in respect of which he brought me under a false impression, he says they are going to vote against clause 28. For what purpose? Let him tell me that honestly. Is it to go outside and to tell the farmers that they voted in Parliament? They were not prepared, in respect of the tariff increase of 50% on livestock in the Railways budget, to move an amendment and then to tell the farmers that they voted against the 50% tariff increase. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member says he cannot introduce an amendment because it is concerned with a levy, but he is going to vote against clause 28. He is doing it so that he can tell the farmers that this Government is imposing that levy on the farmer and not on the consumer. That is what he wants to tell them. It is the most adroit piece of political manoeuvring we have had from that hon. member, and they are going to vote, Sir. I am convinced of that, but then he will have to be consistent in that attitude of his throughout the rest of this session. In the course of this session he is going to confront me about the increase in the price of certain agricultural products. He has never supported me in the past, but now he will have to be consistent all the way through, in respect of each of these increases that are going to come. Sir, when we introduced the legislation in connection with the marketing of fresh produce, there was a clause in terms of which the Minister, in consultation with the municipality, could determine the levy or the tax to be paid by the farmer on a bag of cabbages or a bag of pumpkins. The hon. member agreed with that, and the farmer is the one who has to pay that 5% or 6% of 7% in order to pay for these municipal markets. The hon. member did not say at that time that he was going to vote against that clause. [Interjections.] My dear old … I almost said my dear old friend, and then I would really have been lying! [Interjections.] What is the purpose of this levy? Why do you want to vote against it? It is only a small fraction of the farmer’s expenses.

Because it is not a facility intended only for the farmer.

This applies to the small number of abattoirs belonging to the corporation. What about the abattoirs belonging to the municipalities?

Yes, they as well.

The municipality, too, can impose a levy. Why then are the municipalities giving the abattoirs back? The small municipality, to which the hon. member for Omaruru referred, is in a financial quandary. With this I have also replied to the question of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

†The hon. member spoke about monopolies. Our problem is that no municipality whatever is prepared to carry on with an abattoir at 1% to 2% interest on their investment. That is the reason why we have this problem.

*Otherwise I would never have introduced the legislation to the House. A monopoly simply cannot arise and it is impossible to manage abattoirs at such a small profit margin.

You are confusing slaughtering fees with the levy.

It is a levy which is imposed to ensure stability in the industry. It is levy which is imposed to finance the Abattoir Commission.

It is what it is.

Very well, it is what it is. However, the hon. member’s proposal is that the taxpayers of the country should bear the burden. The Minister of Finance is to raise his taxes to obtain funds for financing the levy for the abattoir industry. After the maize price has been determined, the Meat Board meets to make proposals for the new floor prices for beef and mutton. In this floor price all cost increases, including, therefore, the increase in railway tariffs, are incorporated. The increase of 50% in the railway tariffs will be taken into consideration when we determine the new floor price in May. The levy, and all the other things I mentioned, are incorporated into the floor price, and a part of it is absorbed by the consumer—the hon. member may say whatever he likes. Even if everyone were to disagree with me, it remains a fact that all the costs are reflected in the price which the housewife pays for the product. I replied by way of interjection to what the hon. member asked me in his speech. What was the hon. member’s reaction then? He said I would not get the money. I was frank with the hon. member. The fact is that we do not have enough money today to do the necessary financing and to grant loans to the Department of Agricultural Credit for repairing the damage caused by floods, etc. The hon. member knows, after all, that I cannot now ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to give us the money from the Treasury. I cannot tell the hon. the Minister of Finance to increase the taxation on cigarettes and income tax. If I were to do so, he could ask me what had become of the list of services to be economized on by every Minister’s department.

I never eat beef. Why must I pay?

The hon. member next to me is a vegetarian. Must he pay?

Why must I pay?

I do not think the hon. member for Newton Park understands what I am trying to say. I shall reply to the hon. member later. I thought we would be able to take all the stages today, but it seems to me that this will not be possible. I shall reply to the hon. member later on his questions relating to the provision of bursaries. If the hon. member reads the Act carefully he will understand the position. The hon. member for Bethal spoke of the separation of the control and the management of abattoirs. He is quite right in this connection. The hon. member mentioned another important point, i.e. the co-ordination of regional abattoirs. In my opinion, the increase in the transport tariffs can have only one result. As the hon. member for Bethal said, the meat industry will have to plan over a long term. The 50% increase is going to cause the contribution made by livestock to the budget of the hon. the Minister of Transport to be reflected even more unfavourably next year. The contribution will be less than 76%. The cattle conveyed by the Railways during the past year showed a decrease of 0,9 million head as against the year before, and the reason for this lies in tariff problems. We slaughtered a tremendous number of animals at Vryburg and took the carcasses to the Witwatersrand consumer areas. Consequently I am glad that the hon. member for Bethal and various other hon. members are thinking in this direction.

†The hon. member for East London North had the same idea about decentralization. He mentioned refrigerated trucks. To decentralize and have refrigerated trucks as well, will not solve the whole problem. The hon. member must keep in mind that we cannot all of a sudden have cheaper meat because of decentralization. The refrigerated trucks have to be bought. However, the hon. member did put forward some positive ideas.

*The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet was quite right when he referred to the De Villiers Commission with reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Newton Park. There it says quite clearly—

and not by the Meat Board. The De Villiers Commission recommended that this work be done by an independent body. It is because of this that we have the abattoir Commission which is now to be changed. The hon. member also referred to Sishen and to the fact that we shall have to give attention to regional abattoirs.

The hon. member for Bryanston is not here at the moment. The hon. member is a Prog, but he did not disappoint me so much as the hon. member for Newton Park. I came to respect him today. He asked for information and said quite frankly that he was not going to vote against the legislation. He did not play a trick as the hon. member for Newton Park did in saying they would vote on clause 28.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister what the position is? When I spoke, the hon. the Minister said that he agreed with me about clause 28.

I said in the same breath that I would never get the money. What was the hon. member’s reaction then? He said: You see, this is the kind of Minister he is! We shall look at his Hansard in the Committee Stage.

Did you not say then that you were desperate because you did not have the money?

The hon. member made a very clever move today by saying that he was going to vote on clause 28 in the Committee Stage, and for only one purpose. However, he does not have a ghost of a chance to go and say in the country areas that he voted against clause 28 for the sake of the farmers. We get around too, after all. One finds a few people occasionally who are not quite all there, but the chance which the hon. member took today is not going to work out.

The hon. member for Bryanston is not here, but I just want to tell him that I shall reply in the Committee Stage to a number of the questions which he asked. It is Friday today, so we are rather in a hurry. I want to tell the hon. member for Omaruru that I understand the problem of the small rural butcher. The hon. member mentioned another point which is important, i.e. the question of hygiene. We are in a dilemma. An inquiry is being conducted into the abattoir at Pretoria, for example, and then one has big newspaper headlines on the front page of a newspaper in Pretoria, saying that salmonella has been found at the Pretoria abattoir.

What is salmonella?

There are 38 kinds of salmonella. One can take any piece of meat and leave it in the sun for an hour. It will then contain the salmonella germ.

It is like the 37 different kinds of UP members on the other side. [Interjections.]

I want to say with all respect that we are inclined to make too much of hygiene in this country. We began by erecting abattoirs for overseas circumstances, for export purposes, and now we want to carry this through to every small country abattoir.

I shall not come to any harm if I slaughter a hen in my backyard.

The hon. member is quite right. In my time we slaughtered cattle under the eucalyptus tree, and not one of the little Schoemans came to any harm. You must remember that when the housewife reads of salmonella in an abattoir, the hygiene men of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services rightly say that the Act must be enforced. But to enforce the Act and to obtain the highest degree of hygiene costs a fortune. If one wants to build new abattoirs and one wants to comply with all the requirements, it will cost a lot of money. To my mind, the best example is to be found in America. I arrived in Illinois and wanted to visit an abattoir where 3 000 head of cattle were slaughtered every day. They kept me away from it for a long time, but eventually I did get there. When I walked through the abattoir, they said to me:“You have to wear gumboots. ” So they gave me my gumboots and I had to walk through blood and dung all day. So I asked them: “Is this hygienic?” They said: “Of course, yes, look at all the meat, it is not in the dung. You must remember this is not an export abattoir. ’ ’ Now, my goodness me, if an American can eat that meat, then a fellow living in Houghton can eat it as well. Hon. members must understand that I do not want us to be unhygienic. I just want to say to the hon. member for Omaruru that with today’s building costs, expensive food, inflationary conditions and higher railway tariffs, we have to react to these matters to the best of our ability and in the most practical way. I have told the hon. member for Berea that I will accept his amendment. The hon. member for Barberton said that the efficiency on the part of the employee was not enough. We are investigating this and I shall reply to him on that point in the Committee Stage. As far as regional abattoirs are concerned, he agrees with other hon. members.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South must remember that the whole thing changed since we had the original Abattoir Commission Act. I told him that one could not actually compare the two functions. I agree with him that the sole responsibility goes over on to the Minister, but why? The responsibility to erect a new abattoir is going over to the Government. We have decided to build a new abattoir at City Deep after the old one was 50 years old. The city council was not prepared to carry on with it. This would eventually have cost R12 million. We are completing it in September this year at a cost of nearly R23 million. We are now busy with a new abattoir at Cato Ridge which will cost R33 million when completed. Who has to foot the bill and take the responsibility? This Government, through the Minister of Agriculture. The whole pattern has therefore changed.

*It is no use comparing the two pieces of legislation and saying that the Minister is getting too many powers, because the Government has been left holding the baby. I do not blame any municipality, because to erect an abattoir at current prices will cost a fortune, and therefore we want these powers, because it is Government money which has to be controlled. I shall explain to hon. members later why the Meat Board must not have a share in this. There are several reasons. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has already referred to one. However, there are several reasons why we do not want the Meat Board to have a share in this activity. The hon. member was a member of the comission of inquiry and ought to know that the Meat Board takes decisions on marketing, etc. However, when it comes to a slaughtering function which used to be in the hands of the municipalities and which is now being transferred to the Government, we must have these powers.

I am afraid I got too excited for the hon. member for Newton Park, but I am not angry with him. It is just that I am having trouble with my voice, and I think I should prefer to discuss this further in the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is intended to amend the Marketing Act, 1968. Hon. members are aware of the commission that has been appointed to investigate aspects of that Act, the recommendations of which still have to be considered. It will not be possible to introduce statutory amendments which may flow from these recommendations of the commission before next year. Unfortunately it will not be possible for the statutory amendments I am moving now to be held in abeyance until then.

As hon. members know, the Government pays consumer subsidies on various food products, inter alia, on bread as well. For various reasons, but particularly owing to the fact that a section of the population is still baking their own bread, the policy being followed is make the payment of the subsidy applicable to flour. However, flour is not only used for baking bread, but also for the manufacture of various other products, for example, glue. Therefore, it is obvious that people using flour for purposes other than for baking bread, also enjoy the benefit of the Government subsidy.

Up to now the Wheat Board has, where practical, recovered the subsidies from people using the flour for purposes other than the manufacture of bread. However, the Board sometimes experiences problems with the recovery of such subsidies and since considerable amounts of public money are involved, it is deemed advisable for the recovery to be based on specific statutory authorization. This Bill therefore makes provision enabling a control board to recover a subsidy paid in respect of a particular product in cases where such product is used in a manner for which the subsidy was not originally intended.

For the rest provision is being made in the Bill for certain law of evidence aspects relating to such recoveries.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House agrees with the amendment to the Marketing Act. We think it is necessary. A person who uses flour for a purpose other than to bake bread, has to be compelled to surrender the subsidy that has been paid, because the subsidy is intended for quite a different purpose. Since I do not want anything further to go wrong with the hon. the Minister’s throat, I am not going to say anything further except that we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member for Newton Park supports this legislation and that he has so little to say about it, because it seems to me that the danger exists that the hon. member might land into trouble if he says too much. I am very pleased that we have this legislation in front of us this afternoon, particularly viewed in the light of the amounts of money this Government spends on food subsidies. We find that between R80 million and R90 million per annum is being spent to keep the price of bread to the consumer low. This matter has been raised on numerous occasions. There is a great diversity of opinions on the subsidies which are being paid to agriculture. Some people are of the opinion that a subsidy is only to the advantage of the farmer, while others again are of the opinion that it is only to the advantage of the consumer, and so on. In other words, various standpoints are being adopted on this matter. From time to time reservations are expressed to the effect that the subsidy which is being paid by the Government does not reach the consumer. It would be wrong for the Government to spend large sums of money for a certain purpose, i.e. to assist the consumer to obtain cheaper food on the one hand while, on the other hand to assist the producers to provide the consumer with cheaper food and for this money to disappear along the way. For this reason it is good that this legislation is serving before us this afternoon. As has been said by the hon. the Minister, since a commission has been appointed to investigate marketing, we cannot wait for the report of that commission to be published, and for that reason I think it is only right for him to rectify the deficiencies which are noticed from time to time. In this way we can consider legislation enacted in 1974 and which is closely linked with this legislation, i.e. Act 73 of 1974, which empowers the hon. the Minister to determine certain prices of secondary agricultural products himself, instead of this being done by the board. Moreover, this is partly in line with what is being envisaged by this legislation today. I think it is only right, and for that reason I am pleased that our Opposition also supports this Bill and, on behalf of this side of the House, I also want to give our support to it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to draw attention to the words “a document purporting to be an affidavit”. Why is it not possible simply to say “an affidavit”? After all, an affidavit is a document which is clearly defined and in general use in all law processes. A magistrate or any officer dealing with matters of this nature knows what an affidavit is, recognizes it as such and will ensure that it complies with all the requirements. I therefore feel that the description used in this Bill, as in many other Bills lately, is unnecessary and superfluous. It would have been far clearer and better if the simple description “an affidavit” were used.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member. However, the legal advisers insist on this wording. I agree that this wording was not used in the past. But I am not a legal man. When we come to deal with the Abattoir Bill in Committee however, I will furnish the hon. member with all the reasons why the legal draftsmen require this terminology. That Bill contains the same clause.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 2 of the Mountain Catchment Areas Act, 1970, makes provision for the Minister of Forestry to declare an area as defined by him in the Government Gazette to be a mountain catchment area and to make certain directions applicable to it. However, a mountain catchment area must be defined by means of a beacon to beacon boundary description so that there can be no doubt whatsoever in regard to its boundaries. Because all declared mountain catchment areas will consist of private farms or portions thereof, and the rights and duties of owners on their own land are being interfered with in the national interest, and also because possible prosecutions will arise as a result of offences in declared mountain catchment areas, it is necessary for the boundaries of such areas to be acceptable and immovable.

In those cases where mountain catchment areas include only portions of farms and it is not possible to define the boundaries of such portions by means of existing beacons or fixed landmarks, the possibility might be considered of including the whole of such farms in the catchment area and of declaring the directions for the management of the area to apply only to those portions of the farms which form part of the actual catchment area. This method will, however, have the disadvantage that the agricultural land which is included in the declared mountain catchment area in this way will not qualify for subsidies in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, 1969, as amended. Nor will it be possible to define the fire-belt around the mountain catchment area as its boundary because a fire-belt does not follow a fixed demarcated line year after year and therefore cannot be regarded as an immovable boundary.

The only solution, therefore, is to erect beacons where beacons do not already exist and then to define the area accordingly. For the purposes of court proceedings, however, a beacon must be surveyed in terms of the Land Survey Act, 1927, as amended. The surveying of all beaconless points on the boundaries of mountain catchment areas will not only involve considerable State expenditure but will also result in a delay in the demarcation of mountain catchment areas. The most acceptable solution will therefore be to make provision for the erection of unsurveyed, numbered beacons which can nevertheless be accepted as immovable in any civil or criminal case.

The Bill which is before the House is intended to give effect to this. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for unsurveyed beacons, which will be immovable, to be erected for the purpose of defining mountain catchment areas, while clause 2 gives the necessary right of entry on or way over private land to properly authorized persons for the performance of functions in connection with such beacons.

The form and dimensions of the beacons, the method of erection and maintenance thereof and other relevant matters will be prescribed by regulation, and this requires an addition to section 13 of the principal Act, as set out in clause 3.

Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill are merely aimed at making interference with a beacon an offence and extending the delegation of powers.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this amending legislation which has come back to this House from the Other Place, as I understand it. An amendment to clause 2 was moved and agreed to in the Other Place. This amendment makes entry by officers or other persons upon certain land subject to prior notification of the landowner, occupier or manager concerned.

We are very glad indeed that that amendment has been accepted. We believe this will make the legislation more acceptable to the farming community, which is very largely the community affected by this measure.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, in the proposed new section 2A(2) there is reference to a certificate “purporting” to be signed by the Secretary. I ask again why should the wording not be “a certificate signed by the Secretary”? That is far more straightforward and clear than the wording “a certificate purporting to be signed by the Secretary”.

Mr. Chairman, I think one needs to follow expert opinion when it comes to the wording of legislation before the House. Various people have their own feelings and tastes in regard to how Bills should be worded, but it is not for me as a layman to comment on legal aspects. I have argued about phraseology with the legal experts, but it is the legal draftsmen who stipulate this usage. A point like this cannot really be argued across the floor of the House. I do have some sympathy with the hon. member. We want legislation in a language which is easy to comprehend, but easy language is not always the correct language, nor is it always acceptable to those authorities who draw up legislation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with the words which have been added to clause 2 in the Other Place, i.e. the words “subject to prior notification of the landowner, occupier or manager concerned”. Mountain catchment areas are usually remote. One often finds that the owner of the farm or the landowner is a weekend farmer from the city or one that lives elsewhere in this country or abroad. That is often the case when it comes to most remote areas. When the poor man who has to do the work arrives there, he will find that he is unable to contact the owner. There are no provisions in respect of such an eventuality, where the owner cannot be found immediately. Therefore I have my doubts about the practical value of this part of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, clause 2 deals with the entering of a person’s property by an inspector or official in carrying out his duties. The legislation does not provide sufficiently for an official form of identification for such an inspector. Such identification has to be shown by the inspector or official of the department to the owner or a representative of the owner if such owner or representative of an owner can be contacted, so that the official or inspector will not be able to enter the site or property at will. The official must therefore be able to show specific identification to the owner or the representative of the owner.

What is the hon. member referring to?

Clause 2.

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the hon. member. This clause is concerned with a certificate which has been signed by the Secretary for the Department, a certificate in which it is declared that a beacon has been erected by an official of the department.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, if the Third Reading does not call forth any discussion, I should like to refer briefly to the problem which the hon. member for Etosha raised during the Committee Stage, a problem which the hon. member for Mooi River has also raised before. I am referring to the practical implementation of the provisions included in clause 2. In the Other Place it was proposed that we should notify only the landowner concerned. I felt that would be very awkward, because these catchment areas are mountain areas, as the hon. member for Etosha said. If the workers arrive there and the owner is not there, they may not enter the land. Therefore I proposed there that we should only be enabled to notify not the owner, but also the occupier or manager, so that one would at least have a choice. Hon. members will just have to accept from me that my department does not usually enter people’s land unnecessarily. Before they erect beacons, they will of course ensure that there are no problems and they will naturally notify the people concerned so that one should be able in practice to solve the problems which the hon. member foresees. I just wanted to explain that to the hon. member.

I should also like to express my appreciation at this stage to the hon. member for Mooi River for his support and co-operation in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Considerable uncertainty exists in legal and medical circles as to whether persons between the ages of 18 and 21 years may themselves and without the permission of their parents or guardians, agree to undergo an operation or medical treatment. The practice up to the present has nevertheless been to insist on such permission by the parent or guardian. In cases where the parent or guardian refuses such permission or where he cannot be traced or is unable, on account of mental illness, to give such permission, or in cases where he is deceased, the permission of the Minister or medical superintendent concerned is obtained in terms of the provisions of the Act.

Young people in the age group that I have mentioned, in many cases nowadays do not, however, stay with their parents and it is often difficult to obtain the necessary permission in time, in particular in cases of emergency. However, apart from the practical problems experienced in this connection, the uncertainty prevailing in this regard, creates considerable problems for the medical profession in particular. In fact, a medical practitioner who bona fide believes that the permission of an 18-year-old person is sufficient to carry out a serious operation on the latter, may subsequently discover that he has seriously erred and that such permission was invalid.

It is hardly necessary for me to explain to hon. members how important this whole matter is to the medical profession, but I should nevertheless like to mention for the information of hon. members that the Federal Council of the Medical Association of South Africa has considered this matter of such importance that it has asked for something to be done about it.

In pursuance of that request, the Minister of Health consequently appointed an interdepartmental committee to investigate the matter. This committee found that considerable legal uncertainty does exist in regard to the whole matter and that it is, in fact, not possible to say with any certainty what the legal position in this particular connection is. It also appears that various countries in the Western world apparently had to deal with the same problem and have, in many cases, passed special legislation to legalize permission by minors for such operations or treatment.

I do not want to refer to all this legislation here, but for the information of hon. members I may mention briefly that a country such as, for example, Britain as far back as in 1970 granted 16-year-old persons statutory authority to give permission themselves to undergo their own medical treatment.

However, what is important, is that this legal uncertainty continues to exist with us and that it is not in the interest of our country and its people and certainly not in the interests of our young people that this uncertainty should continue to exist any longer. What is more, we cannot allow the medical profession which has so left its mark in our country to live in a state of uncertainty as to what it may and may not do. In fact, it is not impossible to say what we want to say or do in this connection, and for that reason we are in fact doing it in this Bill.

Hon. members may differ with me on the matter in which we are tackling this matter in this Bill and some of us may possibly feel that it is too much to grant a young person of 18 years of age the right to decide for himself whether or not he wants to undergo a particular operation or specific medical treatment. I readily admit that, depending upon the circumstances in a particular case, the question as to whether permission should be given for an operation or treatment could be a momentous one. However, may I remind hon. members that we have in more than one respect placed momentous decisions in the hands of 18-year-old persons. Just think of the franchise we gave them by means of which they are able and, in fact, called upon to make a decision in regard to momentous and even vitally important national issues. And to draw the parallel even closer, if we permit them and trust them to decide and to determine who is to represent the people in the highest Chambers of the country, on what grounds can we then say that they are not to be trusted with their own health?

What is more, we not only allow them to participate in the democratic processes and to decide of their own accord what they want or do not want in the political sphere, but we also demand of them that they defend those democratic processes by force of arms. If we already trusted them with so much, on what grounds then do we want to withhold the right from them to decide on matters affecting their own health?

Mr. Speaker, as far as I and the Government are concerned, we have sufficient confidence in our young people to leave to them decisions which, after all, affect them personally. We are now establishing certainty where uncertainty hitherto prevailed and, in doing so, we are perpetuating our confidence in the sound judgment of our own youth and, as you have no doubt noticed from paragraph (b) of clause 1, we are now affording their own decisions in regard to matters which, after all, affect their own health, the force of law.

This is what this Bill is dealing with, because the remainder of clause 1 merely consists of a number of amendments which are essential now that we have moved in the direction in which we are, in fact, moving.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a short Bill, consisting of just two clauses and the hon. the Deputy Minister has motivated the amendment contained in clause 1. This is perhaps an opportune moment to say that we on this side of the House welcome the hon. the Deputy Minister in his new capacity as Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. We wish him well in his post. We know him in this House as a sincere man. In this portfolio he will be dealing with matters requiring humanity and compassion in many instances, and we have every confidence that he will acquit himself well in his new post. That is why we are pleased that this first piece of legislation the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced in this House is of a positive nature, and is aimed at bringing about clarity where in the past there was a certain amount of uncertainty. In terms of the existing law there is a certain amount of uncertainty in regard to the position of the person who has not reached 21 years of age and who has to give consent to an operation or to medical treatment. It is interesting to note that in terms of the Children’s Act of 1960 the age mentioned in the definition of “child” was reduced from 19 to 18 years. Since that legislation was passed, other legislation has come before this House in which the age has been lowered. The Children’s Act itself, however, is recognized as the legislation which provides protection for persons under 18 years of age, in terms of that definition of “child”. That is why, in clause 1, reference is now made to a “child”, as clearly defined in the Children’s Act. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated various fields in which the discretion of a person who has attained the age of 18 years is recognized and accepted. He referred, for instance, to our electoral laws, the Liquor Act and other legislation. That is why we on this side of the House have no objection to this Bill. We realize that there have been difficulties in the past, and that the medical profession have asked for clarity. This clarity is now forthcoming. We therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo has expressed the opinion of his side of this House. I should like to give the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is a very modest person, the assurance that we on this side of the House also have full confidence in the dignified manner in which he is handling this office. This legislation contains one basic concept, i.e. that the Government realizes that the youth, when reaching the age of 18, has full confidence in themselves and also accept full responsibility for life in all respects. This legislation therefore only contains an adjustment in terms of which we admit that when a young man or a young woman becomes 18 years of age, he or she is fully capable of deciding upon his or her own physical conditions.

I further want to point out that the term “mental illness” is now being substituted for the former concept of “mental disorder”. We welcome this adjustment which is in line with the new approach in respect of the treatment of psychiatric illnesses.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. members for Umbilo and Brentwood, and to extend our formal congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister on his appointment to what we regard as a most important portfolio. As the hon. member for Umbilo mentioned, it deals with the very heart of the problem of caring for people, both children and adults, across a very wide range of circumstances. In my judgment, for what it is worth, I believe that this hon. Deputy Minister is extremely well-suited to do this because we know him as a man who cares about people. There is no need for me to go over the ground which has already been covered by the two previous speakers. We support the Bill. We are grateful that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not just dismiss this lightly but took some trouble to explain and motivate the Bill. We believe that it is an obvious move in the right direction and we have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my heartfelt thanks to hon. members for the kind words which came from them and for their support of this Bill. I hope the Bill will serve the purpose for which we have introduced it.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I do not believe hon. members will have any difficulty in establishing that this Bill deals for the most part with the extension of the period of office of members of the National Welfare Board and of the Regional Welfare Boards and of the various commissions appointed in terms of the National Welfare Act of 1965. Perhaps hon. members will wonder why such a step should be necessary at this stage.

Perhaps it is still somewhat early to go into this in detail, but nevertheless I feel that I owe it to the House to sketch briefly the necessity for the steps we are taking.

We feel that the time has come for the establishment of a dynamic welfare programme in which the planning and co-ordination of welfare services will play a key role. As we see it, the community, in pursuance of existing policy, ought always to become more closely involved with the future developments in the sphere of welfare which are at issue here.

It can therefore be stated that communal action is fundamental to the developments at issue here where the community, in co-operation with the department, will have a say in, and will take a hand in, the interests of the community. In practice it is envisaged that the regional welfare boards and the department’s regional organizations will be merged and developed into conferring and planning teams which will determine, plan and promote the welfare needs and welfare services of the various regions, and advise the department in this regard. In this way it is anticipated that it will be possible to obtain a blueprint of the welfare services which may be required in a specific region and that this may then be implemented systematically. What this will amount to is that the welfare requirements of every region will be systematically investigated and determined and the necessary steps may then be taken in good time to meet those needs.

These developments, however, will cause a radical change of emphasis in the activities of regional welfare boards and may even result in the way the boards are constituted at present, having to be changed.

The practical implementation of the developments we have in mind, imply, too, that the National Welfare Act will probably have to be revised drastically and could even result in a new dispensation being created for the National Welfare Board. The views of the department in this specific connection have already been discussed with the National Welfare Board and the Board is in full agreement in this regard.

It may be mentioned for the further information of hon. members that the developments at issue here will in all probability require a great deal of legislation, and I hope that we shall be able to have it ready for introduction by 1977. However, hon. members will understand that at this stage I am unable to discuss in full or in greater detail any legislation envisaged in this connection. This is not the time to discuss such legislation. I merely refer to this in order to provide hon. members briefly with the necessary background against which the necessity for the legislation at present before this hon. House must be considered. From what I have already said it must already be clear to hon. members that the continued existence of the National Welfare Board and of the various regional welfare boards within the present set-up, is at stake. The same applies to the four commissions appointed in terms of the National Welfare Act of 1965.

The period of office of the members of the boards in question and of the four commissions expires on 30 June 1976. These members are usually appointed for a period of five years, and therefore, if they are appointed again this year, their next term will only expire in 1981. In view of the developments envisaged, which I have tried to sketch to you briefly, it seems to me that it would be prudent to extend the period of office of the present boards by a year or 18 months, rather than constitute new boards which would then have to be dissolved after a year or 18 months, when the new boards were to come into operation under the new dispensation. We consider that it would also be less disruptive if the present boards and commissions could continue with and dispose of the work on which they are engaged before the start of the new dispensation, than if new boards had now to be appointed, boards which before long would have to be dissolved again before getting fully into their stride.

This whole matter has been discussed at length with the National Welfare Board. The Board agrees that the procedure we envisaged in this connection is the most acceptable. The idea, therefore, is simply to extend the period of office of the boards and the commissions by a year or 18 months, but at most by two years, so that they may carry on with their activities undisturbed and so that we shall be afforded the opportunity to prepare the necessary legislation and take the other steps necessary for the further development of the new directions we have in mind. It is probably not impossible that the whole process may be completed by the end of next year, but for safety’s sake we are making somewhat more ample provision, particularly since further discussions are still necessary in this particular connection. As hon. members are aware, such discussion can sometimes be time-consuming.

The fundamental aims of clause 2 are simply to extend the period of validity of the nomination lists drawn up in terms of the Act so that they may be used if vacancies occur on the boards after 30 June 1976.

I do not wish to imply that I have now replied to all the questions which have occurred to hon. members, or that I have satisfied their desire for further information relating to the developments we envisage, but I believe that this is as far as I can go for the present. I trust that I shall be afforded the opportunity next year to inform them in detail when we introduce the necessary legislation. For the present, however, I want to content myself with saying that I believe that we are preparing the scene for a development which, in my opinion, will place the welfare services of this country on a sound basis with unlimited possibilities for the future.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated the reasons why this Bill is necessary and why the periods of office of the National Welfare Board, the various commissions and the regional boards should be extended. As his main reason he told us that the whole question of the co-ordination and replanning of the welfare services in South Africa was under consideration, that there was a possibility of legislation being introduced during the course of the 1977 session of Parliament, and that it was therefore necessary that the present boards, commissions and regional boards should remain in office for a period of at least two years so as to give them an opportunity to complete the work that is necessary in the various aspects of welfare services that require the attention of the boards. For this reason we intend supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, in view of the fact that it is necessary that the lives of the boards should be extended while this important planning stage is being dealt with.

However, were it not for the fact that it was necessary in these circumstances for the periods of office of these boards to be extended, we on this side of the House would have had to have given very serious consideration to opposing a Bill which would have extended the life of the various boards. I would like to just mention this fact, because I believe it is important to bear this in mind when other legislation eventually comes before the House and the reasons for extending the life of this particular board and these commissions is given. When the principal Act of 1965, establishing the various boards, was passed, it was felt that it would be in the best interests of the welfare services to proceed along these lines. We on this side of the House supported that legislation and made various suggestions. The regional boards, as constituted for a period of five years, from 1 July 1971 until a date mentioned in the Bill, i.e. 30 June 1976, when their period of office would normally expire, did not inspire us with a great deal of confidence because we did not believe they were balanced as far as the various groups and the various sections of our community were concerned. That is why we would have had to give very serious consideration before supporting a Bill of this nature which would extend the life of these boards.

In regard to the nomination list that was submitted when the members of these boards were to be appointed—and let me say that this hon. Minister is not the person who appointed the boards; I think the present Minister of the Interior was then the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions—it came as quite a shock to us when these boards were appointed and we then found that the members had been drawn almost entirely from a certain section of our community whereas they should have been more widely based. It would have been much better balanced if the other sections of our community had been taken into account as well. Let us look at one of these commissions whose period of office will be extended for another two years. I am referring to the Welfare Organizations Commission, a commission that deals with some 2 000 welfare organizations and that has to consider and review the applications for registration of other welfare organizations. The seven members are all Afrikaans speaking. I do not object to this. Obviously it is a question of merit, and a person has to be appointed on merit. However, it does seem imbalanced if one considers the fact that although many of the English universities submitted names on the nomination list, not one of these persons was appointed either on the welfare board consisting of 16 members or on one of the four commissions consisting of seven members each, making a total number of members on the board and the commissions of 44. I believe too that, as times change, the large number of organizations which are catering for the other racial groups, the non-White racial groups, must be taken into account. Surely it is time that they too must be considered when their names are submitted on a nomination list. In terms of clause 2 the nomination lists are kept open so that vacancies can be filled, should they occur on the welfare board, the commissions or the regional boards. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if, during the extended period of two years for which the board will be in office, such vacancies should occur, to give the matter due consideration so as to ensure that there will be a better balance as far as the boards are concerned so as to cater for the wide spectrum of the community in South Africa. In view of the special circumstances the hon. the Deputy Minister has outlined we support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the hon. member for Umbilo availed himself of this opportunity to discuss the composition of the boards. If we want to shock the House, then I can tell the House what we found when we came to power in 1949 in connection with the first board. At that time we had to provide people on the board with a translation of what we had said if we had spoken Afrikaans, to enable them to understand what we were saying. And then the hon. member talks about “imbalanced boards”.

The chief aim of the Bill is to assist us in carrying on with the work that has been started. The present board, the four commissions and the nine regional boards have shown up many of the shortcomings of the present Act and its implementation. The board, the commissions and the regional boards welcome the opportunity they have been afforded to consider draft legislation which is being prepared in view of the nature their experience over the years. In view of this we take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the motivation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister we believe that this legislation is necessary, and therefore we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Westdene had to say. However, I should just like to place on record that I too express my confidence in the boards. I do not want to dwell further on the method of appointment. I can only say that as the boards are constituted at present, they will give us their co-operation. All the suggestions we receive will be taken into account.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are likely to have noticed already, the impact of the Bill is contained in clauses 2 and 3. Consequently I want to pause for a moment at these two clauses and briefly sketch the circumstances which gave rise to the amendments proposed in these clauses.

Section 4 of the Aged Persons Act, 1967, confers certain powers of inspection on, inter alia, social welfare officers. As hon. members are aware these powers are, however, limited to inspections of registered homes for the aged, with the emphasis on the word “registered”. Therefore, we now have the curious position that although a social welfare officer may inspect the home which is registered and therefore has already been approved by my department and may investigate the welfare and treatment of the aged person in such a home, he has to adopt a completely different procedure when it comes to aged persons who are accommodated and cared for in an unregistered place.

Section 5 of the Act admittedly makes provision for action in the case of aged persons who are being cared for in unregistered places, but before a social welfare officer may take action in terms of that section, he nevertheless requires information. However, it appears that he cannot acquire it by way of an inspection, as in the case of a registered home. The result is that any action which he may consider necessary in the interest of the aged persons in a specific case is frequently delayed and that he is frequently prevented, within the limits of the Act, from taking the rapid action which is sometimes necessary for the welfare of aged persons who are being cared for in some of these places. Unfortunately there are people who operate homes for the aged as a business for their own gain. There are also those who do not always have the welfare of the aged persons at heart, but for whom the profit motive is more important. Consequently we have a responsibility to ensure that these people are cared for properly.

What is more, inquiries in terms of section 6 of the Act, take a considerable time and it is hardly possible to wait until such inquiries have been completed before looking after the welfare of the aged persons in question. In fact, it has recently happened that officers of my department were refused access to aged persons who were being accommodated in a place in respect of which an inquiry in terms of section 6 was in progress. It is probably not necessary for me to explain how imperative it is to guard diligently over the interest and welfare of such aged persons, particularly in cases where circumstances are such that an inquiry in terms of the Act ought to be instituted.

We cannot allow the curious position to continue where homes who fail or refuse to register in terms of the Act, or which apparently do not qualify for such registration, enjoy more protection than homes which comply with all the requirements and have been registered in terms of the Act. We are now rectifying the position by means of clause 2.

Section 6(10) of the Act confers certain powers on a magistrate who has instituted an inquiry into the accommodation and care of aged or debilitated persons. Unfortunately that section provides, inter alia that the magistrate who holds the inquiry may prohibit the person involved in the inquiry from accommodating or caring for an aged or debilitated person for the period determined by the magistrate. However, there is uncertainty as to whether such prohibition may be imposed for a longer period than three years, or whether such a prohibition may be applied in another district than that of the magistrate concerned. This matter is also being rectified in the Bill, because we believe that a person who has allowed aged persons to be neglected in one place, should not be allowed to do so in another district. As in the case of the previous Bills there is nothing in the clause of this Bill either in regard to which we could differ in any way.

This is a constructive Bill and we intend supporting the Second Reading. [Interjections.] I cannot quite hear what the hon. member for Carltonville is upset about—perhaps it is because the Committee Stage of the previous Bill went through without debate. If he so wishes, we can of course keep debate on legislation of this kind going for a considerable period of time. There are many items here which require comment. We realize that a certain amount of abuse by certain people has been taking place, people who are unfortunately prepared to exploit the provision of accommodation for aged and debilitated persons. Consequently it is important to see that, where there are loopholes in the existing legislation, where a degree of exploitation is taking place which can be rectified by legislation, steps are taken so as to obviate the exploitation of these people. Indeed, the original Aged Persons Act of 1967, which was first introduced to the House as the Aged Persons Protection Bill, has been amended from time to time. The position as far as the pensions that are payable to aged persons are concerned is that it was deleted from the principal Act when the Social Pensions Act of 1973 was introduced and passed by this House. Consequently, the principal Act, as it stands today, is looked upon as an Act to protect aged persons from exploitation. There is no doubt that where this exploitation has taken place, this legislation will facilitate an investigation in terms especially of clause 2, whereby places will be more accessible to the social welfare officers to obtain the necessary information about places which are principally being provided for the accommodation and care of these aged and debilitated persons.

If one looks at this clause one sees that the inspector will be entitled to examine any document or book a person might have in his possession at such a home for aged and debilitated persons. This is important, because in the past some of these people have taken advantage of these old people in that they had in their possession the pension books of these people and on their own initiative assumed financial responsibility for these people. Therefore it is necessary that the department’s inspector and the social welfare officer should be entitled to demand these documents. We know there is the possibility that a person can be in doubt whether the social welfare officer in fact has the right to demand these documents, and that is why it is provided here that he must have authority to do so and must produce a certificate to show that he is indeed an authorized officer with power to demand these documents. This is important, because we must also bear in mind that there are cases where these people might not be exploiting the aged and indeed might be providing a very good service for them. Certain unfounded complaints might have been lodged and therefore it is only right that a person who runs a home for the aged should have the protection of knowing that he can demand that the inspector should produce a certificate to show that he has the right to inspect and demand these various documents. There are people who are in fact providing accommodation which is found—after inspection—to be suitable and then no steps need be taken against that person. Unfortunately there have been cases where it was necessary to take steps against some of these people, and it has been found necessary, in cases of persons who have registered homes for the aged, to withdraw that registration until such time as the person responsible for administering such a home, is able to meet the requirements of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

This leads me to clause 3. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that there will be a Republic-wide prohibition on a person administering such a home if he is found guilty of not having provided a home that meets the necessary requirements. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not indicate the reason for the limitation of ten years as may be determined by the magistrate. The original Act did not specify any particular period. The hon. the Deputy Minister has also dealt with the question of people who are not permitted to run a home for the aged in certain magisterial areas. This is now being extended Republic-wide and will therefore be enforced throughout the Republic. We on this side of the House support the provision that makes a Republic-wide provision, because it would be most improper for a person who has been exploiting the aged and debilitated persons, to open a similar home or provide accommodation for these people in another magisterial area or district without having the necessary authority.

The Bill, as it now stands, is an improvement on the principal Act, and therefore, as far as the principle is concerned, we accept this Bill. We hope it will have the desired effect of stamping out an undesirable element which, unfortunately, takes advantage of the aged in certain circumstances.