Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House for next week, I wish to point out that hon. members have already been informed that the debate on the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill will commence on Monday, 22 February. The reply will be on Thursday, 25 February.

For the rest the House will follow the Order Paper, as printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The current financial year has been characterized by a general levelling off in economic activity, while cost pressure has remained high. As a result working expenditure in respect of materials and consumable stores, particularly aviation fuel, increased, while expenditure on capital works escalated more rapidly than was originally expected. This entails that an additional amount of approximately R240 million has to be appropriated for the 1981-’82 financial year.

From the estimates of additional working expenditure which has already been tabled, hon. members will note that an amount of R114,9 million has to be appropriated to cover additional expenditure that has to be defrayed from revenue funds during the current financial year. However, working revenue is expected to exceed the original estimate by approximately R39 million, and taking into account the estimated surplus of approximately R4 million for which provision was made in the main budget, the financial year will close with a deficit of approximately R72 million. Set against the total working estimate of R5 500 million, this is a deficit of 1,3%, which is not bad.

An additional amount of R46 million has to be voted under the main service “Railways”. For transportation services an additional amount of R28,5 million is required. The additional expenditure of R3,9 million in respect of head No. 3—Maintenance of Rolling Stock—is attributable to an increase in the volume of maintenance work and to a greater increase in the price of materials. The increased expenditure totalling R9,5 million under head No. 4—Motive Power Operating Expenses—and R12,4 million under head No. 5—Traffic and Vehicle Running Expenses—is mainly due to higher labour and electricity costs. The additional appropriation of R2,6 million under head No. 8—Depreciation—is required because of more assets being withdrawn from service before the expiry of their economic life, inter alia, departmental houses that were sold to staff members.

An additional amount of approximately R9 million has to be appropriated for the subsidiary services of the Railways. Inter alia, this amount is required under head No. 15—Road Transport Service (R2,8 million) and head No. 16—Tourist Service (R5,4 million). The increase in road transport service expenditure was attributable to increased labour costs and the hire of private buses, while more hotel and air travel reservations were arranged and paid for through the Tourist Service. The increase in respect of tourist services also resulted in an equivalent increase in revenue.

Under the Net Revenue Account of the Railways provision is being made for an additional amount of R8,5 million. This appropriation is required for financing cost (R4,9 million) and miscellaneous expenditure (R3,7 million). The additional appropriation in respect of financing cost was necessitated by loans taken up earlier than provided for, to finance the increased investment in the capital programme. The increase in respect of miscellaneous expenditure may be attributed mainly to subsidies on housing loans, as a result of the increase in financing costs, as well as larger contributions to other institutions for the provision of assets by which the S.A. Transport Services will also benefit owing to the higher escalation of the costs of these projects.

“Airways” was the service hardest hit by cost pressure and an additional appropriation of R68,9 million is needed for this main service. The additional provision of R66,1 million under head No. 31—Working and Maintenance—is required mainly in respect of aviation fuel (R41 million). This is attributable to a greater increase in consumption, as well as a sharper increase in the price per litre as a result of the greater devaluation of the rand against the U.S. dollar than was foreseen. Further additional appropriations are in respect of labour costs and commission payments to agencies. The increase of R2,8 million under head No. 34— Financing Cost—may be attributed to the earlier taking up of loans to finance the increased investment in the capital programme.

†I shall now deal with the additional capital budget. From the documents tabled, hon. members will note that an additional amount of R125 million requires to be voted for the financing of the capital programme. This entire amount will be obtained on the foreign capital market, and no additional funds will therefore be required from the local market.

The expected overspending is attributable generally to higher escalation of costs and faster progress with work than originally anticipated. Although additional funds are required under nearly all the heads, I wish to draw attention to only the more important increases.

Under head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—an additional appropriation of approximately R28,4 million is required. Of this amount, R4,5 million will be used to defray delayed debits for works authorized in previous years but for which no specific provision was made in the current financial year.

The additional appropriation under head No. 6—Airways—amounts to approximately R50.2 million. Apart from higher escalation costs, the additional cash provision is required for advance payments on aircraft as well as aircraft modification.

An additional appropriation of R15,1 million must be made under head No. 8— Working Capital. This increase is attributable to more material purchased for future new works and provision for higher price increases.

The increase of approximately R12,6 million under head No. 12—Repayment of Loans—is attributable to the earlier redemption of loans to which relatively high interest rates applied.

To sum up: The position is that an additional appropriation of approximately R240 million is required, of which R114,9 million is in respect of working expenditure, with the capital programme having increased by R125 million.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has asked us to vote an additional amount of R240 million for Transport Services. When one compares this amount with the additional appropriations asked for in recent years, one may think the hon. the Minister’s request a fairly reasonable one. In 1980, for example, we were asked to appropriate an additional amount of some R320 million, whilst in 1981 the amount asked for was R183 million. From Parliament’s point of view however, considering that the last Transport Services’ budget was introduced in this House on 16 September 1981, the fact that there should be a need for an Additional Appropriation now, only five months later, seems a little ominous, and the amount of R240 million takes on a quite different significance. Granting the fact that last year’s budget was no doubt a budget for a 12-month period, we are actually now faced with the situation that five months after the main budget was introduced by the hon. the Minister he finds ft necessary to ask for additional funds to the tune of R240 million. It seems to me that this reflects either a shortcoming in budgeting, or else a serious deterioration in the finances of the Administration over this period.

I know that percentages are not everything, but if one looks at the requested amount of R240 million, as against the total amount of the last budget, one sees, if my figures are correct, that there is an increase in the capital budget of some 6%, whilst there is an increase in working expenditure, I believe of just over 2%.

We are being asked, as I have said, to vote an additional amount five months after we discussed the budget in this House last September.

It is of course impossible, from our point of view, to get an overall picture of the current financial situation of the Administration at this stage. We have the same difficulty every year. Until we have an idea of the revenue figures of the S.A. Transport Services, when the hon. the Minister introduces his main budget for the year, it is very difficult indeed to get any sort of accurate picture of the extent of the non-profitability of our Transport Services and what their working conditions are. I say this because we are sitting here and being asked to appropriate certain additional funds for expenditure, without of course having any knowledge of what the income of the Transport Services is up to the present time. One thing is certain, however, and that is that there are obviously mounting financial problems and that there is obviously a lack of profitability. Otherwise the hon. the Minister would not be asking us this afternoon to vote for the appropriation of an additional amount.

In the last budget the hon. the Minister found himself compelled to inflict major increases in passenger fares on the public. Air passengers and long-distance and commuter rail passengers were his victims in September last year. He did at that stage, however, manage to avoid tariff increases and rates increases in respect of goods conveyed by the Transport Services.

I want to say that I see this Additional Appropriation at this stage, five months after the main budget, as a straw in the wind preceding tariff increases across the board when the Minister introduces his main budget next month. I think that the public of South Africa at large should be warned to expect increases which are going to have far-reaching effects on commodity costs with a resultant spiralling cost of living for all. It is not a happy prospect, but I think it is as well that the public should be forewarned.

As I have said, it is impossible to assess accurately the finances of the Administration at this stage without knowledge of the present revenue figures. If the additional expenditure asked for in the Bill before us could be recouped by an increased turnover in and profitability of the Administration, the picture would of course be very different, but this seems to me to be most unlikely in view of the hon. the Minister’s remarks in his introductory speech this afternoon. There is little indication, except in respect of one specific head to which I shall refer later, that the increased expenditure is in fact going to result in increased profitability of the Transport Services. The hon. the Minister has told us in his speech that the financial year has been significant for a slackening of economic activities while the pressure of costs has remained high. He has told us too that operating costs have risen considerably while expenditure on capital works has escalated faster than anticipated, faster even it seems, that was anticipated five months ago.

The estimates of the additional working expenditure tabled reflect that the original estimate of expenditure was R5 429 million and that the estimated excess over that amount is approximately R120 million of which approximately R5 million is to be provided from savings leaving approximately R115 million to be appropriated now in this respect. The hon. the Minister now tells us that, allowing for this expenditure and notwithstanding an increase of some R39 million in operating income over the amount budgeted for, there will be a deficit of some R72 million for the current book year as far as income funds are concerned. So the pattern is very clear from the Estimates and from the hon. the Minister’s speech introducing this Bill this afternoon. Throughout, one sees the thread of higher costs of maintenance of rolling stock, higher costs of motive power operating expenses, higher costs of traffic and vehicle running expenses and higher costs of subsidiary services. These the hon. the Minister attributes, generally, to increased costs of labour, increased costs of material, increased costs of maintenance and increased costs of fuel, particularly in the case of the Airways. So the pattern, as I have said, is clear. There is a pattern of increased expenditure. There appears to be little hope of revenue overtaking that expenditure and we seem to be headed for a situation, if this Additional Appropriation means anything, where we are going to be faced with a fairly serious financial situation when we discuss the Transport Services budget next month. As I have said, it is difficult at this stage to get a full picture of the finances of the Transport Services.

Having said that, I want to deal with certain specific items in respect of which I should like further information from the hon. the Minister. Under head No. 8, “Depreciation and higher replacement costs”, the hon. the Minister referred to an increase of R2 630 000. The note in respect of that head reads—

The hon. the Minister indicated in his speech that this also included departmental houses sold to personnel. I wonder if the hon. the Minister in his reply to this debate could indicate what proportion of the increased amount was in fact in respect of houses bought by personnel. Under the subheading “Permanent Way and Works, Electrification and Communications” an amount of R184 million appear. Could the hon. the Minister indicate what proportion of that was in respect of the provision of houses for the Administration’s personnel?

I should also like to deal with another head to which the hon. the Minister referred in his opening remarks, and that is head No. 15, “Road Transport Service”, in respect of which there is an increase of R2 790 000. The note indicates that “the excess is due to escalating labour costs, increased fuel consumption as well as the hire of more private buses”, to which the hon. the Minister also referred in his speech. Could the hon. the Minister indicate when he replies what the purpose was in respect to the hire of buses by the Administration and what proportion of the amount of the increase is in respect of such hire? I am not sure what the buses were hired for, what they were used for and what the cost of it was.

Under head No. 16, “Tourist Service”, there is an increase of R5 420 000 because of the increase in air and hotel bookings. This is the one item under this head which, in my view, at least gives encouragement that it is expenditure that is going to produce additional income. The hon. the Minister explained in his speech that as far as the tourist industry is concerned, the increased expenditure on air and hotel bookings will at least have the effect of producing more income for the transport Services. This is, however, the only item that has that particular merit.

Under head No. 31—Working and Maintenance—dealing with Airways, an increase of R66 million is being asked for. The hon. the Minister explained that R41 million of this is in respect of fuel price increases and the weakening of the rand against the USA dollar. Could the hon. the Minister give us further information on the other items under this head? There is for example the item “Sales Promotion and Sales” which involves an increase of R11 390 000 over the original estimate of R99 million. This is a very high percentage increase and I want to know what the reason for the increase is. Originally we voted R99 million and now we are being asked to vote an additional amount of over R11 million. It is not clear to me why there should be such an increase under this particular item.

While I am on Airways and before I conclude, there are various items in the Brown Book to which my colleagues will refer in the Committee Stage. In regard to Airways, the Brown Book reflects an additional capital expenditure of over R50 million. We will deal with this later. There is, however, one item— and it is the only Brown Book item that I want to refer to at this stage—which deals with modifications to aircraft and for which an additional amount of almost R24 million has to be voted. The original estimate was just over R74 million. Proportionately this is again a tremendous increase over the original estimate. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what aircraft were modified and also how that amount is made up.

While one might be critical of the fact that we have to vote additional funds at this stage, it is clear from the estimates and from the hon. the Minister’s comments that it is necessary for these funds to be voted for the S.A. Transport Services. I want to conclude, however, by saying that this Additional Appropriation is not a very good augury for the main budget of next month.

Mr. Speaker, what the entire speech by the hon. member for Berea in fact amounts to is that this Additional Appropriation of the S.A. Transport Service is only a foretaste of what is going to happen when the main budget is introduced in the near future. In other words, the hon. member is insinuating that a member of extra increases will have to occur because, or so he maintains, the Railways is now saddled with major financial problems. What the main budget is going to involve, is of course the prerogative of the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, I think that everyone will realize that since South Africa is faced with a rate of inflation of approximately 14%, the Transport Services and the important components thereof, the railways, the airways and the harbours, cannot possibly escape the process of increased costs which we encounter in all other sectors.

If one takes a general look at this Additional Appropriation it does seem, to me at least, that during the past year the S.A. Transport Services has enjoyed the privilege of good bookkeeping and good management. The hon. the Minister is asking Parliament to approve an additional amount of R240 million. If we were to add up the total operating and capital expenditure of the S.A. Transport Services, it would only total approximately R7 300 million. Therefore we are dealing here with an increase of only R240 million. A quick calculation will show that this increase amounts to a mere 3%. Therefore I think that the hon. the Minister and the management of the S.A. Transport Services may be congratulated on the way in which they controlled the additional expenditure during the past year, keeping it within reasonable bounds.

The hon. member for Berea tried to create the impression that because we had a budget only a few months ago, things have deteriorated considerably, and this within the space of only a few months. Surely the hon. member for Berea did not come to this House yesterday. He was here before; from 1953 to 1961, if I am not mistaken. He has also been sitting here again since 1974. Therefore the hon. member ought to know that in years in which an election is held, it is known in advance that there is a budget. This argument of his, i.e. that the fact that there was a budget five months ago serves as proof of how the situation has deteriorated since then, is nothing but a petty debating point which the hon. member for Berea is trying to win. Surely the hon. member ought to know that the expenditure and revenue during the year is usually determined in advance by the authorities in question, whether an election is taking place or not. Therefore I do not believe that that argument advanced by the hon. member impresses anyone.

When we consider the expenditure that has been incurred and the reasons for it as indicated by the hon. the Minister, I believe that his explanations with regard to the additional expenditure have been reasonable. We need only take note of the increased cost of labour and material. As I have already said, the State, and the country in general, are saddled with a high rate of inflation, and therefore one ought to expect that this factor alone will have an enormous effect on this very important service. Then, too, there is the normal increase in contract work which also involves increased expenditure. There is also the issue of rapid progress made by contractors. All this, then, has entailed additional expenditure for the Transport Services.

Looking at the operating expenditure, there is an additional R114 million that we are being asked to vote. In that regard, labour costs alone are R19 million more. This can be ascribed to more overtime and more Sunday time worked in order to operate the various services, and due to the rapid progress and growth we have had. In spite of the fact that the growth in South Africa last year was only a little over 4%, whereas during the previous year it was 8%, there has still been growth in comparison with previous periods. Therefore the Sunday time and overtime worked to provide the necessary services had to be paid for. This entailed additional expenditure.

If there is one item which cannot be overlooked, it is undoubtedly the enormous increase in fuel prices. For the S.A. Transport Services it was a percentage increase of 6%, namely R41 million more. However, there was greater consumption as well. In other words, more services were rendered for that additional expenditure. The hon. the Minister nas already mentioned the fact that the devaluation of the South African rand as against the US dollar exerted a considerable influence in this regard.

Another item that should not be over looked is the consumption of electricity. The S.A. Transport Services in South Africa, and the Railways in particular, are one of the biggest consumers of electricity in this country. This has shown an enormous increase. Usually, according to the figures, the Railways spends approximately R151 million on electricity. In this regard there was again a considerable increase. Other operating expenditure, too, increased by an amount of R37 million. However, I want to re-emphasize—and I do not want to single out specific items here today—that seen overall, the S.A. Transport Services is in an outstanding position. If the additional amount of R240 million is contrasted with an amount of R7 300 million, it takes no great intelligence to see that as far as finance and economic affairs are concerned, this shows that the S.A. Transport Services are well administered and that this bodes well for the future. In the circumstances the hon. the Minister ought to be congratulated on this Additional Appropriation. The management, too, ought to be congratulated on having been able to keep the increase within such reasonable limits. The hon. member for Berea expressed some criticism but it was totally lacking in substance. In any event, he is not going to vote against the Second Reading. He realizes that in the circumstances this additional amount can be granted because it is in the interests of the S.A. Transport Services and of the officials and employees of the S.A. Transport Services that this money be made available.

Therefore we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the last remark of the hon. member for De Kuilen about the Opposition having to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill and the reason he gave for this, viz. that it is a reasonable provision, is not really valid. The hon. member knows that we have got to vote for this Bill because we are actually debating the event after it has in fact happened. Although we realize that the books of the S.A. Transport Services still have a month or two to run, we are in fact facing a fait accompli. This is what is going to happen. There is going to have to be an increase in the appropriation because there has been an increase in expenditure.

I believe that it has become rather traditional in this debate for hon. members to evaluate the performance of the hon. the Minister and his Administration by the extent to which he comes closest to his original estimate. The hon. member for Berea has said that a year or two ago the amount was R300 million, that a year ago it was R190 million and that now it is R240 million. In fact, I think four or five years ago the hon. the Minister at the time actually ended his year spot on, as they say, without requiring any additional appropriation. I doubt whether this is really the correct way to evaluate or debate this particular appropriation. I say this because the fact that the hon. the Minister might end his year close to his original budget or estimate may be a measure of good budgetary control but it does not necessarily mean—and I think he will concede this point—that he has succeeded as a business manager or that his operation is operating in an entirely efficient and economic manner. I say this especially when one considers the S.A. Transport Services as being a major employer and a major factor in the South African economy. I say this too especially when one considers what the hon. member for De Kuilen has said, viz. that we in South Africa are fighting inflation. I really despair at times when I hear hon. members on that side like the hon. member for De Kuilen justifying additional increases by saying that they are as a result of inflation. Good budgeting implies making allowances for inflation. In fact, we have written inflation costs into all our estimating and costing methods as is evident from the Select Committee’s Report in recent years. Therefore, I totally reject the argument of the hon. member for De Kuilen that inflation is one of the reasons for the additional estimates. The hon. the Minister told us that the price of aircraft fuel has also increased and that the dollar/rand exchange rate was also a factor in this regard. Certainly there are certain legitimate reasons but I believe that we must judge the hon. the Minister as a business manager in order to see how efficiently he has operated the S.A. Transport Services under the circumstances pertaining during this past year in order to see just how profitable his operation has been. The hon. the Minister has told us that while revenue increased by R39 million he is going to end the year with an adverse balance of R72 million. This is my complaint this afternoon. When we look at past capital budgets, we see that we have spent hundreds of millions of rand on computers for the S.A. Transport Services so there is no reason whatsoever for the hon. the Minister not to have his finger on the pulse of his revenue and expenditure at any given moment. We know this because it happens in private industry. The hon. the Minister should be able to say, how does the budget stand today, and, zap out of the computer should come the answer. There is therefore no excuse that the hon. the Minister could not have known which way the trends were going. I honestly believe that the hon. the Minister should be able to judge as to whether he is going to end a year in profit or in loss. He has told us that he is ending with a R72 million loss and therefore I think we have justification to criticize him.

To end the year almost spot on the original estimate, i.e. with a deviation of only 1,9% in expenditure, is in my view not really a justification for the claim that it is an excellent example of management, because often a budget does contain a lot of built-in fat, and I wonder just how much fat there was in this budget. I think the hon. the Minister must concede the point that I am trying to make this afternoon, and that is that in these difficult times where we have high interest rates, high cost of capital, coupled with the high inflation rate, it is only those businesses which keep a tight rein on costs and which are constantly pressing for still higher productivity which will not only survive in South Africa or in the world, but which will also make a meaningful contribution towards the fight against inflation. Surely, this must be a major objective with the Government at the present time in view of the fight against inflation.

At this stage I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister. As the Minister in charge, as I have said, of probably the largest single business enterprise in South Africa, I ask him to apply the tremendous influence—I want to say “tremendous horsepower”, and being a farmer, he will understand what I mean when I say he has a lot of horsepower—to the fight against inflation. I believe he can do it with a budget of R7 500 000 million a year. He can make a considerable impact upon inflation. Excessive spending, extravagant or wasteful spending, I believe, just cannot be tolerated today.

You are really covering a wide field now.

I have looked at these increases and I shall discuss a few points during the Committee Stage since I believe the major purpose of this debate is to discuss the various items in the Committee Stage. There is, however, one matter which is causing me concern and that is in the capital budget. It concerns some of the reasons the hon. the Minister has given for the increases. He mentioned some of them. He said that due to unanticipated expenditure there is necessity for certain increases. It is on this side of his Additional Appropriation that I want to pick a bone with the hon. the Minister.

If one studies the additional R125 million for which the hon. the Minister asks and one adds up those items which are now being appropriated for as a result of unanticipated expenditure or work being done ahead of time, one finds that they add up to R104 051 400, which is 83,2% of the total increases for which he asks. If one takes this increase of R104 million and compares it as a percentage of the original estimates, it works out at an increase of 42,6%. In some instances the increase is close to 1 000%.

The question which I want to ask the hon. the Minister in conclusion is how it is that these were unanticipated. Under head No. 6, for example, we read that “the additional provision is required for contract payments not anticipated”. One finds all the way through that “the expenditure was not anticipated” or “the vehicles were delivered ahead of time” or “the rolling stock was delivered ahead of time”. This has meant that we have had to look for an extra R104 million on the foreign market to meet these increases and, no doubt, we shall get it at a high interest rate, but one wonders whether this could have been avoided. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will reply to me in this regard. The rest of my comments I shall leave until the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, one is always impressed, when one receives these estimates, at the quality of the work that goes into them. One is reminded once again of the importance of Parliament as a control over the expenditure of the State and the role the system of budgeting as a means of control plays in the process. I always find it a reminder of the need to be efficient in one’s own business when one is presented with a well prepared budget such as this. It distresses us that there should have to be additional appropriations, although when one is budgeting for such large amounts one cannot always be completely accurate.

I want to deal briefly with the hon. member for De Kuilen. Although as the hon. member for Berea has pointed out, the original budget is only five months old, the hon. member for De Kuilen says it has had to be moved forward. That would have given the Administration and the hon. Minister the time to update the budget. If this rate of increased i.e. 3,3% were to be taken over 12 months, we would most probably have had a budget here close to 8% increase over the original budget. I think that is actually a poor show and we should bear that in mind. However, if it were the original budget that was prepared for presentation in March last year, then this is a most commendable performance.

I am also concerned that the hon. member for De Kuilen should have raised the question of inflation. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has also pointed out that we have been living with inflation for many years. When the hon. member, the chairman of the Select Committee, realizes what happens in the Select Committee, he will be aware that the Administration has been trying constantly for the last five years to get the Select Committee on Railway Accounts to deal with issues relating to inflation. The budgeting in the S.A. Transport Service is quite familiar with the whole problem of inflation. To come with inflation as a reason to justify increases in costs is, to me, showing an abysmal ignorance of the familiarity which the hon. the Minister and his department has with the problems of inflation.

We have just passed a Bill to allow the general manager more opportunity to invest his funds on the capital markets of the world so that he will be able to get the best deal for himself.

The hon. member must come back to the reasons for the increase.

Mr. Speaker, there are three heads here which deal with extra finance charges, and my points would fall under them. The question of financing and dealing with interest rates, exchange rates, etc., are techniques familiar to the Administration. It is therefore no good the hon. member for De Kuilen hiding behind the skirts of an administration as if it does not know how to deal with exchange rates and inflation. That is nonsense. The Administration ought to be able to deal with it and it ought to be able to budget for it.

Then that hon. member praises, under head No. 4 and head No. 5 of the estimates of the additional working expenditure, the fact that people have to work overtime. He is actually pleased that in order to earn a living Railwaymen had to work overtime and work on Sundays. [Interjections.] If that shows the kind of sensitivity those hon. members have towards ordinary voters, no wonder the public has an image of hon. members on that side of the House as being fat cats. [Interjections.] That hon. member does not have to work on Sundays to earn a living. [Interjections.] Yet he praises the hon. the Minister and praises people for having to work overtime and work on Sundays. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House, however, do not want people to have to work overtime and work on Sundays to earn a living. [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon. member then also went on to make a big issue of the fact that we will not vote against this Additional Appropriation. [Interjections.] We also want to have the country run … [Interjections.] … but for him to suggest that we should vote against this measure is fatuous in the extreme. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with one or two aspects, in the additional capital budget in particular, which raise certain interesting principles. Let me refer for example to item 80 under head No. 7—Additional Security Lighting at Pump Stations. I then refer hon. members to some of the extra capital expenses on the permanent way. One obviously cannot, in a budget of this nature, deal with questions in detail, but we are in effect being asked to vote an additional amount of approximately R½ million for security lighting at pump stations. I believe that that expenditure, and no doubt some other expenditure on permanent ways, is a reflection of the very difficult situation in which the South African Transport Services finds itself. Through this kind of expenditure the South African Transport Services is finding itself in a Catch 22 situation. It is a victim of the political situation in this country, because that extra fighting is security fighting. Hon. members only have to look at the pump stations up against the Drakensberg, and at Hillcrest in Natal, to know that they have been very brightly floodlit for many years now. They are, in fact, landmarks because of the bright fight emanating from them. Now, however, we want to spend another R½ million to install more floodlights. I do not blame that hon. Minister, but I do believe that this House should be aware of the fact that that cost is a direct result of this Government’s political policy, which this administration has to bear the brunt of. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with due respect, there is an item under head No. 7 for expenditure on additional security fighting at pump stations, and that is what I am speaking to. The point is that security fighting would not be necessary purely for reasons of theft or damage of that nature. I do not believe that a further R½ million would be necessary for that purpose.

I also want to raise another issue in a broad context. We have a number of references to repayment of loans and to raising extra finance for interest on loans. I believe that the hon. the Minister ought to make it clear to this House what his policy is when it comes to dealing with loans and moneys. What, for example, is his policy on interest? In view of what the hon. the Minister said in his speech, and in view of the fact that interest rates are rising, it seems to me unusual that it can be in our interest to repay loans at this time. One would have imagined that those loans were negotiated at lower interest rates. Is there consequently an advantage in borrowing more money at this stage when overseas interest rates are possibly drop ping? I think we should get some sort of clarity from the hon. the Minister about loan financing.

The hon. the Minister mentioned that R125 million, in other words just over half of all this money, is going to be raised through loans. In other words, the people of South Africa are not going to have the cost of that money as such, but simply that of the interest charges. I therefore think that if it is possible the hon. the Minister should tell us where this money is coming from and what sort of interest rates we are paying for it, and also what the terms of those loans are.

We obviously want to raise some further matters in more detail in the Committee Stage, but I think that at this stage we must express our concern over a number of issues in this Additional Appropriation although in general terms percentage-wise it is a reasonable achievement.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to reply to the hon. member for Berea who asked me a few questions. That we had a budget five months ago is perfectly correct, but at that stage we did not increase any tariffs. The hon. member will remember that our tariffs actually remained the same. We did not anticipate certain cost increases and the last five months of the financial year are actually the most important ones budget-wise and financially. Those are the five very active months. As I have said, there were certain increases. We did not foresee that the interest rates would increase by as much as they did. We did not foresee that the price of fuel would increase as much as it did as a result of the dollar-rand situation. These factors all contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves. One thing, however, is certain and that is that one will seldom find an organization with a budget of R7 000 million and all the expenses to which I have referred—I shall reply on them in detail—still being out only by this small amount. Fuel for aircraft alone is responsible for R41 million of the total amount. Nobody could tell me—not even the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg-North—five months ago that the fuel situation would become the situation we are experiencing at the moment.

The hon. member for Berea would like to anticipate the main budget. He has said he sees a thread of high costs running right through it. That is so, but let him tell me whether he, if he were in my position, would give the labourers of this organization a pay increase.

[Inaudible.]

He says he would because they need it. What percentage would he give them? [Interjections.]

*I am not going to argue with the hon. member. He and I get along very well.

You tell us what you are going to do.

With a view to the cost increases to which I have just referred, he predicts that there is going to be a difficult main budget. In the meantime he admits that the 260 000 workers in the Transport Services must be given a salary increase. What must one then use to pay a salary increase?

But you have already budgeted for that.

One can budget until one is blue in the face. [Interjections.]

The hon. member put a number of questions to me. Amongst others, he asked me a question about head No. 16 that has a bearing on the working expenses of the tourist service. There were more air and hotel reservations and an equivalent sum was also earned in revenue. As far as the increase in the expenditure on sales promotion, I can say that more was spent on marketing as a result of cut-throat competition. There is tremendous competition. Just look at what happened to Sir Freddie Laker’s aircraft. Therefore we must spend more on sales promotion. All of this falls under the heading to which the hon. member referred.

We must do better than Sir Freddie Laker.

We are doing much better. The hon. member also asked me about buses. The cost attached to hiring buses is almost 100% of the additional amount of R390 000 in question. A larger additional amount was earned in revenue. The buses are required for the anticipated flow of Black passengers in particular to the homelands over long weekends. We feel that such arrangements are good from a business angle. At the same time we are encouraging private firms. Let me explain how it works. We have a certain number of buses, but then there is a tremendous demand over a long weekend from people who want to travel to the homelands. We then approach a firm, for instance Greyhound or Putco, and hire some of their buses in order to be able to provide the service. I shall furnish the hon. member with full replies to those points. The budget comprises thousands of items and if I could furnish written replies to some of the questions, it would save a great deal of time. There is an explanation for each item. I do not differ with the hon. member for Berea with regard to his comparisons. It is true that we had a sum of R318 million in the additional estimates in 1980; last year the figure was R183 million. The hon. member expressed concern because there is such a big difference now, but I can assure him that in drawing up the main budget we tried to be as accurate as possible. The whole debate today concerns an additional appropriation. I feel that this system should be changed. When we discuss the Brown Book presently, it will become clear how many of the accounts we receive have been sent in late. The hon. member is also a member of the Select Committee and he knows that they have restricted us to R30 000. The management of a business with a turnover of thousands of millions of rand must surely be in a position to pass through accounts to the value of say R150 000 that were received late, instead of first having to ask for money to do so. With the annual escalation figure they asked for R100 000, but I say it is still too little for a business of this scope. We are wasting the time of the Select Committee as well as that of Parliament, because replies must be furnished to all these questions. R30 000 extra has been allowed. Now the construction of a railway line or the electrification of a railway line is given out to tender and after the work has been completed, an account for R120 000 is received, which is still part of the tender. However, this falls in the following year and because it exceeds R30 000 we must go through the entire matter here. There are more important matters that require our attention, Sir. In addition, all accounts are audited by the Auditor-General and by the auditors of Transport Affairs. I am therefore saying that we would save a great deal of time if we could move away from this system.

I believe the hon. member for Berea will put further questions to me during the Committee Stage but I nevertheless want to tell him that I am in a difficult position. I cannot give a precise answer to many of his questions today, because they have a bearing on the coming main budget. However, within two weeks he will receive all his information. Later on I shall provide the hon. member with the amount that we have spent on housing.

When I was the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for De Kuilen sat on that side and therefore was my opponent. However, he was a clean fighter, and if a man on that side is a clean fighter, his future is here with us and after a while he becomes a member of the Cabinet! The hon. member has now become the chairman of our Transport Group as well as of the Select Committee, and it is clear from his contribution that we are going to co-operate well with both sides of the House. If someone has a positive attitude, one works well with him.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that while we spent a large amount of money on computers we were not on the spot with our budgeting. If, however, one looks at all the figures and at the total turnover, it is still a very good budget in view of general cost increases and inflation. That is my personal opinion and also that of people in the business world. He also referred to excessive spending, and that is a fact. I will, however, indicate in the main budget how we have cut down on excessive spending. We are not in any way wasting money. In the present circumstances that would not be the right thing to do. We are cutting down on the construction of certain lines. Indeed, we might be four months late with the Richards Bay expansion, and expansion that will enable us to export 8 million tons of coal within 10 to 12 years. However, in an effort to fight inflation we are cutting down on expenditure, and it is my aim to fight inflation. The hon. member said the Minister should stand up and indicate in which way he was fighting inflation. How do we fight inflation? How can we fight inflation if all of a sudden the price of fuel, electricity and steel goes up? Can the hon. member mention one item that has come down in price?

*To be sure, everything has become more expensive. However, what are we doing here? With the same number of staff we have shown a growth of 3%. When one deals with the S.A. Transport Service, the only way in which the degree of efficiency can be determined, is by taking note of the fact that there was no increase in the number of staff, and despite that there was a growth of 3% in the industry itself.

What about agriculture?

Agriculture is largely dependent upon rainfall. In any event, agriculture is in good shape. However, the S.A. Transport Services is in even better shape. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member referred to the amount of R47 million that has been voted for the modification of aircraft. The hon. member for Berea referred to this too. The aircraft are regularly modernized in order to promote safety and efficiency. One item of R23 million has been included here, to which the hon. member referred as well. The people who provide us with the aircraft are continually involved in research. The fuel consumption and thrust of the engines in particular must be improved. The proposed modification of the aircraft originally included replacing 207F engines with 207Q engines. This would have made it possible for additional numbers of passengers to be transported, and in addition would have also made it possible for 3 000 kg of freight to be transported per aircraft, with an improved petrol consumption of 2,3%. This modification meant that R6 million per annum could be saved in fuel on these aircraft. Similarly there were various other engines that were replaced; all at a cost of millions of rands, with a view to saving fuel. Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also put a further question to me.

†The hon. member nearly blew a gasket when he spoke about Sunday work. The hon. member used to be a lay preacher himself. [Interjections.]

*Was he not a lay preacher? [Interjections.] He preached well. He preached his way into Parliament. However, it is impossible for us to go about things any other way. We have to allow people to work on Sunday. This is chiefly due to the shortages that we have. When we discuss the main budget, I shall tell hon. members how much money we have to spend on training Black people to do certain kinds of work. It takes up a great deal of time.

I do not mind. What about White people?

Yes, we do not have enough White people in this country.

McIntosh would probably not take a flight on a Sunday. [Interjections.]

However, one cannot accomplish all the work that must be accomplished, without working on Sundays.

I am talking about extra work. [Interjections.]

The hon. member also said inflation was no justification for this sort of practice. I want to know from the hon. member whether he was able to foresee that, over a period of 12 months, the Transport Services’ interest rate would increase to the extent to which it did. The amount voted to cover the increase in interest for the past 12 months exceeds R150 million. Can hon. members believe that? Is it possible for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North to tell the House what interest rates will be this time next year? He can definitely not do that. [Interjections.] The hon. member himself did not know what lay ahead for America as far as interest rates were concerned. He did not foresee the change in the gold price.

The security lighting of the pipeline was caused by our internal political situation. If I should tell the House what security measures are being enforced along Zimbabwe’s rail way lines at the moment they would not believe me. [Interjections.]

But surely McIntosh was there himself. [Interjections.]

Therefore, to spend this amount on the security of this very costly pipeline is I believe quite justifiable. To allege, however, that the Government’s internal policies are to blame … [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, it really is wrong to talk politics now.

In any event, they are spending much less for the same purpose in Zimbabwe than used to be the case. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. the Minister should rather not take that point any further.

I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member also referred to the repayment of loans. We did repay certain loans in order to obviate further financial burdens arising from increasing interest rates. That is the reason why more money was spent on the repayment of loans, as is reflected in the estimates. By repaying certain loans prematurely money was saved on interest.

*Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my throat is sore, otherwise I would have chastized the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North a little more. I hope that I shall be feeling better during the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage Schedules 1 and 2:

Mr. Chairman, I confess I found it most interesting that in the Second Reading of this debate we heard only one speaker for ten minutes from the NP side, and I certainly hope that we shall hear more speakers in the Committee Stage in the time allocated to us.

Do you not understand the tradition of an Additional Appropriation speech?

I want to refer to an item on page 19 of the Brown Book, an item relative to level crossings and where, if one looks at the figures, one will see that there has been a very big increase, percentage-wise—although it amounts to only R2 million in actuality—in terms of the amount of money spent on level crossings. I want to applaud this increase because I believe that the elimination of level crossings is something that should concern us in South Africa more and more. With the increase in traffic, not only on the roads, but by rail as well, I have absolutely no doubt that level crossings represent a danger, and as such they do need to be eliminated. But I wonder where level crossings have in fact been worked on. In the part of the world in which I live, Port Elizabeth, there are level crossings which I believe should be eliminated. These level crossings are over the line where what is commonly known as the “Apple Express” goes through Port Elizabeth. It is a most interesting narrow-gauge railway line which attracts tourists and railway enthusiasts from all over the world. This particular train, although it does not run with the frequency of a mainline train, nevertheless passes through central Port Elizabeth at a number of level crossings. In our view these level crossings create a major hazard on what are major urban roads in Port Elizabeth. If one looks at the traffic counts in these particular areas one finds that on the Buffelsfontein Road, for example, something like 7 200 vehicles pass during a period of 24 hours. The volume of traffic has increased from 4 600 in 1974 to the current figure of 7 200 vehicles per hour in 1981. Secondly, one finds that at 17th Avenue, Walmer—this particular road leads on to a major freeway—the traffic count in 1981 was 4 300 vehicles during a 24-hour period. Thirdly, 6 151 vehicles used the Old Cape Road per 24 hours in 1981. Finally, the Alister Miller Road, which is right next to the Port Elizabeth airport, carried 6 028 vehicles during a 24-hour period during 1981. This therefore totals some 23 686 vehicles per day that had to go across these level crossings during 1981.

How many trains pass through daily?

There are several every day. I am not certain about Sundays. As I have said, there is not the frequency of the mainline traffic, but there is traffic. Therefore probably something in excess of 50 000 people are put at risk as regular users of these highways.

I do not have to prove to hon. members the danger of level crossings in terms of risk of life and limb, damages caused and losses caused to the economy. There is obviously no dissention in this House on this particular point. A special fund does exist for the elimination of these level crossings. The whole of this House has expressed its concern about level crossings by allowing that fund. These accidents happen only too easily. I personally have been involved in one when I was only a very young boy, and I have been nervous of level crossings ever since then. To see that monster bearing down on top of one is a very, very frightening experience which I do not wish on anybody, not even on anybody on that side of the House.

There is of course the question of the economic loss in respect of lives lost in these accidents but there are also other aspects to be considered. This train runs through a built-up area. There is a train hooter that blasts off at all hours of the day and night and this noise factor is also to some extent pollution.

Why don’t you raise these matters under the main budget?

Another aspect is the cost of fuel. I have figures from the Automobile Association …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Can we have some clarity in regard to this debate? Is this Committee entitled to debate the subject generally or is it limited to the reasons for the increases that have taken place?

I want to request the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central to confine himself to discussing the reasons for the increases for which Parliament has to appropriate money.

Very well, Sir. One wonders, however, where the real Opposition in this House lies—whether it is on the NRP benches or on these benches. If that is your ruling, Sir, I shall obviously leave the subject at this stage. However, I regret that I shall have to return to it at another stage and put my whole case again. [Interjections.] That will obviously be wasting the time of this House.

I should like now to discuss another item that appears in the Brown Book and which has been mentioned before. I am referring to the expenditure increase in terms of budget as regards the Airways, an increase of R50 217 200 on an original estimate of R245 290 000. This represents an increase of no less than 20% and I do not believe that any businessman in South Africa would be proud of a capital expenditure budget if he exceeded his target by no less than 20%. I believe this to be extremely excessive and I believe that when the hon. the Minister stood up in his reply to the Second Reading debate and told us that his Administration had not foreseen this and had not foreseen that, it was an admission of a lack of foresight, particularly in regard to this item. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister told us that we had spent a great deal of money—I think it was some R6 million; perhaps the figure was higher—to modify aircraft so that there would be a saving in petrol expenses. However, if we look at the White Book, we shall see that petrol expenses escalated enormously. Perhaps they would have been even higher without these modifications. However, I think the hon. the Minister should tell us more about these modifications to aircraft. I say this because in reply to a question asked earlier this session we heard that one of the Boeings of S.A. Airways was modified for use as what some people call a “flying boardroom.” I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the cost of the modification of that aircraft was borne by this account and, if so, will he please tell us how much money was spent on modifying that aircraft so that it could be used by the State President?

We also see on this particular page—the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to it; even though it is a Committee Stage item the hon. member apparently saw fit to refer to it during the Second Reading debate the fact that additional provision is required for contract payments not anticipated. I do not think that the hon. the Minister has replied adequately to this question as to why they were not anticipated. Surely when one is ordering an aircraft, for instance, the Boeing Company from whom I assume most of our aircraft are bought, would have given one an estimate on which one could base one’s budget as to how much that company would be requiring from S.A. Airways throughout the course of construction.

Mr. Chairman, I have many level crossings in my constituency and I should like to make an appeal in that connection. I realize, however, that now is not the proper time but rather in the Committee Stage of the Main Appropriation.

I want to make one observation about the Brown Book which I neglected to make during the Second Reading debate. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for heeding the appeals last year when we discussed the Additional Estimates and when both the official Opposition and my party said that the Additional Estimates was not the time to add new items to the Capital budget. It will be recalled that last year there was added something like R2,4 billion worth of new capital expenditure in the Brown Book; this year there are only three items which are new and for which there are special reasons for their inclusion.

The first item I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister, concerns Head No. 4. For item 66—Additions to and replacement of vehicles—an increase of something like 482% is required. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give the Committee the reason why there has been this rather large increase.

Under Head No. 8 we have items 82 and 83 which concern stores stock. In the case of item 82 an additional amount of R11 100 000 is required and this represents a 90,7% increase. Item 83 is a new item and it concerns material for future new sanction works. For this item an additional amount of R4 million is required. Could the hon. the Minister give me an explanation in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, under head No. 2 appears item 22 which concerns the relaying and strengthening of the line from Clairwood to Port Shepstone. I notice that this work is nearly finished, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the work on this line includes the replacement of sleepers and ballast which a former member for South Coast raised in the House on one occasion. The need for the work in question was totally denied by his predecessor. He said that the requested work was unnecessary and that the public was being misled. The former hon. member for South Coast then walked down the line and was photographed kicking bits of rotten sleeper out with his boots. Well, that was a number of years ago, but we now have this item here for repairing that line and “the insertion of additional sleepers and/or ballast”. I should like to know whether this is the final justification, the acknowledgement and the honour paid to the member for South Coast at that time, Mr. Douglas Mitchell, for the fight he put up to get that line into safe and decent order at last.

Mr. Chairman, there is an item which I think can be raised with advantage under sub-head 5.1—Salaries. It concerns the apparent imbalance that there exists between some salaries. A “spoorweg-gesondheidsinspekteur”, for example, who has three years’ training at a technikon has a maximum salary of R11 000. He is in possession of the “nasionale diploma vir openbare gesondheid”. Other people, for example a “hoofklerk”, who needs only a junior certificate or a matriculation certificate, can go to a maximum salary of R14 850. This is causing a great deal of concern and unhappiness. I quote from a letter in my possession—

People are obviously worried about this, because several of them have contacted us. It seems to me an unnecessary thing that could probably be sorted out quite easily.

A “tekenaar” with one year technikon training can earn a maximum salary of R14 580, as against a “gesondheidsinspekteur” who can reach R11 340 only despite the fact that his training involves three years at a technikon. Similarly a “toetsamptenaar” requires one year technikon training, and he too can earn up to R14 580 as against the R11 340 of a “gesondheidsinspekteur”.

I raise this because very many employees have contacted us about this. They obviously have cause to feel that the time and effort that they have put into their studies is not being properly and satisfactorily rewarded. Recruitment advertisements by the South African Transport Services for “leerling-in-genieursassistent, leerling-tekenaars en leerling-gesondheidsinspekteurs”, do not show different salary scales for these people. There is also no indication as to the type of training the various groups will get, also no indication as to service benefits. The actual final rewards do not seem to tie up with the time and effort that these people have put in. I am sure they would like this to be looked into.

I want to refer to the other item. On the face of it I agree that a capital budget of R1,8 billion with an escalation of 7% does not look too bad. Many companies would be quite pleased if they showed similar results. From the point of view of the working expenditure account where the budget is R5,4 billion and an increase of just over 2%, it does not look too bad. However, one must bear in mind that what one is actually assessing is the budgeting ability at this stage of the South African Transport Services. I do not believe one can really use this escalation as a justification for being incorrect.

I am particularly interested in the fuel account, because we all have this problem of assessing accurately the escalation of fuel. I do not know whether the escalation in the price of aviation fuel is very different from that of other fuels. That might be the case. I do not have that much direct experience of aviation fuels. However, one should actually be able reasonably to estimate, over the type of period that we are talking about, the escalation in fuel costs. Out of a total escalation of R115 million the power and fuel costs account for R48 million. On the face of it it would seem too high a proportion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central in regard to level crossings. We have a committee consisting of representatives of city councils, provincial administrations and the Transport Commission, and those people decide which level crossings should be done away with. I am happy the hon. member is glad that we have increased this amount for the elimination of level crossings. If the hon. member could bring the matter to my attention officially, I could write to those people and tell them that he has made out a case. There was, however, by way of an interjection, a question from this side of the House about how many trains were involved. The hon. member mentioned the number of motor cars using that crossing.

That is what you should have done.

Yes, but I cannot know such things off-hand. One can, however, have a hell of a lot of cars using a level crossing, but only one train a day. The number of trains using that level crossing must, however, be compared with the number of trains using other level crossings, and it may be found that there are 50 trains a day making use of another level crossing. We shall, however, be paying attention to this.

*The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to item No. 66 and an amount of R8 million for additions to and replacements of vehicles. I shall only give him the reply in broad outline. I shall send him the written document. It is not necessary to waste the time of the House.

We are interested in the matter.

An amount of R0,24 million, and subsequently another amount of R3,8 million, were spent on 86 rural passenger vehicle chassis. There is also a contractor who delivered early. Many of these items were delivered early.

Why?

Because we tell a contractor that we want delivery within 18 months. However, he delivers within, say, 12 months. We pay him and it goes into the books.

No, you should tell him to keep it until you need it!

Is that hon. member not a businessman? Ask the businessman on that side of the House what happens if one waits another six months. Every month an item increases in price. The sooner one can pay for an item, of course, the better it is for business. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, just for clarification could the hon. the Minister tell me how the S.A. Transport Services operates? Does it issue a contract for a particular transport item at a particular contract price, to be delivered on a particular date? If so, I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. the Minister’s reply to my question.

We ask for tenders, for example for a certain type of chassis.

At a certain price?

At a certain price. We accept say tender A.

The item to be delivered at a certain date?

Yes, we ask for delivery in 18 months. They give us earlier delivery, however, saying they want the money earlier and offer us a discount.

Oh!

That is one way to do it. [Interjections.]

Did you get a discount?

Of course, what does that hon. member think? Many of these items are delivered earlier, and the contractor asks us to pay him immediately and save money. We then revise the price and bring it into the present financial year.

*What do those hon. members think? Do they think we would pay for an item which only has to be paid for in 18 months’ time, without deducting interest and without taking into account the advantage to the supplier in the sense that he can put the money in his pocket earlier? That is not how we do business. This enterprise is not a stupid one.

Is the discount more than the interest?

Of course it is more than the interest, because they have the use of the money.

*There are also 50 three-axle truck tractors involving an amount of almost R700 000. Then there is an amount of R1,5 million for trucks and an additional 28 truck tractors, for which no money was originally appropriated, but which are now urgently needed for the expansion of services. These items necessitate an additional expenditure of R2 million. That is the reason for the increase.

The hon. member also asked a question about the big additional amount which is being asked for under item 82, “Stores Stock”. The original capital programme in respect of the stores stock amounted to R56 million. However, the price increases have been as follows: R2 million for spare parts for electric locomotives; R2 million for spare parts for diesel locomotives; R7 million for diesel fuel for all road and rail transport; and R4 million for rails. As far as the rails are concerned, I may say that steel prices were increased twice during the financial year, by 15% and 8% in July and October respectively. As the hon. member can see, there is a reason for every increase.

Then a question has been asked about the modification of aircraft. Other hon. members have also referred to this. Aircraft are not bought in this country and we do not make Boeing or Airbus engines either. Pratt and Whitney and similar firms build them for us. A contract has been entered into and the conditions of payment in the contract concerned have also been amended. There is a waiting list for Boeings. One cannot just say one wants two Boeings. One has to order them two or three years in advance. We are actually faced with a monopoly. There is only one Boeing factory and in its conditions of sale it says that one has to pay 25% cash upon placing the order. Later it comes along and says that its financial condition has changed to such an extent that it wants an additional 10%. You want the Boeing in two years’ time. However, there is a waiting list. Japan and every other country want Boeings. Then the factory tells you: “Give us a further 10%; then you stay on our list.” In the same way, I can give an explanation for every item.

†The hon. member for Durban Point referred to a certain railway line. I was a youngster in the House when Mr. Douglas Mitchell, a fine old gentleman—I received a letter from him nine months ago—crossed swords with Mr. Ben Schoeman. They are two old veterans. He made Mr. Ben Schoeman step down as regards this project. I want to be very precise in my reply, because I do not want to step down as regards that line, because I must farm over the weekends. My reply is that it relates to renewal and improvement of the track. That is all I can tell the hon. member.

The hon. member for Walmer asked questions about salary discrimination but actually that is not at issue here. The people concerned should work through their trade unions. I can say that the situation is being re-investigated in relation to certain health inspectors. However, we do not want to discriminate. I make a point of not doing so.

The hon. member for Walmer went on to say that an escalation of 7% does not look too bad. I think that that effectively concludes this debate. When a businessman like the hon. member for Walmer says that 7% does not look too bad, then I say he will prosper in the land, because he has his eyes open and he is a good businessman.

Mr. Chairman …

Do not start all over again.

Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised that the hon. the Minister referred to the price of fuel escalating so enourmously. I am at a great loss to understand why oil prices have even risen in a country like South Africa when the price of oil on the world market at least over the last six months has dropped, and dropped quite considerably. It seems very strange to me that an enormous figure of some R50 million is shown under the Airways’ requirements at least half of which is for fuel.

The hon. the Minister then referred to inflation and asked: “Where are things going down?” I should like to refer him to General Motors, a firm which is slightly bigger than the S.A. Transport Services. It has a turnover of about 12 billion U.S. dollars per year and employs over a million people.

In the USA?

Yes, in the USA. The workers for General Motors have just accepted a decrease in wages, but on one condition, namely that General Motors must reduce the price of their cars. On that basis one has a means of fighting inflation, but to keep on talking about raising prices and raising tariffs one is of course only fuelling inflation. It is about time that the Government seeks other ways and means of controlling inflation because increased tariffs will not help them in their efforts. All that will do is to add to the inflation spiral.

I should like to raise a last point in regard to modifications to aircraft. Modifications that took place in the past year or two were to the introduction of “Gold Class” on overseas trips. I cannot for the life of me see— and I happen to have travelled lately on it— why we should have a Gold Class on our international flights. All one gets, should one want it, is an extra whiskey, a choice between two different types of food, and then it is exactly the same sort of food that one in any case would have got in Tourist Class. There is no extra space and no extra allowances are made. Under the old Economy Class, if one travelled at a certain time and did not travel for the limited Excursion time but took a ticket that extended over a year, one paid exactly the same price. I think people are really being taken for a ride. I sat in this plane, in the Gold Class, and right next to me were three babies; yet this class is being advertised as being nice and quiet, particularly for businessmen. Sir, I should like the whole question of the Gold Class to be investigated so as to ascertain whether it is for any value whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to convey my sympathy to the hon. the Minister of Transport Services for having had to listen to so much negative criticism from the Opposition side this afternoon.

I am rising on behalf of my constituency, Witbank, to express our gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister, as well as his department, for the construction of a goods-yard at Witbank. Hon. members know for a fact that the growth and development in that area are phenomenal, and since a goods yard is now being constructed, I should like to express my appreciation for this. If one takes note of the problems which the Administration experienced in constructing the goods-yard there, one understands what has been achieved.

In the Additional Appropriation, provision has been made for an amount of R100 000 so that work on that lay-out may proceed, and I also want to express my gratitude for this. Since one cannot always find an opportune moment, I now want to convey my special appreciation to the officials of the S.A. Transport Services for the service which they are rendering at that goods yard.

What item does that fall under?

I would have thought that a frontbencher on that side of the House would at least know what this was all about. I am referring to item No. 44 under Head No. 2, which is concerned with the new goods lay-out at Witbank. The personnel are working in difficult conditions there, in a confined space, and there is an increase in the stores which are being handled there. I therefore want to avail myself of the opportunity this afternoon to convey my appreciation and to pay tribute to the personnel who are employed at the goods yard at Witbank.

Mr. Chairman, when one looks at the programme of new works on open lines one sees that there are minor deviations from the estimates throughout. This is of course to be expected in a branch of operations such as civil engineering construction, especially since one has to deal here with uncertainties. I should, however, like to refer more specifically to and ask a few questions on items No. 7, 13, 49 and 56, in which approval is sought for expenditures which exceed the original estimates by 15%, 33%, 60% and 80%, respectively. These items each represent some of the larger construction works in the programme of capital works, and according to the explanation at the back of the Brown Book, these amounts have been requested to cover the cost of “a greater amount of work” which has been done.

I want to point out that the S.A. Transport Services can be very fortunate if what the explanatory statement boils down to is that the contractors are now ahead of schedule. This will naturally mean that “more work” has been accomplished within the limits of the total cost of the project. “A greater amount of work” can of course also mean that the project itself requires “a greater amount of work” than was originally envisaged for its completion, which will of course mean increased project costs, but will not necessarily indicate that more rapid progress was made with the work.

If I may deal with the latter possibility first, perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell me, especially with regard to item No. 13, item No. 49 and item No. 56, whether there is any question here of increased project costs as a result of necessary changes, because of the design for instance, or whether any fruitless expenditure has been included in the figures mentioned. I should like answers to these questions from the hon. the Minister.

Next—if I may now return to my first remark with “a greater amount of work” which entails greater progress—I just want to point out that the few contractors who are involved in these four big projects which I am now referring to, represent an excess expenditure on construction works of R18 million, or 60%. One would, of course, think that the bigger the project, and therefore also the contractor, the better the estimates would be. One would also expect better programming. Now it seems, however, that exactly the opposite is true. I should like to believe that, as in the case of other civil engineering works, it is expected of the contractors to submit a physical work schedule as well as a cash flow schedule. These schedules are usually regarded as part of the terms of the contract. Usually a penalty clause is included, and in some cases even a bonus clause.

When we look at the substantial excess expenditure on these few big projects, I just want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. I hope that he will be able to reply to them. In the first place, I want to know why the contractors are allowed to move so far beyond their approved schedule. Then a few other questions necessarily present themselves. One wonders, for instance, whether a bonus clause is included in those contracts. If a bonus clause is in fact included in the contracts, I wonder who stipulated the period of completion. Was it the Administration? If it was, was the contract period not perhaps rather generously stipulated, so that the contractors are now working faster in order to make an exorbitant profit by completing the project quickly? Furthermore, I want to know why the S.A. Transport Services allow the contractors to indeed move so far beyond their schedules. If the contractors themselves stipulated their periods, is the Administration satisfied that they did not perhaps stipulate unnecessarily long periods to ensure that they received the bonus?

We have already heard from the hon. the Minister in reply to other questions, that rapid completion benefits the Administration because it then saves on escalation. That is the reply he gave the hon. member for South Coast. This is an argument which is only a valid one when a person is budgeting with unlimited funds. When funds are limited, however, it means that one has to omit certain items from one’s estimates. If one overspends on approved projects, it means that those funds could have been appropriated for initiating projects which were originally excluded. In other words, one creates a whole new set of priorities if one allows excess expenditure to take place on certain works within a limited budget.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to fuel prices and said that the world price for fuel had come down. But the price of aircraft fuel increased by 24%, and not only for South Africa. It increased by more than 20% also for the rest of the world’s aviation undertakings. These are the real facts. I shall spell them out further when we discuss the budget. The increase over the last 10 years was more than 1 200%. And we cannot do anything about that. The hon. member must also remember that even if one enters a contract the position of the American dollar as against the South African rand must be taken into account. Today the dollar and rand are almost on par. The hon. the member also said that I must decrease the rate of inflation. He is speaking to the wrong person. How can I decrease the rate of inflation? A little earlier the hon. member for Berea asked that I increase the salaries of the workers of the S.A. Transport Services. The hon. the Minister of Finance has increaded GST to 5%.

It is a scandal, is it not?

No, it is not. We want to pay our accounts. We cannot do anything else. I do not blame the hon. Minister of Finance. But why start with me?

*It is just the same as in the time when I was involved in the Department of Agriculture. Everyone got their increases. Every hon. member rose in this House and said that the man who manufactured a weedkiller should be assured of a decent income and that the man who manufactured fertilizer should be given the chance to build up industries. Give him a good price for his fertilizer, they said, and when, at the very end of the line, I announced the new price of a bag of wheat, hon. members saw red because I had increased the price of the wheat. And yet, the farmers had to meet their expenses.

What have you done with the maize?

We have had good rains.

To make a profit, was that why?

The S.A. Transport Services is faced with cost increases right across the board. However, because of efficient personnel we can still show the figures that I have presented to hon. members here today. The hon. member for Walmer says it is not a bad show that we are putting up under South Africa’s conditions today. So how can that hon. member as a good businessman make such a suggestion?

*Hon. members must know that it is the farmers who made him rich.

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. Minister is really a farmer at heart, but can he not perhaps use an example from transport affairs when talking about inflation?

The hon. member has not been listening. We are on the eve of the main budget for Transport Services and we are faced with cost increases right across the board. If it is steel, I have no control over it. The same applies to electricity. The price of imported oil, over which no one in South Africa has any control, is steadily rising. Nevertheless, our Airways has put up a splendid show compared with other airlines, which are showing losses of up to 2 000 million dollars. Our loss cannot be more than R60 million, and that in the world in which we are operating today.

†The hon. member also mentioned the question of the Gold Class ticket. Sir, the businessmen of South Africa told us that we had to compete with all the other international airlines because they have a Gold Class ticket. They said that they wanted something special. Businessmen flying overseas want Gold Class treatment—a choice of food, quicker service in respect of alcoholic drinks and so forth. Now the hon. member is complaining. They are the ones who asked for a Gold Class. Anybody who does not wish to fly Gold Class can fly tourist class. That hon. member is welcome to fly tourist class, he need not fly Gold Class. However, a fine gentleman like he is should support the S.A. Airways by paying a little more and flying Gold Class. We want to make a profit.

What about the difference in price?

Of course there is a difference in price. There is quite a difference between the price for tourist class and the price for Gold Class.

It is not worth it.

Well, if it is not worth it, then one need not make use of the service. You see, Sir, the hon. member said that we were taking the people for a ride. We are taking them for a ride! [Interjections.]

That is what you have the Airways for.

The hon. member for Greytown compared certain percentages. However, the hon. member is wrong. He took the percentage on the cash provision instead of taking it on the total cost. If he does that, he will find that there is not a single one which deviates by more than 10% from the figure in the original contract. However, the hon. member asked me quite a number of interesting questions. I just want to tell him that there is no fruitless expenditure. I can give him that assurance. The increases are mainly due to the fact that the tender of the contractor was higher than we had expected with regard to the cost of the undertaking. According to the contracts determined by our own engineers, I think we are very nearly on target. However, there are all kinds of circumstances which influence the matter. A shortage of cement may arise, for example, and then the contractor has to wait for it. There are all kinds of adjustments that have to be made. However, there are clauses in the contract to provide for eventualities of that nature.

The hon. member also raised some other points. As far as item 7 is concerned—“To reduce the present congestion of non-White suburban passengers—Stage 2”—just the following: “Construction of the line and the provision of staging facilities: Additional cash provision required due to higher tender prices.” In this way I can reply to every point raised by the hon. member. Every time it is due to higher tender prices. With regard to the other points raised by the hon. member, I should like to give him written replies clearly setting out the reason for the deviation.

The hon. member for Witbank has a constituency which is very important to our transport organization, and I want to thank the hon. member for the attitude he showed towards his people today by telling us about the loyalty of the people at Witbank who handle millions of tons of coal. These people work under difficult circumstances and they also have to work overtime sometimes to earn foreign exchange for us on the overseas market. I want to thank the hon. member for Witbank for the way in which I saw him treat his voters when I paid a visit to Witbank. He is a good MP.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn briefly to the question of Gold Class travel that the hon. the Minister has mentioned. I am well aware of the fact that all the other major airlines do in fact have some type of special class to cater for those passengers who buy an ordinary tourist ticket overseas—not an excursion ticket and not an Apex ticket. That is basically what the Gold Class is all about. I think that for those people this is probably very pleasant. I have personally travelled Gold Class fairly recently and I have also travelled excursion class fairly recently. What concerns me about the Gold Class is the difference as compared with the excursion class. I do not know but I would guess that the majority of passengers on S.A. Airways and, in fact, on any other airline, would be excursion passengers or Apex passengers. I believe that the introduction of an intermediate class between first class and excursion class tends to push those excursion class passengers towards the rear of the aircraft. I gained the impression that the excursion class had lost some attraction because of the introduction of the Gold Class. I think one should give this very serious consideration, because I personally would, as a passenger in the excursion class, find it an advantage to travel S.A. Airways if they did not have a Gold Class. I think this should be taken into very serious consideration. I personally think that the expenditure on getting a really first class excursion area, with the service up to the mark, will only do South Africa a lot more good in the long run than this intermediate gold class.

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions for the hon. the Minister. The first one concerns item 39 in the Additional Capital Budget, the cafeteria which apparently was previously included. We have not seen signs of any improvement there. I should like to know what sort of cafeteria it is. If it is for third-class passengers, then it is high time it arrives because conditions for third-class passengers on the Pietermaritzburg station are appalling. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would inform us about this.

Item 40 in the Additional Capital Budget is a rather curious additional amount. This is for the acquisition of a building and I presume it is the office block which they have acquired for further facilities. It was a sensible decision at the time because it saved a lot of money. I cannot understand, however, how the acquisition of an office block can suddenly require an additional amount of R160 400. What are the reasons for the additional amount?

It seems to me that there is a very curious request to the Committee under item 45 of the Additional Capital Budget. Eight houses were included in the 1978-’79 estimates, but the cost for these houses for Whites—they were to be erected in Newcastle—increased by R51 200. I presume these houses are dwellings, but it surely cannot take three or nearly four years to erect such houses. If their erection has in fact taken nearly four years, R51 200 seems a reasonable increase in cost. Why it has taken so long is, I think, a relevant question which the Committee should ask.

We are pleased to see that the hon. the Minister is still spending money in the independent country of Transkei. I wonder if he could perhaps let us know what the policy of the railways is in relation to States which were formerly part of the Republic of South Africa and in terms of the actual capital costs as opposed to running costs in those States. In this connection I refer to item 50 and 57 in the Additional Capital Budget.

Item 67 of the Additional Capital Budget concerns the enlargement of the Richards Bay harbour’s turning basin. Is the basin enlarged in order that it can accommodate larger ships—this would include dredging the basin—or is it simply aimed at increasing the circumference of it?

Mr. P. C. CRONJé: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question in connection with item 19.1, page 13 of the Estimates of Additional Working Expenditure. This item deals with the sum of money that was spent by way of a subsidy on housing loans. I should also like to talk to the hon. the Minister about the principle of the matter. At the moment we are dealing with a piece of legislation that provides that speculation with houses provided from funds subsidized by the State, is not permissible. Can the hon. the Minister explain to us how the scheme for housing loans works and what steps have been taken to combat speculation by house-owners who make use of the housing loans? Is it not possibly contradictory to the principles applied by the National Housing Commission that are already contained in other legislation?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made certain suggestions about the excursion and gold-class tickets. He said excursion passengers were now bound to be shifted to the tail-end of the plane. Last year we had discussions in this debate about the food on the planes. We had a difficult day then. The hon. member for Yeoville and I ended up by misunderstanding each other.

All suggestions from hon. members from either side of the House are followed up. We made a number of changes concerning food on planes, and we are still experimenting. We have to do what approximately 70% of all passengers prefer, because we want to get business. We will pay attention to all these suggestions and if it proves that excursions are becoming more unpopular compared to the Gold Class, we will go into the financial implications to see whether things can be changed.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North asked a number of questions. Most of the instances he referred to are belated debits. I mentioned this in the beginning, that one gets a late debit and then it has to go into the Brown Book, and then one wastes the time of the House. The Select Committee on Railway Accounts is now investigating whether one should bring items of R30 000 to the House.

The hon. member referred to item 39. This is a provision for a staff facility and not for the public. The cafeteria to which the hon. member referred is for staff. There was not an increase in expenditure here. It is merely a late debit which must come before Parliament. It is a silly procedure. I do not know why we have never changed it. The same applies to most of the points the hon. member raised.

Take for instance item 40. We did not spend extra money on this building. We bought the building, Shell House. However, one does not pay for a building immediately. One first wants to see whether for example the air conditioning works. One can then get a late account which must be put through the books. It looks as if we estimated wrong when we bought the building. However, how can one estimate wrong when it comes to a contract price for the building?

That is what I could not understand.

The hon. member asks the question because we have been doing this the wrong way for years. Myburgh, you people on the Select Committee really must put this thing right.

He is an “hon. member”.

Yes, the hon. member for De Kuilen. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also asked a question about item 57. Due to the dieselization of the Amabella-Umtata line it has become necessary to provide fueling facilities at Umtata. The additional amount is due to increased tender prices, but it is a belated debit. We still run the line through independent States for their account. However, we do not stop running the line. We are going to do the same with the line running through Swaziland. We do it in co-operation with them without it costing us money. They pay for the cost.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also asked about item 67. The expenditure was incurred to enable Richards Bay to handle the dredger.

*The hon. member for Greytown asked certain questions concerning housing loan schemes. When we provide someone with a loan in terms of this scheme, he cannot speculate with that house. He obtains the house at a reasonable price and he gets the loan at a reasonable interest rate. Therefore he cannot simply sell the house because prices are rising. He is subject to restrictions. We want to ensure that he has a roof over his head. When he is transferred, we allow him to transfer his loan to his successor. However, the hon. member may rest assured that with the low interest rates we are giving a man today so that he may have his own house, we will not allow this kind of thing to happen. We are also extending this to our Black workers. We cannot allow people to speculate. There is a condition in the contract of sale that the person must retain the same house as long as he is employed by us. However, we can transfer the house to a successor in our service. It is a very good scheme with which the trade unions are also very happy.

I suggest that we stop now. Please.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the debate on this Bill has not actually lasted a very long time, but the discussion has stretched over more than a week because it has been conducted in dribs and drabs. During that period the PFP suggested, for various reasons, that this Bill should have been submitted to a Select Committee before being brought before this House, or certainly after the First Reading.

The reasons why this was suggested was that the Bill needed to be investigated thoroughly, particularly clause 3. Also, to consider the matter in isolation was thought to be most unsatisfactory in the light of the educational needs of this country. We also suggested that the Bill was premature, and I think that what has subsequently happened has proved that point. The De Lange report is still under consideration. Representations on the basis of that comprehensive report are still being received, yet a cardinal principle of education is being changed before it has been discussed in the context of the whole De Lange report.

Thirdly there is the whole question of free and compulsory school education which we believe is a basic and important principle that is widely accepted in this country, and also in many other Western countries. To do away with that in one short sentence, as is done in this Bill, without a thorough investigation outside this debating Chamber, is in our view an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The Government’s reasons for the passage of this Bill fall into four categories, and I suggest that they are inadequate, contradictory, confused and confusing, Some of them, of course, fall into more than one category. They are inadequate because the hon. the Minister’s motivation of this drastic change, particularly in the Second Reading debate, was almost non-existent, and very limited thereafter, when he expanded on the matter. They are contradictory because hon. members on that side of the House have differed considerably in their justifications. Some have said that we have only had free education for White schoolchildren for some 15 years. Another hon. member on that side, however, said that we do not have free education and have never had it and that this Bill is therefore not bringing about any change.

You are busy with the Second Reading now.

Thirdly, others have said that we have had free education for 15 years. I may say that at the time when it was introduced it was strongly opposed by many people, but the Government insisted on introducing it in a sweeping form. Now, after 15 years, the NP has decided that it is educationally unsound. So we have had a series of contradictory reasons advanced why this Bill should be passed.

There has also been confusion. The whole question of reconciling the concept of free education with that of compulsory education has not been satisfactorily answered on that side of the House. The principle of compulsory education is being retained in the legislation while it is the intention to remove the principle of free education in terms of payment. How that can be reconciled has not been properly explained by the hon. members opposite.

We have also heard hon. members who appear to be ignorant of the facts in many spheres of White education at present.

Listen who is talking now!

One hon. member spoke with great pride—he is certainly entitled to be proud—of a school in his constituency for which facilities were provided by the parents from their own resources. Certainly, they are to be congratulated if they have done that. However, he seems to be ignorant of the fact that certainly in this part of the world, the Cape Peninsula, in the case of the vast majority of the schools the parents contribute considerably to the facilities for those schools. In the case of many of those schools the parents voluntarily contribute tens of thousands of rand every year. That is, however, not the point.

The problem lies with the parents who cannot or will not pay. Already, with the large degree of free education that we have in our schools, there are problems even at this level. As regards certain auxiliary facilities such as library books and sports equipment, the schools are either not provided with them at all or are inadequately provided with them. Some schools in the poorer areas struggle enormously to collect the required money. They have to organize fundraising events and so on. They nevertheless struggle to obtain adequate equipment and facilities.

One need only go to the parts of the Cape Peninsula which, relative to other parts, even White areas, are not that poor, to find that the schools there are struggling as it is. The question is what is going to happen if more is required of those parents in terms of monetary contributions or where a parent for one reason or another refuses to pay. Must the children suffer? Surely, by its very nature compulsory education indicates that the State has the responsibility for financing that education. The State has decided that the matter of school education is of such importance that it cannot be left to the parents to make discretionary decisions about whether their children should go to school or not or what time they should spend at school. To that extent it is the State’s responsibility.

This Bill simply replaces “shall” with “may” without any qualification. The hon. the Minister, in some of his speeches during the passage of this Bill, mentioned that it will not harm anybody, but that is not to be found in the Bill. “Shall” has been replaced by “may” without any qualification being attached to that.

Fourthly, we believe that this debate and the contributions from hon. members on that side and in particular from the hon. the Minister by virtue of the replies he has had to give has really only added to the confusion. The hon. the Minister himself came very close to saying that nothing is likely to change, or at least not for a very long time.

I see the hon. the Minister shaking his head. I am not suggesting that he said it specifically, but he hinted at it strongly and came as close as he possibly could to saying it, and the reason is obvious. He needs to reassure unhappy members of his party both in the House and outside that there are not going to be sweeping changes. By the very definition of the changes proposed by this legislation, it is pointless to be doing so if nothing is going to change.

In terms of what the hon. the Minister said, one wonders what the reason for the urgency of this measure is. Why did the hon. the Minister not wait until the De Lange report had been examined in its entirety, and until whatever changes become necessary in White and other education are made in a context of a comprehensive programme and not on a one-off basis?

In terms of this Bill parents will now, in addition to taxes, be required to pay for a part, and in certain cases a larger part than has been the case in the past, of their children’s education. In other words, parents will be assuming greater responsibility for their children’s education. Hon. members on that side of the House frequently remind the public that responsibility and freedom are interrelated. I trust that this increase in responsibility that is going to be placed on the shoulders of parents, will result in a system of greater participation by parents in decision-making, so that they can use their discretion in regard to what they are paying for to an increasing extent.

We are disappointed that a Select Committee has not been appointed. We are also disappointed at the almost casual abandonment of a fundamental principle without qualification. We are disappointed that this debate and the hon. the Minister’s statements have led to confusion rather than to clarification in this critical area, and we shall therefore be opposing the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the various members on the Opposition side who spoke on this Bill and I wondered whether what we had here was not a bit of cheap politics. On the one hand there are those who allege that there will be even more discrimination against the Blacks now because the training they are now going to receive will be poorer training. On the other hand the Whites are being told that they will now have to pay more for their children’s education and that that money will be used for Black education. I am sorry that we had to listen to so many one-sided arguments. This was a case where a matter was approached from one angle only.

The Government is being accused of rejecting the principle of free education. It is also being argued that because the parent will now have to pay more for his child’s education this will lead to a difference in the quality of tuition. The Opposition has many views on equality, equal opportunities, etc. The hon. member for Yeoville links this to the redistribution of wealth and talks about progressive taxation that has to compensate the poor man who cannot keep up. This reminds me of the late President Johnson’s “great society” in which everything had to be given away. In the end most of the city councils in the USA were almost bankrupt.

In its reasoning the Opposition made a few basic mistakes. In the first place, all these equalities are not necessarily equal, because many of them lead to discrimination. Secondly, many of these equalities cannot be reconciled with equal financial inputs. Thirdly, the collecting of funds is being confused with the spending of funds, and here I am thinking of the hon. member for Durban North. Let us take as an example the principle of equality. In this regard I should like to quote a well-known economist, Prof. Musgrave. He puts it as follows—

In South Africa we have practical examples of this, in that we had to have a greater input in the case of Black students so they could achieve the same standard as their White fellow-students. Is this not strange, Mr. Speaker? Hon. members of the Opposition are so inclined to speak of the Supreme Court and of bodies that should be appointed to control everything. The American Supreme Court itself recognizes the right of equal protection, but when it has to give a ruling on fiscal responsibility in the case of “equal protection” it remains silent. In this connection I should like to refer hon. members of the Opposition to the case of Rodriguez versus San Antonio Independent School District, Texas. Why does the principle of equality cause problems? After all, it is a principle of which hon. members of the Opposition are ardent adherents. It causes problems because we also have other principles, particularly when we consider Government expenditure and revenue. One of these is the principle of fairness. The second is the principle of economic efficiency. The third is the principle of merit in training. The fourth principle, one which hon. members of the Opposition seem to have heard of infrequently, is the principle of participation in decision-making with regard to the process of the collecting and spending of funds.

What the principle of fairness amounts to is that an attempt must be made to ensure that expenditure is fair and to the benefit of all. This of course does not in any way mean that everything must be equal. As a matter of fact, equality can frequently give rise to inefficiency and unsuitability. When does economic inefficiency arise? This happens when we do not have priorities. Priorities are of the utmost importance in Government expenditure. Hon. members of the Opposition, with their idea of a “great society”, are advocates of free education and medical services, subsidized housing and transport, etc. But one must also have an income. One cannot merely wish to spend everything. One must therefore establish priorities in terms of which one will spend.

In this connection I should like to refer hon. members of the Opposition to a well-known research committee, the American Committee for Economic Development, which made the following statement—

This principle determines a further choice. This is the choice as to how much the State should contribute and how much the individual should contribute. When we consider Government expenditure it is important that we should also take into account the cost advantage principle. A great many studies have been made of expenditure on training and the advantage to be gained from it.

Apart from the fact that we should establish our priorities when it comes to the expenditure of Government funds, we should also take efficiency into account. It is said that in Government expenditure the products and services should be provided in such a way that the same benefits cannot be derived with fewer sources or inputs. This is very closely linked to what we refer to as the capitalistic fairness principle. In this approach the market mechanism is considered: How the ideas and the workings of the market mechanism can be integrated with Government expenditure. One of the important aspects of the market mechanism is the question of what the private sector will pay when it has to erect a school building. What will the private sector pay when it has to obtain the services of a teacher? What is very important, however, is that we cannot make the education system an activity of the private sector. Yet by involving the parent, we can incorporate many of these concepts of efficiency and the application of a certain measure of the market mechanism in our expenditure on education. I also want to refer to another principle which is completely ignored by hon. members of the official Opposition, i.e. the principle of merit. For example, if one spends more on certain students, one inevitably gets far better results. In other words one takes the students with the most potential and spends more on them. Some people will now allege that I am very wide off the mark. However the French use this system. The French use two systems: One for the deserving student and the other for the ordinary student. Now there is something I want to know from the Opposition: Do not private English schools in South Africa also accept the merit principle? Is that not also an obstacle to equal opportunity? Hon. members can tell me that those schools are open to everyone, but I in my turn can tell them that the principle of merit is applied there before a student is admitted.

White merit.

Yes, the question is: What is the merit?

I now want to deal with the final principle. This is the responsibility of the parent, the duty of the parent, for example, to take part in the raising and spending of funds. In the USA 9% of the financing of education comes from the Federal Government, 40% from the State and 51% from the local community. One must also remember that every socio-economic community has different preferences in connection with training. This is acknowledged. If one analyses the contributions of the parent, one then finds two types of contribution. The first is the contribution by the community, and the second is the contribution by a specific parent. This is the well-known consumer surcharge, which constitutes about 8%. This is used for school books, the renting of school facilities, meals, etc. These are accepted principles. However, the hon. member for Yeoville said in his speech that in the Western World all taxes were progressive taxes. Of course, I think the word confuses him. It so happens that these taxes are to a certain extent considered to be regressive. But there is another aspect. This is the approach that to a certain extent the State’s contribution is there to make good certain inequalities where they occur.

I now come to the hon. member for Durban North. He spoke about free, compulsory education, but said that compulsory education should be free. I think he is confusing certain concepts in this connection. It is compulsory to send a child to school. Financially, however, the State contributes to the costs of the child’s education. Of course the parents and the community also contribute and in the long run this means that the child is still receiving a school education free of charge. However, the parent and the community are now also under an obligation to pay.

By way of summary I want to refer to one of the great experts in the field of school finance, Prof. Musgrave, whom I have already quoted in this connection. He said—

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that this attack was launched by hon. members of the Opposition on the concept of free education. I think that the flexibility that is now being created in this Bill can make an important contribution towards helping the Department of National Education to get its priorities right and also towards gradually getting the parent to have a share in the training of his children once more. I support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Dr. Marais advanced a number of arguments. I shall not attempt to reply specifically to all of them but I should like to deal briefly with some of the main hypotheses which he gave us here this afternoon.

The hon. member attacked this side of the House for advocating that the cost of education should be borne by society as a whole as compared to a charge on the parents. I think the hon. member will appreciate the fact that if one raises funds by means of taxation to pay for education it means that every economically active person earning sufficient income to be liable for income tax will in fact be paying for education throughout his economically active life. Therefore, his payment for or his contribution towards education is relatively small in respect of each year. It is like a mutual aid society, a medical aid society to which all members contribute. Some members draw benefits from such a society at certain times and others draw no benefits although they contribute towards it. Those people who are lucky enough to remain healthy throughout their lives will, of course, derive no benefits at all but they contribute towards this society in case they need those benefits. The same thing holds good for education. If education is paid for through income tax and every economically active person contributes in this regard for, say, 30 years, then it is fairly logical that the average contribution per income taxpayer per annum is going to be relatively low. Let me give the hon. member an example. The average cost of attendance at a private school today is R4 000 per annum. It is, of course, the free choice of a parent as to whether he wishes to send his child to such a school or not. It costs R4 000 in fees at the average private school today. I think the hon. member will appreciate that very few taxpayers …

Does that include boarding fees as well?

Yes, including boarding fees. Very few taxpayers pay R4 000 per annum in toto, let alone their proportional contribution towards education. It is therefore fairly obvious that the cost of education per individual in South Africa is best served by spreading the load right across the whole spectrum of society, and for reasons other than fiscal as well, namely that society itself benefits as a whole from the education of the population. That is the point and that is the gravamen of our argument. This is a debt that has to be paid by the whole of society and not by individual parents.

The hon. member Dr. Marais also raised the question, via the American example, of fiscal responsibility versus equal rights—the right of equal opportunity. That is so. One must have fiscal responsibility. However, I should like to point out to the hon. member that what we are talking about here is very fundamental, basic education, the minimum education society should provide for its children. We are not talking about differential education to benefit perhaps the gifted child—that is a different category—or an educational system to provide a high degree of specialization or differentiation for the child in a category that is different from the average. We are talking essentially about basic education. That basic education is, once again, a right which every citizen can expect from his society. If every member of society is able to draw on that opportunity, then the whole of society must contribute towards it as well. As far as cost benefit and effectiveness are concerned, I detect in the argument of the hon. member and from what he advocates that what he is saying essentially—I think he did this inadvertently— is that because the State is paying for education today, we are able to provide an adequate educational system. This is what his argument comes down to in terms of the propositions that he made on cost benefit, on effectiveness and on the responsibility of the parent to provide sufficient funds for the differential and merit requirements of the student. Implied in his argument is that if one charges the parents directly for the education of their children, one will be able to have a greater cost benefit and effectiveness ratio. What he is saying is that we shall be able to have greater differentiation and we shall be able to give education to children on merit. Implied in that argument is the criticism that the present educational system is inadequate. I do not believe that is so. I believe our basic education is satisfactory.

But you misunderstood him.

No, not at all. Perhaps the hon. member Dr. Marais inadvertently constructed an argument on the wrong basis. Nevertheless, that is the final point to which his logic brings one.

†I should like to point out also to the hon. members that we are talking about basic education. Although there is always room for improvement—we agree that one can improve the educational system—I believe that our standard of education, the standard we set for ourselves—we are talking about White education only—the facilities we provide and the standard of our teachers are very good indeed and they probably compare with the best in the world. I think our cost effectiveness and the benefit ratio are fairly satisfactory at the moment.

*I think we have already spent quite some time on the standpoint of this party. We did so during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage. I am sure that by this time hon. members are well aware of our policy on free education. We are, as the hon. the Minister will realize, opposed to clause 3 and it will perhaps come as no surprise to the hon. the Minister to hear that we are going to vote against the legislation, for the very reason that this legislation does not endorse the principle of free education.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the very valuable and comprehensive contribution made by the hon. member Dr. Marais. In my opinion he approached the debate from a considerably wider perspective than did critics of the Bill. He pointed out that the entire question of free education should not only be seen as a question of ensuring equal opportunities in education, but that such equality should also be assessed and seen against other four factors, namely fairness, economic efficiency, merit on the part of the educate and the participation and involvement of the parents and the local community in decision-making.

I want to thank him sincerely for placing the matter in this perspective, for in this way he indicated in particular that the amendment to the principle as it is at present formulated in the National Education Policy Act, will in fact give us greater flexibility, greater suppleness in order to change the rather unyielding approach of the past, which enforced an almost compulsive free education policy, in favour of one that will also take into account the other factors set out by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Durban North made a number of points arising out of the objections he had already raised.

†I should like to point out that in his argument the hon. member admitted very generously that the standard of White education in South Africa was very good indeed. At the same time he says that therefore, we may assume that White education is satisfactorily cost effective, but I do not think one can necessarily equate these two points. Education may be very good in its results and still it may be necessary to consider in a critical way whether it is really cost effective. If I understood the hon. member Dr. Marais correctly, this was what he tried to emphasize. Because of the greater flexibility which the proposed amendment of the Act will introduce in the principle regarding free education, it will be possible to bring good quality education and cost effective education to greater harmony with one another.

The hon. member for Durban North gave several reasons as to why it was necessary to place the load of compulsory education on the taxpayer and society as a whole. He argued that it spread the cost of the actual annual payment by an individual over a longer period, and also that in fact education benefited society as a whole. I want to suggest that this is not an argument that proves convincingly that education should be totally free. However, what it does prove is that the State and society should continue to bear the predominant share of the cost of education and that it will be unfair to shift a large share of the cost of education on to the shoulders of individual parents. I do not therefore feel that the hon. member’s points have really effectively countered the arguments from this side of the House.

As regards the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, I want to point out that every time he criticized my remarks he referred to my Second Reading speech and thereby, by implication, admitted that what I had argued at great length in my reply at the end of the Second Reading debate had in fact counted and dealt with many of the objections raised in that debate. My reply at the end of that debate dealt at length with the objections raised and it set out the motivations why this Bill had been introduced. I assumed, in making my introductory Second Reading speech, that the fact that this change had been recommended by all the authoritative educational bodies of the country, made it virtually unnecessary to prove this matter and to argue it in great detail. I also assumed, apparently wrongly, that the lengthy argumentation in favour of some parent contribution set out in the De Lange Report— which admittedly came as evidence afterwards as it were—had also made it unnecessary to argue the matter at length. However, in the course of that debate the Opposition proved that my two assumptions were wrong. I dealt with the white matter very thoroughly and very fully and I was handsomely supported by the arguments of my colleagues on this side of the House.

I also think the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens did not do full justice to my remarks as to what is likely to happen.

*Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that the intention of course is that, in terms of the modification of the principle that will come into effect if the Bill is passed, completely free education for Whites will be revised and that a parent contribution will be expected and laid down. I never said or implied that it was uncertain whether a parent contribution would follow. What I did, however, say, was that the form and the extent of that parent contribution was uncertain and that this would have to be thrashed out and considered in future.

It must be decided whether there should be a contribution towards school books, whether the present voluntary school fund contribution should be made compulsory, whether a contribution should be made in respect of transport or whether there should only be a contribution after a certain level— which the De Lange report implies—for example after the reaching of what the hon. member for Durban North called “self-sufficiency”, or after completion of the period of compulsory learning or compulsory schooling. However, I also indicated that before we could decide on the nature of the parent contribution, and a policy could be formulated and spelled out, comprehensive, leisurely and prescribed consultation would have to take place. The legislation prescribes—and I explained this at length— what bodies have to be consulted by the Minister before he can spell out a policy. It is also quite clear that during such consultations full regard must be had for the findings and the recommendations which were set out in this connection in the De Lange report. Therefore the implementation of a new policy will only take place after the matter has been considered in its entirety, in other words in the light of the recommendations in the De Lange report and the comments on that report which were received from interested bodies.

I want to emphasize the fact that in terms of the National Education Policy Act, in other words in terms of the declared will of Parliament, it is not the function of the legislature to work out and prescribe the details and implementation of the education policy. In terms of the will of Parliament, as contained in this Act, only the principles can be laid down by Parliament in legislation. For this reason I respectfully suggest that if this matter were referred to a Select Committee, which hon. members on that side of the House have asked for, such a committee could make only a very small contribution in working out the details. This would disrupt the entire principle of our education policy, in terms of which the legislature limits himself to principles, and this would actually imply that an entirely new Act would have to be drafted. What the hon. Opposition therefore attacked and criticized here, was not this amendment, not this change in the principle we are proposing, but in fact the entire basis on which the National Education Policy Act functions at present. This is what they are in fact questioning and in this way they have altered the self-determined function of the legislature—according to the will of the legislature it is for the educational advisory bodies to discuss this and for the Minister to determine the policy in this connection.

When the National Education Vote is discussed the entire matter of what shape must eventually be given to our education policy, especially as regards the parent contribution, can be discussed and debated in greater detail. As soon as any information in connection with proposed amendments to the details of the policy is available, I shall announce it and make it available so that it can be discussed during the discussion of the relevant Vote.

In conclusion I should like to emphasize one other matter, and in this regard I want to associate myself with the hon. member Dr. Marais. I want to say with great responsibility that the statement that compulsory education must of necessity be completely free of charge, does not hold water. It is desirable that compulsory education should as far as possible be free, but only in so far as it is reconcilable with sound pedagogical principles, and the various education advisory bodies—and subsequently, too, the De Lange Commission—were in fact doubtful whether completely free education, as implemented in recent years, was really reconcilable with important educational principles, for example those of the partnership between parents, the State and society, the important pedagogical principle of parental involvement and the important pedagogical principle that a person does not have full appreciation for a service he receives completely free of charge. There is a feeling that the mere fact that education is free of charge, should be seen as one of the reasons why the teaching profession, the position of the teacher, is not accorded sufficient status. In compulsory education the obligation is not only placed on the citizens to the advantage of the State or society, because if that were the case, society and the State would have to continue to foot the bill. Compulsory free education is in the main an obligation for the sake of the school-goer, the pupil, the receiver of the education. As a matter of fact, compulsory schooling is to the direct advantage, both financially and economically in terms of earning ability, of the pupil. For this reason it is educationally justified to ask for a parental contribution within reasonable bounds, no matter how small this contribution may be. A parental contribution to compulsory education cannot be considered the least but immoral.

I want to make the somewhat dissimilar comparison that one can, in respect of this matter as well, learn something from the introduction of compulsory military service. National service is an obligation imposed on the citizen, an obligation in the interests of the State but also in the interests of the citizen himself. For this reason no citizen, when he does his national service, can insist that his normal civilian salary be paid in the same form by the State and that the State pay the serviceman a smaller compensation than he would normally receive. Financially the person undergoing military training is therefore making a considerable sacrifice, although he is obliged to do so because from this duty imposed on him he derives at least as much benefit as the State itself.

For these reasons I think we may justifiably claim that the Bill introduced by this side of the House, compiled at the request of all the expert educational institutions involved, is a responsible measure which certainly does not deserve to be labelled a “casual” and “premature” measure as the Opposition has done. We can therefore with a clear conscience ask that the Bill be now read a Third time.

Question put,

Mr. Chairman, I just want to give my final motivation for the amendment that I moved last night. I have already referred to the principles that must be taken into account in price determination when the parties in question cannot reach an agreement. I proposed that we should in fact make provision for sources of finance; for the interest that must be paid, as well as for the rising building costs and for the personal circumstances of the prospective purchaser, and of course also for the sum by which the original purchase price or repayment is subsidized, for improvements that have been made and, last but not least, for maintenance costs. I have asked for these principles to be included in the regulations so that people could have an indication of how they would be treated when price determinations have to take place.

I have moved this amendment in the hope of winning the confidence of home-owners in this way and giving them to understand that home ownership means more than merely having a roof over one’s head. The aim of this is also that house-owners, too, can enjoy the benefits of home ownership without simply complying with the obligations attached to it. I trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept my amendment. If he cannot accept it as an amendment, I hope that similar provisions can be included in the regulations in any event.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Greytown is actually asking us to include certain principles in the legislation that are contained in the regulations. Therefore, it amounts to the fact that he wants the Act to prescribe to the Regulations Board how they should draw up the regulations. I have listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. member, but I am afraid that I cannot accept his amendment.

As the clause reads at the moment, we have a great deal of freedom when we draw up regulations. There are no impediments, except of course for the fact that we have to take the provisions of the Act into account. Now the hon. member for Greytown is moving an amendment that is in fact extremely restrictive in nature. It will restrict us in drawing up the regulations. Of course, I do not believe that this was the hon. member’s intention. In fact, I believe that his intention was the exact opposite. The effect of this amendment of his, however, will be that the regulations will now be of a very restrictive nature. Of course, there is the important principle that we must take into account, viz. that including the one amounts to excluding the other. This is the well-known exclusio rule.

Since one can never go about things in such a comprehensive fashion that one can make provision for all eventualities, it is also true that if we were now to include in the legislation what the eventualities are, and leave out certain possibilities, we could not include these in the regulations. The hon. member wants to be comprehensive. However, with legislation of this nature one can never go about things in such a comprehensive fashion that one can make provision for all eventualities. This is in fact where the weakness of the hon. member’s amendment lies. He is restricting us because we have to take the exclusio rule into account.

However, we shall continue to draw up the regulations. We shall also take into account the proposals of the hon. member and the matters that he wants to have included in the regulations. Of course, I cannot promise that we will include everything in the regulations. However, I want to assure him that some of these will in fact appear in the regulations; probably considerably more.

For the reasons that I have just mentioned, I am therefore afraid that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Greytown.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. P. C. Cronjé negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. P. C. Cronjé negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches shall be supporting the Third Reading. We believe that it is necessary to have legislation to prevent undue speculation in land or property for which State money has been used. We think that the import and the purpose of the Bill have been improved by the acceptance by this House of the amendment that was moved by this side of the House. Under these circumstances we shall be supporting the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to waste time. I merely want to reiterate what the hon. member for Sea Point has said. We agree.

Mr. Speaker, I am simply rising to thank hon. members for their support. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Sea Point that the amendment that he moved is an improvement to the Bill. It is a feather in his cap. The hon. member will understand why we accepted the amendment in amended form and I do not think the board wants to become involved in endless litigation because it does not want to prove in court each time that the property that has been purchased is necessarily below the market value.

I also thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his support. I want to express the hope that pre-emptive right, even though it has been incorporated into the Act, will be implemented very seldom and that it will be more of a deterrent as it is in the case of the National Housing Commission where people usually alienate their property within five years for very bona fide reasons and that the board grant exemption in those cases. In any event, I hope that it will happen in this case.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned I had just pointed out how far we had got, namely that this legislation rests on two main pillars as contained in clauses 1 and 6. Clause 1 deals with the establishment of a full deeds registry at Johannesburg and clause 6 deals in particular with the onus that is placed on conveyancers. On behalf of this side of the House I had stated that we were supporting the Bill because it would bring about an improvement in respect of the deeds registry at Johannesburg as it exists today. Although we are not asking the hon. the Minister to go as far as we suggested to the Prins Commission, namely to make it a fully-fledged deeds registry involving farms, small-holdings and the whole area of Kempton Park and Sandton, we do, however, ask that the actual recommendations of the Prins Commission be accepted, namely that antenuptial contracts be included as well. I hope that I can prove to the hon. the Minister that from inquiries I have made—he can verify these if he wants to—the deeds registry at Johannesburg can in fact cope with antenuptial contracts and that it will be in the interests of the public of the Witwatersrand to have that facility firstly, because this will improve the available facilities and make things easier and secondly, because the saving in costs and fees may be considerable in the long run. I shall be moving an amendment in the Committee Stage to deal with that.

The second matter to which I want to refer is in regard to clause 6. As mentioned earlier, the General Law Amendment Act, No. 57 of 1975, inserted a new section 15A in the principle Act. In terms of the provisions of subsection (1) of that section the onus was placed on a conveyancer to accept full responsibility for certificates lodged by him in terms of which he would have to certify as to the correctness of such matters as mentioned therein, namely in regard to names, dates of birth, status, the provisions of the Group Areas Act, the provisions of trusts, societies, corporations, ecclesiastical organizations etc. There was a great upheaval on the part of the Association of Law Societies on behalf of the conveyancers. This happened because conveyancers do not obtain all that information first-hand. Deeds registries have their seats at certain specific places. For example, Pietermaritzburg caters for the whole of Natal and Pretoria caters for most of the Transvaal with the exception of the area catered for by the Rand Townships Registration Office. This office handles the work in connection with the townships in that area. If, therefore, the information given to the conveyancer by the instructing attorney is incorrect, it lays the conveyancer open to a claim for damages. This can, in fact, involve each one of his partners as well.

As I say, at this stage the matter was held over by the then Minister of Justice who was responsible for the administration of these provisions. Clause 6 of the Bill before us now proposes the insertion in the Act of a new section 15A. This proposed new section does not go as far as the previous section 15A that was inserted by the General Law Amendment Act of 1975. However, it does provide that a certificate shall be issued which will once again constitute conclusive proof of the facts provided. It was this question of conclusive proof that caused problems previously and it is being repeated in the proposed new section.

The question now arises: What onus does a conveyancer accept? As I have already stated, the previous draft of section 15A set out what a conveyancer had to accept. However, this was taken much further in Annexure SS. The Annexure actually proposed the type of certificate that a conveyancer should sign. That is not now being provided for in the proposed new section 15A to be inserted by clause 6 although it does provide that the conveyancer shall accept such responsibility “to the extent prescribed by regulation”. My difficulty is this: We do not deal with the regulations in this House and the hon. the Minister cannot at this stage tell us what those regulations are going to provide. In actual fact, such regulations can repeat the wrong that was contained in the section that was inserted by the General Law Amendment Act. So then we shall be going back to square one. In point of fact, the hon. the Minister is really asking for a blank cheque in this regard in regard to issuing regulations which could place exactly the same onus as previously on a conveyancer who has to sign such a certificate. The only safeguard we have is in the regulations board. The regulations board consists of two conveyancers, two registrars of deeds and a representative of the Department of Community Development. It will be left to them to decide. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will recommend to the regulations board that the safeguard built into the certificate to be signed should be the same kind of safeguard that is built into section 11(4) of the Sectional Titles Act because it can be argued that in the registration of a sectional title transfer a conveyance is presently obliged to accept the responsibility for many of the aspects that I mentioned previously—status, onus, insolvency, Master of the Supreme Court, Companies Act and so forth. What he has to do is to obtain the original affidavits, the original certificates, the original antenuptial contracts which he has to certify, lock them away and issue the certificate. The certificate issued in terms of section 11(4) of the Sectional Titles Act contains certain particulars which I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have included in the certificate to be issued in terms of this proposed section 15A which we are now discussing. The conveyancer will certify as follows—

If we can have the assurance from the hon. the Minister that the certificate will contain this, we shall be glad to support this Bill because we accept that fundamental to the amendment before us is the fact that there is a shortage of personnel in the deeds registries. Because of that shortage it takes longer for them to examine all those matters. If the conveyancer has to give what in law is termed “conclusive proof”, then a lot of time will be saved in the examination.

I want to mention in passing that the work of the deeds registries is very much dictated, as hon. members will know, by the exigencies of the economy. If there is a lot of money around in the building societies there are lots of transfers and lots of bonds and then the deeds registries are very busy and sometimes there are delays of four to six weeks. At the moment, however, there is no delay and one can get a deed through within seven days because there is no money and very few transfers are being effected.

I think we should try to find a formula that will enable us to have legislation which will be for all time. I trust that we shall have a favourable response from the hon. the Minister so that we will be able to support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow intimated that most of the provisions in the Bill are acceptable to him and his party, except for the provisions contained in clauses 1 and 6. I shall refer somewhat later to the objections to these two clauses raised by the hon. member.

I want to say in advance that should we consider effecting amendments to the Deeds Registries Act—that is, the principal Act-— the idea put forward in the well-known manual by the noted writer R. J. M. Jones, The Law and Practice of Conveyancing in South Africa, comes to mind—

Now it is also true, however, that if one looks at the circumstances of the procedures in the deeds offices, one is confronted with the insoluble problem that the workload on our staff is too heavy. The result is that, to be able to meet the demands, changes have to be made to this important framework from time to time. That is why we are here today to discuss this 20th amendment of the Deeds Registries Act. This is the 20th amending Bill to be considered by Parliament in the past 47 years. This 20th amending Bill has become necessary to enable us to adapt to present needs.

One would like to say to oneself from time to time that our system of deeds which has developed in South Africa, and which has in fact taken shape, as far as its essence is concerned, in our principal Act, should not be tampered with too often. Should it be necessary, as is evident from the proposals before us today, one must set oneself as legislator a few prerequisites. I think the first prerequisite which one would lay down, is that should an amendment have to be made to the principal Act, we must see to it that stipulations which have become obsolete, are removed, because the presence of such stipulations only causes unnecessary problems for the student and the jurist. One could almost quote with affection the two old well-known Roman Law exceptions authentica si qua mulier and senatus consultum Velleanum. We must take our leave of these two exceptions, but they are still in the principal Act. They are of course now being repealed by the clause which applies to them.

Secondly, we must also note that consequential provisions are necessary. Such stipulations become necessary, for instance, when the machinery of Government changes. Previously we had to deal with the Minister of Lands, but today we deal with the Minister of Community Development, and therefore it would mystify the student to read in the legislation that the Minister of Lands has jurisdiction in regard to administration. This is also essential when amendments to other Acts which are not directly concerned with deeds, are affected. Where such Acts have implications for the procedure in terms of the Deeds Registries Act, consequential amendments must be effected if incorrect practices are to be avoided.

Finally, it is also essential that where sections of the principal Act are amended, consequential amendments must be effected immediately in the corresponding provisions of the amending Acts. All these amendments are, however, subject to one important conditions, viz. that at all times we must seek to alleviate the workload on the limited number of staff in our deeds registries. When the South African economy is prospering, as has been the case in the past few years—with a good Government such as this one, this naturally happens quite often—our deeds registries are overloaded because of the large number of deeds submitted for registration. In these circumstances, the staff cannot cope without delays taking place. In practice this is an important factor, however.

One can accept that it is probably the ambition of any normal, organized family not only to live in a separate dwelling unit, but also to own one in time, and to lodge the title deed of that dwelling unit with their attorney. It often happens, however, that after many years of thrift, the sum of money needed to buy a house has been saved. The family can then instruct their attorneys to proceed with the registration of the title deed. Everything is arranged, including the loan from the building society, and then, one fine day, they learn from the attorney that there is a delay. It could be a delay of one, two, three or even four weeks.

At present it is two weeks at the utmost.

I want to agree with the hon. the Minister. Due to our brilliant deeds system and our brilliant staff, there is no significant delay at this stage. However, when the economy is booming and the deeds registries are over-loaded with new deeds, long delays cannot be avoided. These delays have resulted in two things happening. Firstly, they result in unnecessary expense for the transferee, the person who is buying the house. Secondly, it leads to tremendous frustration for people in the legal profession. These problems are unnecessary.

When we qualify the need for amendments to the principal Act, it is important that the basic requirement must be to alleviate the workload of the deeds registry. If we test the most important causes of the amendment against this requirement, what do we find? This brings me, too, to the objections raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

In terms of clause 1, the Rand Townships Deeds Registry is now becoming a full-fledged deeds registry, viz. the Johannesburg Deeds Registry. I want to congratulate my colleagues in Johannesburg on the conversion of this important institution in their area. I know that they will rejoice with me one day when a new deeds registry is established in the East Cape in Port Elizabeth.

However, as the hon. member sought to point out, the problem is that previously this deeds registry only dealt with cases relating to immovable property, whereas the function of the Registrar in that area is now, of course, to be extended, because it is now becoming a full-fledged deeds registry. For important reasons, however, the legislator has excluded the registration of antenuptial contracts, and I am informed that the reason was that the deeds registry would not have been able to cope with the workload which the new development would entail.

The hon. member—I do not want to say that he was over-enthusiastic—can rest assured that if a sufficient number of staff can be recruited to cope with this additional aspect as well, there would be no problem for what would the effect be if this did not happen? I refer the hon. member to clause 25(1) and (2). It can be seen that there would be major problems. If we were to accept the amendment in the Committee Stage, that antenuptial contracts be included, but adequate staff could not be obtained, then the implementation of the legislation, for which provision is made in clause 25(1), would be delayed until enough staff could be obtained. However, I presume that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that it will be possible to obtain sufficient staff, and then, of course, we would have no objection to antenuptial contracts being registered in a full-fledged deeds office, as they ought to be.

They can do it.

The hon. member also mentioned clause 6, and I, too, should like to refer to it. It is an important clause which, at long last, repeals the existing—I am tempted to say contentious—section 15A. Although this clause is on the Statute Book, in reality it has never come into operation. However, this House has never formally repealed it, either. In other words, this clause, as it stands at present, has always hung like a sword of Damocles over the heads of all legal practitioners. In terms of this amending Bill the existing section 15A is now being repealed. I think there is great satisfaction in the ranks of the legal profession about the fact that this section has now at last been repealed. It is also true that the proposed new section 15A imposes further and new responsibilities on the shoulders of the conveyancer, but that is unavoidable. If we, in the times we are living in, want to prevent another boom from placing an excessive burden on the available staff, from delays being caused once again—and this can happen—we shall have to entrust the conveyancers with greater responsibilities, and I have no doubt that they will accept this, for these proposed amendments of the Act have been submitted to our law societies, and they have accepted this stipulation. In other words, the legal profession is prepared to accept greater responsibilities with regard to the handling of deeds, and I think we can be very happy about this.

Finally, I want to refer to the other important clause, viz. clause 7, which is, in fact, an extension of the existing stipulation, for it amends the existing section 16. It concerns the term “acquire”. As the provision stands at present, if a title deed has covered all the land to be transferred to the State, transfer may be effected by way of endorsement. However, there was confusion concerning the interpretation of the term “ac quire”. The proposed amendment now provides that expropriation, etc., be included in the concept “acquire” and the transfer may then be effected by way of endorsement. In this regard, however, I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In fact, transfer of property by means of endorsement is foreign to our system. It is not something foreign to us now, because we have already established a precedent in section 16. We also have it in sections 45 and 45bis of the Deeds Registries Act. It is therefore not something alien. It is, however, a procedure which the legal profession does not like. As far as endorsements are concerned, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider, undertake or promise that this system will not be further extended. In my humble opinion, we have probably got the finest and best registration system in the world. I should not like to see that this system of transfer by endorsement be encouraged. I can understand that in this specifiic instance it is essential, but I do not believe that we should extend it further without good reason.

Let me conclude. The ideal with regard to all these amendments is to streamline the procedures with regard to the registration of deeds in order to reduce the workload on the available staff. I have no doubt whatsoever that we will indeed accomplish this by means of this amending Bill. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the principles of the Bill. Not being legally trained as a lawyer, I am afraid I cannot take quite as long over saying what I have to say as the legally trained people did. [Interjections.] However, there are a few comments I should like to make. The registration of deeds is a rather lengthy business and these amendments do serve the purpose of possibly reducing work and time and therefore, I believe, can be welcomed. However, I think, it must also be borne in mind that the shortening procedures must obviously ensure that the high standards of the S.A. Deeds Registry will not be diminished. I believe that this in fact will be the case. It would appear that the proposals in this Bill will save a great deal of time and generally be effective. The point has been made that conveyancers will have to accept greater responsibility for the facts mentioned in the documents and I believe that that is as it should be. They are responsible people and they should accept responsibility for their documentation.

As regards the point made by the hon. member for Hillbrow concerning antenuptial contracts, I am not quite sure why there has been this deletion. I am sorry, but I did not quite catch that point. If the hon. the Minister would indicate the reason for that, I would be very happy to express my view on it subsequently. On the surface it would seem that there does not appear to be a good reason for it being excluded.

We in these benches support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I want to begin by saying that my colleague from Newton Park made a very good speech and virtually put everything in perspective. The hon. member for Umbilo asked why the antenuptial contracts in particular should be excepted. As the hon. member for Hillbrow said, a practical problem is being experienced in manning the office. That is in fact how the situation stands. That is the only problem. As my hon. colleague for Newton Park envisaged, this matter will be rectified when the necessary staff are available.

One of the important clauses for the legal profession is clause 6, which relates to the certificate which the conveyancer must provide, and which determines that it may be prescribed by regulation. This worried me a little, because I recall that at the time I was fairly strongly opposed to section 15(1) of the Law Amendment Act. I was amazed that the law societies permitted this clause without further ado. I therefore contacted the interested parties concerned and asked how they could do such a thing, and they provided me with a very good answer. They explained that they had already perused the proposed regulations. If that is the case, then there has been very sound co-operation between the authorities and the conveyancers in this regard. I assume that there has been very sound co-operation in the regulations committee as well, and for this reason the law societies are prepared to accept clause 6. Therefore it is a tribute to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there is such a good understanding concerning this important aspect.

However, I am told that it is really clause 7 that the conveyancers raise serious objections to. According to them, the question of endorsement is a very serious one, and they are therefore opposed to it. They argue that it is wrong in principle that transfer of a property be effected by way of endorsement. I have often heard it said that it is quicker and easier to effect transfer by way of endorsement, and several reasons are advanced for this. However, I wish to quote from the book Grondregistrasie in Suid-Afrika, written by J. W. S. Heyl, formerly employed in the Deeds Office in Pretoria. He has the following to say—

Therefore we must fully understand, for once and for all, that transfer by way of endorsement is neither desirable nor practical.

On page 45 and 46 of the book in question examples are provided, namely—

This may sound high-flown, but I should like to remind hon. members that we are living under a capitalist system and that land is security. If one wants to borrow money, land is one’s security. If fixed security could not be offered, hon. members can imagine what a disruptive effect this would have on the economy. For this reason Mr. Heyl stresses the fact that every time a new title deed is drawn up, the existing state of affairs at that stage must be determined, because certain servitudes lapse and new servitudes arise. If one keeps repeating the old title deed and transferring by way of endorsement, one will eventually not know what is going on in that deed. Mr. Heyl states that if one uses an existing title deed to effect transfer by way of endorsement thereon, the position would very soon be reached when only an expert could understand the title deed, due to all the stamps that would appear on the deed.

The situation is that one can have many endorsements on a title deed relating to mortgages—often first and second mortgages—cancellations, servitudes, usufruct and so on. If, therefore, we were to permit transfer to be effected by way of endorsement it would result in absolute confusion. There are practical problems in the present state of our law, as the author makes clear here. He also states that we must take note of what happens in the case of a fideicommissum. He says that it is almost impossible to deal with it by way of endorsement. However, I just wish to stress the point that we must be very careful when we maintain that it is very quick or very safe to effect transfer by way of endorsement. If I can succeed in stressing this point sufficiently, then I shall also have succeeded in the aim with which I rose to speak. This includes some of the reasons why conveyancers are so violently opposed to the provisions contained in clause 7 of the Bill. However, it is my submission that the conveyancers perhaps regard the effect of the clause in question as being too drastic. In this particular case the provision is really not so drastic, because all that is happening here—and I say this so that the conveyancers can hear it—is purely that the word “acquires” is now being extended to include “expropriation” as well. In fact this is all that is happening here. Looking at the final section of clause 7, it is evident that in fact an additional burden is now also being imposed on the conveyancer. More obligations now rest on him. Subsections (2) and (4)(a) of section 31 of the principal Act, which are now at issue, impose certain obligations on the conveyancer. However, I do not believe that the conveyancer will raise any objection to the additional obligations. Indeed, as the hon. member for Newton Park intimated, these people are lyrical about the system. They are in this heart and soul. For their part they will do everything possible to make the system work. Therefore I shall be obliged if the conveyancers realize that this provision is not such a drastic one as far as their profession is concerned.

Then there are other very interesting clauses in the Bill under discussion, clauses which, I believe, are also of a very technical nature. I do not believe that I should take up the time of the House by discussing them. However, I wish to place on record my whole-hearted support of this Bill, for two reasons. In the first place I support the Bill because the law society is satisfied with the provisions contained in clause 6 and, in the second place, I believe that they have been crossing their bridges before they come to them as far as clause 7 is concerned.

I want to thank hon. members for their support of this Bill. The hon. member for Hillbrow devoted the greater part of his speech to a discussion of clause 1. He did begin by sketching for us the interesting history of the Rand Townships Deeds Registry, the name of which has now been changed to the Johannesburg Deeds Registry. The hon. member also pointed out that the jurisdiction of this office is now being extended to include, inter alia, the registration of notarial deeds, excluding antenuptial contracts, of course. The hon. member rightly pointed out that there are certain practical reasons why we cannot yet allow antenuptial contracts to be registered at that office. He also advocated that the jurisdiction of that office be extended to include the registration of antenuptial contract agreements. He also gave notice of an amendment to that effect that he will move during the Committee Stage.

It is true that there are problems. I have been in contact with the Chief Registrar of Deeds. There are indeed practical problems, but it is nevertheless true that problems are there to be surmounted. I think the hon. member’s heart will be gratified when I tell him that I shall be prepared to accept his amendment in the Committee Stage and that the Johannesburg Office is now to become a full-fledged office.

The hon. member devoted the remainder of his speech to a discussion of clause 6, to the certificate to be submitted in terms of the regulations. The hon. member knows why there has to be such a certificate. Bad mistakes and major inaccuracies occur at the various deeds registries. It happens time and again that documentation has to be returned. Over the past year the office in our country which is best off as far as this is concerned had to return 9,9% of the documentation relating to deeds. During the same period the same office had to return 25% of the documentation relating to sectional titles. At another office no less than 35% of the documentation was returned because it was incomplete. In the case of sectional titles, the figure was 55%. This duplication is causing a bottleneck at that office and it must be eliminated. Therefore it is essential that our conveyancers accept far greater responsibility. The hon. member contends that we are now asking for a blank cheque because we do not know what those regulations will consist of. The hon. member is aware that two conveyancers serve on the Regulation Board. The hon. member for Newton Park mentioned that those regulations had already been drafted in anticipation of the acceptance of this legislation and that the conveyancers were satisfied with them and had even helped draft them.

The hon. member also spoke about consolidation. I think it is necessary for us to come forward with consolidation legislation at some stage. The Deeds Registries Act is a very old one. It was passed as far back as 1937. It contains many archaisms and the department is already reviewing all its laws. A number of them have been referred to the Strydom Committee and other Acts will probably be revised from next year onwards. At that stage we shall be able to come forward with consolidation measures.

The hon. member for Newton Park made a very sound speech. He pointed out that we could reduce and streamline the work by way of these measures we are now dealing with and that it is to be hoped that we shall be able to eliminate the backlog in the deeds offices in future. Then it will no longer be necessary to wait for a month or longer for registration. It was not very long ago that this department took over the deeds offices, and therefore I am particularly proud to say that we have already eliminated the backlog. We have taken the necessary steps and our staff have been simply wonderful. They worked a great deal of overtime. It is true that we paid bonuses in this regard, but they really put their shoulders to the wheel.

The hon. member also referred to clause 6, about which I have already furnished an answer. Then, too, he put a very difficult question with regard to clause 7, in respect of the contentious extension of registration by endorsement. He asked me whether I could give an assurance this afternoon that we would set a limit to that method and that its use would not be extended in any way. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that at the present stage we have no intention whatsoever to extend that system. However, he must also understand that I do not want to say anything this afternoon that could bind future generations. I certainly cannot give any such assurance. Nor would it surprise me if the law societies were to come forward in a few years’ time with a very simple method of registering deeds. And who am I to bind them by giving an undertaking here this afternoon? This Act has been on the Statute Book for 45 years, and in that period of 45 years we amended that system for the first time after 28 years by way of this system of registration by endorsement. Now once again after 17 years we have amended the Act. We have not extended the system. It was the intention in 1965 when we introduced that amendment that “acquire” would also mean property obtained by way of expropriation. Only now, after 17 years, are we putting this in the Act. I am not going to give the hon. member any guarantee as to what Parliament is going to do in, say, 45 years’ time. At present, however, we have no such intention. I have already referred to the consolidation legislation we are going to draw up, and I am very sure that it will not be done in that legislation either.

†The hon. member for Umbilo said that he was not a lawyer and that he did not know much about legal matters. That makes two of us. I thank the hon. member for his contribution. I should also have liked to refer to the hon. member for Pretoria West, but time does not permit. I thank all hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 22, the House adjourned at 18h30.