Mr. Speaker, when the debate adjourned last night, I was referring to certain contradictory arguments advanced here by hon. members of the Opposition. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, for example, sharply criticized the alleged poor planning of the Railways, and to support his criticism he referred to the tremendous pressure under which South African harbours are operating. The hon. member quoted statistics in respect of a number of consecutive years to prove that there had been a steady increase in activities at our ports. I think he came to the conclusion that it was a growth of 10% which accumulated annually. However, what the hon. member failed to stress —I do not want to say that he intentionally held it back—is the fact that the handling of goods at South African harbours has increased by 58,7% in comparison with the 10% increase of former years. It goes without saying, therefore, that there must have been unforeseen circumstances to have caused this tremendous pressure on the harbours. It is generally known that the relaxation of import control and the increased volume of steel which had to be handled contributed to this high pressure.

There is another extremely important factor which contributed to the extraordinary increase of 58,7%. This is the channelling of the cargo from Mozambique harbour to the South African harbours. It is difficult to determine to what extent this caused the pressure. However, the fact remains that since cargo has been turned away from the Mozambique harbour to the South African harbours, we have been faced with a number of cargo ships unequalled in our entire history. This fact, too, is now being brought up with the aim of levelling criticism at the Railways’ planning. I now want to refer to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Durban Point. The first part of his amendment reads—

1. (a) it fails to reveal an appreciation by the Government of the role of the South African Railways as the dynamic in the development of South Africa and of Southern Africa as a whole …

If the Railways had foreseen this pressure or should have foreseen it, this means that there would have had to be advance planning to provide for the pressure placed on the harbours owing to the position in Mozambique. The hon. member for Durban Point levels the accusation at the Railways that it is not dynamic enough to make its influence felt in Southern Africa. If the accusations levelled by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti are to be believed, it would mean that there would have had to be planning to provide for that cargo as well. What does that imply? It implies that the Railways should have foreseen in advance that that cargo would have to be handled in our harbours, in other words, that cargo would be specifically turned away from the harbour at Mozambique. It implies further that there would have had to be advance notice that the contract with the Mozambique harbours would eventually have to be broken. If full provision had to be made, it would also have meant that if we wanted to return the cargo to Mozambique, ample provision would have had to be made at the South African harbours. Therefore this does not tally with the plea made by the hon. member for Durban Point to the effect that the Railways should make itself felt in a dynamic way beyond the borders of South Africa as well. Therefore this charge by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti really cuts no ice and, in fact, it conflicts with the meaning of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Durban Point.

These unforeseeable circumstances have only proved once again how sensitive the Railways’ planning and budget are to circumstances that are not predictable in advance and cannot be taken into account in advance. I should like to mention one cardinal factor, a factor with an extremely important effect on the planning and budget of the S.A. Railways. This factor is the growth rate. When a budget is compiled, account must be taken of the expected growth rate for the year ahead. That growth rate also applies in respect of the services rendered by the Railways, because if the Railways are unable to provide those services, it means that there is a restricting influence on the growth rate of the country. It is very clear to us that the production sectors in the country are, for the most part, dependent on the S.A. Railways for the delivery of raw materials and production requisites. On the other hand, the distribution sectors, too, are virtually one hundred per cent dependent on the S.A. Railways. What did we find when this Budget was introduced? A budget is something that is always criticized by persons concerned with it. Here again there was an opportunity to level criticism, criticism not only of the Budget for the subsequent year, but also of the results of the previous year. The people who could really have gone out of their way to level criticism, are trade and industry. What have we had from trade and industry? Not a single word of criticism of the results of the Railways over the past year or criticism of the services rendered or of this budget. What does this attest to? It attests to the favourable attitude and the goodwill and understanding that exists between the S.A. Railways Administration and trade and industry in this country because the one has a very good idea of the value of the other’s contribution to the economy of South Africa.

I want to express a few ideas concerning the influence of the growth rate in the past year. As I have said, the Budget is based on a growth rate that is estimated in advance. It was difficult to arrive at an estimated growth rate for 1974 owing to the economic instability abroad, the extreme shortage of capital experienced abroad, and also owing to the high interest rates. However, it is not the task of the Railways alone to venture an estimate in advance. Economists, and all those concerned with the growth and economic activities of our country, co-operate to determine an estimated growth rate in South Africa. Taking into account all the economic problems and their possible effect on South Africa, a growth rate for 1974 of between 5% and 6% was eventually decided on. In fact, however, we had a growth rate closer to 7,4%. That, then, is what the growth rate for 1974 will be. This means that the estimated growth rate for 1974 was under-estimated by about 12% and that this must have had an effect on the economic activities of the country and particularly the services that had to be provided by the Railways. Notwithstanding this growth rate that was higher than was calculated, the S.A. Railways was nevertheless able to handle the greater pressure and make its contribution, too, to a real growth rate of 7,4%. This proves that through its planning the Railways is effectively geared to deal with unforeseen contingencies and at the same time it proves that the Opposition’s accusation concerning poor planning in the S.A. Railways is unfounded.

I now want to express a few ideas concerning the capital Budget and capital works in our country. In this regard I just want to mention that for the year 1975-76 a total amount of R866 million has been provided for capital works. When talking about capital investment, it is easy to get bogged down in many problems if we do not draw a clear distinction between economic and uneconomic investments. By economic investments we understand, of course, services on which the return is sufficient for them to pay for themselves. I see uneconomic services as those services that either provide no return or on which the return is insufficient to bear the cost of interest and depreciation write-offs against them. According to the information I have gathered, 25% of the investment of capital funds is for uneconomic services rendered. What is the result of this? In the first place, the resultant losses have to be carried by revenue funds. We note that the Budget for 1975-76 provides for an amount of R47 million more in interest than in the previous financial year. Seen in the broad economic context, however, this enormously high loan demand by the S.A. Railways results annually in extreme pressure being exerted on the availability of capital funds in South Africa. Owing to the extreme pressure exerted on capital funds there is a shortage of capital and this in turn, of course, causes high interest rates. Therefore one is tempted to ask whether the time has not perhaps come to give attention to the establishment of a capital reserve fund. A capital reserve fund of this kind will have to be built up from surpluses. This means that our Budget will have to make provision for the depositing of surpluses in a capital reserve fund to enable the Railways to finance its capital investment from its own income to an ever-increasing extent. Surely this is a sound business principle that applies in trade and industry as well, and it will also apply to the S.A. Railways and Harbours to enable it to be put on a sound basis. It could also, eventually, limit almost all the other problems relating to the escalation of interest and so on.

Are rates to be increased for that purpose?

At this point I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Maitland. This is in reply to the question which the hon. member for Durban Point has now put to me. The hon. member for Maitland said yesterday that there should be a gradual adjustment of rates that may eventually lead to our doing away with differentiated rates which are uneconomic for the Railways. I understood him correctly because he confirmed it in reply to a question I put to him last night. What he advocated was that even now attention should be given to increasing tariffs. That is the reply I want to make to the hon. member for Durban Point.

He did not put it like that.

In the same breath I want to say that differentiated rates form a very integral part of our economic and financial structure. To do away with them would be a process that would have to be handled very carefully. I nevertheless believe that with careful handling, in such a way that the South African economy could absorb it, we could reach the stage of budgeting in such a way that those surpluses could be obtained and could then be deposited in a capital reserve fund. Hon. members of the Opposition are very concerned about long-term planning. They are always saying how short-sighted the Government and the Administration of the Railways are. Here, now, we have the opportunity for long-term planning, an opportunity which could not only be of great assistance and benefit to the S.A. Railways, but could also contribute largely to a greatly improved relationship within our economy in regard to capital loans and so on. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the S.A. Railways has once again proved by means of its results, that it complies with the demands made on it to stimulate our economy in South Africa. I am convinced that through further planning of this kind, long-term planning, the Railways will continue to play a leading role in the development of the economy of South Africa.

Sir, in his plea for a capital reserve fund, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was really trying to give the impression that the hon. member for Maitland was in favour of the Railways regularly increasing their rates. As I understood him, what the hon. member for Maitland very clearly stated was that we should not have such large-scale increases from time to time which actually come as a shock to the South African economy. Sir, through the years we have had a very low rate of inflation but in the past few years the rate of inflation has increased at a fantastic rate. A normal rate of inflation of 2½% to 4% per annum, as we experienced through the years, is not a shock to the economy, but it is in fact a shock for the economy when the rate of inflation reaches 15% per annum; and if the Railways are for some reason forced suddenly to increase their rates fantastically, as occurred a few months ago, then similarly, that comes as a shock to the economy. The argument advanced by the hon. member for Maitland was that if there must be rates increases, then rates should be increased gradually so as not to be a shock to the economy and so that they could be absorbed gradually. What happens at the moment? Rates are substantially increased at a stroke, with, the result that the high rate of inflation we already have is pushed up even further.

Sir, I should like to turn to a few other matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In the first place I want to say that I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. I should like to touch on two matters. The first is the issue of urban transport services and the second is the issue of transport relating to our agricultural industry. I think it is generally accepted that suburban train transport, particularly over fairly long distances, is the quickest form of transport for the urban worker. It is beyond question that this involves major advantages for the economy of the country as well as the Railway users, particularly in present circumstances in South Africa in which we must necessarily save fuel, and owing to the enormous growth of the population in our urban complexes, as well as the fact that the parking problem in the cities is becoming ever more pressing. It is therefore in the interests of the country that it should1 be possible for the passenger or the worker to travel to the city by train instead of using his car for this purpose. An additional benefit is the fact that a train journey is more restful in contrast to a car journey, because in the former case the worker does not have to start his daily task in the city in a tense condition. Apart from the benefits I have already mentioned, the suburban train services also eliminate traffic jams to a certain extent, something that we simply cannot eliminate altogether, however rapidly we may build additional roads. One need only look at the position in a city like Cape Town. I remember that 17 years ago the traffic jams started at the bottom end of Adderley Street; already today the traffic jams start outside Bellville and sometimes they even start near Kraaifontein. Although this matter has already been broached in this House, I should like to refer to the transport problem of the passengers, of workers and employees, in Port Elizabeth. Every day, more and more people come to the centre of town and the northern industrial areas from the western suburban areas, a large part of which falls within my constituency. From this direction, from Humansdorp along the Old Cape Road, the traffic is increasing substantially. Just as the traffic has increased here in Cape Town in recent years, it is increasing in those parts of my constituency, in those parts of Port Elizabeth, as well. In this regard I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister today to institute an investigation into the possibility of establishing a suburban train service for those areas of Port Elizabeth, if this has not already been done. I am not really pleading for a standard train service, but under these circumstances I should prefer to advocate the construction of a monorail train service or, if possible the construction, in the course of time, of an underground train service in that area. Bearing in mind the suburban development in Port Elizabeth, particularly in those western areas, it is clear that a start will have to be made in the next few years on a service of the kind I am recommending to the hon. the Minister. I want to request his support in this regard and associate myself with, other members of the Port Elizabeth area who have already made representations for a service of this kind.

In the second place I should like to raise a matter concerning the transportation of our agricultural products and livestock. We require an enormous number of trucks for the transport of agricultural products, and owing to the quantities of agricultural products in one form or another, a tremendous amount of labour is also required. For example, I could quote from the General Manager’s report to give an indication of the quantities of agricultural products transported by the Railways these days. Out of a total of 119 million tons of all freight, excluding oil products, it seems to me that easily 20 million tons, or one-sixth of the total freight carried by the Railways today, is related to agricultural products in one way or another—either deciduous fruits, lucerne, maize or livestock. To our farmers, therefore, the Railways is the vital artery. I believe that it is our only and best form of transport. It is expected that in the future, agricultural production will increase and consequently the transportation of agricultural products will definitely not drop. It must also be borne in mind that the reduction in the value and particularly in the quality of our agricultural products and livestock that are transported, will have to be kept in the minimum. After all, Sir, we know that it is true that when more agricultural products are transported by rail, there is often a drop in quality and as far as livestock, too, is concerned, there is a tremendous loss of weight. In this regard I have been told that in the process of transporting 320 000 cattle to the abattoirs in the Republic from South West Africa there is a weight loss annually of almost 4 000 tons. If one bears in mind that the S.A. Railways transports more than 1 million ton of livestock annually, it is very easy to calculate what the loss of weight in regard to other parts of the Republic will be, bearing in mind the fact that the loss on 320 000 cattle from South West Africa amounts to 4 000 tons, and that is not to mention sheep, goats, etc., that are transported by the Railways. The point I want to make is that the South. African consumer will simply not be able to afford this kind of loss of an essential protein food in the future. For example, I refer to an article in Landbounuus, in which the Meat Board stated recently that there had been an increase of 3,9 kg, from 200,1 kg to 204 kg, in carcass mass over the past year, from 1973 to 1974. If this kind of improvement in production takes place, while at the same time there is a greater loss when cattle are transported by rail, what use is it to want an increase in our agricultural production? I want to emphasize strongly that since we shall be needing more food in South Africa in the future, we shall simply not be able to afford such losses on the Railways. I say this in spite of the fact that in the case of most of our livestock there is an increase in weight and there will have to be to meet further needs.

As I have already said, we are not only expected to produce more. We shall also have to avoid wastage of the essential resources at our disposal, and this is what is happening at present. Some time ago, the Administrator of South West Africa stated that he foresaw the time when, instead of being transported from South, West Africa to the Republic, all cattle would be slaughtered in South West and the meat would then be transported to the Republic and elsewhere in refrigerated trucks. I want to associate myself with those words by the Administrator of South West Africa. We shall have to waste no time in gearing ourselves to do the same in respect of our South. African slaughter-stock. That livestock will have to be slaughtered in our production areas and the meat will then have to be transported to the controlled areas in refrigerated trucks. In this way we shall be able to eliminate, to a large extent, the substantial losses now being suffered. I cannot hold the Railways responsible for the fact that there are still insufficient abattoirs, but if the Railways plans for the future—that is the point made by the hon. member for Durban Point—and if we can get the Department of Agriculture to cooperate, then this will be to the benefit, not only of South Africa’s agriculture and the consumer, but of the S.A. Railways as well. I acknowledge that transportation of live animals is necessarily cheaper than transporting the dead carcasses, but the expense involved will be more than compensated for by the fact that the weight lost and the large amount of handling by the Railways will be eliminated. Secondly, it will make trucks available for other transport. I note in the General Manager’s report that the number of trucks used for the transport of cattle in the present financial year has increased in comparison with 1973-’74. I contend that when they can be transported in the form of carcases or packed cuts, we shall no longer require this large number of trucks for the transport of our cattle. For the Railways, too, it will eliminate a great deal of labour and much delay. At the moment it is essential, when transporting livestock, to stop along the way to enable the livestock to be off-loaded and watered. This kind of thing can be eliminated and this will facilitate Railways operations. The trucks used for this purpose will then be available for an entirely different purpose. I want to ask that the hon. the Minister of Transport and his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture—it is a pity that this Minister is not present today —should co-operate in this respect and that the planning for this development will go hand in hand in the future. I believe that the Railways will be in favour of a change of this nature, but the necessary adjustments will have to be made in this regard. I foresee that this could be to the benefit of the agricultural industry and the consumer; I foresee that it could also be much to the benefit of the Railway Administration itself, owing to the fact that a great deal of unnecessary work and expense may be eliminated in this way.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park gave an interesting account of the services the Railways is able to render to the farming community, something I do not want to elaborate on. I actually want to deal with what was said by previous speakers of the United Party. I want to start with the statement made by the hon. member for Durban Point, for lack of anything better to say, i.e. that this was a drab and unimaginative Budget. If I had as little criticism as the hon. member, it might also have been one of the statements I would have made. To make a statement such as this, however, is to my mind quite absurd. The Railways today is one of the most modernized institutions one is able to find in South Africa. The hon. member told us that all the Budget says is that more aircraft have been purchased and that another pipeline has been constructed— nothing else. What did the hon. member expect? All I can think of is that the hon. member had the same line of thought the hon. member for Newton Park had. He wanted the hon. the Minister to announce that an underground train system was going to be constructed in Johannesburg and that a tube train was going to be constructed in Cape Town. Apparently this would have been imaginative in the eyes of the hon. member for Durban Point. I think the hon. member only mentioned it in passing as an argument for want of anything better to say. The major and most important point of criticism hon. members on that side of the House expressed in regard to this Budget centres around the bottleneck that has arisen in our harbours. Having listened to the hon. members on the other side, I come to the conclusion that their point of criticism was that the blame for the bottlenecks and delays which arose could be laid on the Minister, as a result of his poor administration of the service and lack of planning. I think this is a reasonable deduction one could make from the arguments advanced on the other side of the House. Does the situation we find in our harbours not perhaps prove something else to us? Is it not perhaps striking proof of the healthy economic situation South Africa is experiencing in contrast to the rest of the world? Does this not simply serve to endorse and emphasize the extremely high growth rate and development South Africa experienced beyond all expectations during the past year? If one considers the focal point of the criticism, i.e. the delay at the Durban harbour, and relates this to the situation prevailing in Lourenço Marques and the effect this has had on the Durban harbour, I ask whether this may not be an illustration of the strategic importance the harbours of the Republic of South Africa have for international trade?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he considers the importation of 400 000 tons of steel in 1973, 900 000 tons in 1974 and 227 000 tons in 1975 as being good planning?

Mr. Speaker, that question is rather irrelevant to the point I want to make. However, I am going to say quite a lot about the harbours later and I shall …

Did the Railways know it or not?

Instead of the members on the other side of the House noticing these things, noticing how South Africa excels during a year in which there was a general slow down in the economic situation in the rest of the world, the hon. members come along and raise a terrible hue and cry while they should be considering with gratitude the results these things have brought us. What did these unexpected things bring us? They resulted in a surplus of R65 million in the harbours instead of a surplus of R56 million. Is that what the hon. member is dissatisfied about? Are the hon. members dissatisfied because these things contributed towards the influence high rated harbour traffic has had on the income of the Railways, the revenue which was increased on account of that, and that such a large surplus is expected, a surplus far in excess of what was estimated? I think the hon. member should have had the courage of his convictions to say that this is a sound Budget. He could then have left the matter at that.

I want to go even further. I would say this is an excellent Budget. I have been in this House for many years and this is an excellent Budget, a Budget which to my mind, can be described as a toast to and a motion of full confidence in the strong economic growth and development of our fatherland, in which the Railways, as a national transport service, has taken a real interest.

The hon. member sounds quite content, not so?

Before I proceed to deal with arguments advanced by the other side of the House, I want to mention something else I have close at heart. This concerns the Saldanha-Sishen railway line. Without making a fuss about it I claim that I was the first person in this House, many years ago, who pleaded for a railway line connecting the ore fields of the North Western Cape with a harbour on the West coast. I must admit however I did not say that it should be Saldanha. I had a shorter route in mind and, on the advice of the hon. member for Namaqualand, I thought Buchuberg would be adequate. However, I have been pleading for it in principle even in those years on account of the affection I have for that part of the world. I have to admit here today that when a decision was eventually made about this railway line, and when it was announced that it would be a single purpose railway line only for the purposes of exporting ore for Iscor, the member for Namaqualand could not have been more disappointed than I. Last year, when the Government changed its views in this respect and it was announced that it would be a multi-purpose line, questions were raised immediately. It was asked, for instance, in which way the other activities of the Railways would fit in with this line which is going to be operated by Iscor and not the Railways. Something else had cropped up since that time. This is the possibility of constructing branchlines from the Sishen line to other areas in this hinterland, in Namaqualand and in the North Western Cape. It is for this reason that I am interested in this matter and am raising it in this House again today. The possibility is now being discussed that a railway line may be constructed from the Sishen line to the mineral deposits at Gamsberg, via Pofadder to Aggeneis. I think the the thought that this possibility exists must be a wonderful experience for the inhabitants of the North Western Cape. I want to say today that when considering these possibilities, I feel like a “hard veld” donkey that pricks up its ears when it smells the first rains of the season. One has new visions for this hinterland again, a region with tremendous potential which is crying out for a proper and efficient railway service to open up the region. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister today, if any consideration has been given to this matter, to tell us something about it in this debate and how this scheme will operate. We would really appreciate his doing so. If it is at all possible …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, wait a little. Leave me alone for a while. The hon. member can ask a question later.

It is relevant.

If it is possible for this to happen, I think the hon. the Minister should also do the logical thing and find a short route to Johannesburg by providing a link line from Sishen via Pudimoe with a view to the development of the Lower Orange River project. This would greatly improve the rail communications of the North Western Cape and the general transport position in that part of the world. It would not only bring the markets of the Lower Orange closer to Johannesburg, but it would also make it possible—this will interest the hon. member for Newton Park —for the farmers of South West Africa not to have to send their cattle at a high cost via De Aar to the Rand abattoirs any more, but by way of a direct railway line to Johannesburg. With the permission of the hon. member for Ceres, the hon. the Minister, I want to ask whether we cannot inject some new life into the cul-de-sac line from Calvinia to Hutchinson. This could be brought about by means of a ’unction with the Sishen line at Sak River. When we consider these visions, we expect …

Now you are speaking my language, Pen.

I do not even know whether that hon. member knows where Aggeneis is.

I must make haste; my time is limited. I want to come back to the Budget. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that he had a difficult task. I do not envy him and other hon. members on that side of the House the struggle they had. They practically had to clutch at every straw to be able to find something they could criticize us. They even clutched at old, musty straws which have already been stored for 70 years. What is more, that hon. member had the temerity, on account of that, to present to this house a picture of the old United Party Government policy under minister Sturrock, of affording the non-Whites full opportunities in the Railway service by employing them in skilled grades. Possibly the United Party did have such a policy, but the only problem is that they never implemented the policy. Would the hon. member be prepared to admit today that, if they ever had such a policy, nothing ever came of it and that it did not mean a thing to the non-Whites Why not? Because the White railway employee and the trade unions did not support the hon. member and his Government at that time. They were unable to obtain the co-operation of those people. Therefore it was only a hollow United Party promise which came to nothing. It is this National Government which has created opportunities in the Railways for the Coloureds, the Bantu and the other races, without making a fuss about it, without endangering the position of one single White person and, what is more, with the wholehearted co-operation of the staff associations. The difference is that these people trust us, but they did not trust them. Therefore I say that I am sick and tired of the old stories that side of the House rakes up every time something is being discussed here, i.e. that full use is not being made of the full potential of all the available manpower in South Africa and that this is the reason why the development of the country’s economy and therefore the Railways as well, are impaired in this sphere or that. I want to tell hon. members that they should leave this matter in the capable hands of the National Government because we shall do all these things in good time without bringing about labour unrest in the country.

Would you answer my question now, Pen?

The hon. member still wants to talk about Gamsberg, but I have already dealt with it.

I come to another matter. The hon. member for Durban Point raised another matter, which is quite interesting, i.e. the question of pensioners. I want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister because he has done away with the system of announcing increases in Railway pensions in Railway Budgets. It meant that the Railway pensioners were looking forward to the Railway Budget in the past like children looking forward to a Christmas tree to see whether something has not perhaps been set aside for them. I think that this was not the proper state of affairs. I do not think Railway pensions or any other pensions should form the subject of a political discussion and political exploitation as we have had from that side of the House. Therefore I think the Minister acts wisely rather to determine from time to time in a scientific way what these people should receive, especially in accordance with salary increases which are granted. Having said all that, may I add that it is my humble opinion that the adjustment of 2% per annum on the basic Railway pension is not realistic in the present time. I do not know what a realistic amount would be, but we make adjustments from time to time over and above the 2%. I think it is really a matter of funds. It is a fact that many Railway pensioners only have eyes for the millions of rands of the Railway Superannuation Fund, while the Railway Administration still has to make regular payments to keep that Fund actuarially solvent. Therefore it is a matter of funds. I think that, when the Minister receives an actuarial report, he would find that a more realistic annual adjustment of the basic pension of Railwaymen is possible.

There is another matter which was raised by the hon. member for Durban Point, a matter about which I do not want to cross swords with him. I am referring to the tremendous burden of interest on capital. This is a serious matter. At present the interest amounts to about R250 million per year. That means the Railways has to pay out approximately 15% of its income in interest before it can start doing anything. This I think is an unhealthy state of affairs. Therefore I want to support the plea made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East in this connection. I even want to make my own contribution. I want to ask whether we should not rather develop another principle. Many years ago it was decided here that the capital of before 1910, before Union, on which we still have been paying interest every year, should be written off. I think we should investigate whether we could not develop that principle. I think it can be said with justification that the Railways should not pay interest on capital which is older than 50 years. Then it would not be doing so because it is received from the Government as a hand-out. I think the Railways is justified in asking for it to be written off because the Railways has been rendering uneconomical social services in the interest of the State and South Africa over the years. This makes it more than worth our while to pay attention to this matter. This would mean that we would write off all capital before 1925, and then rectify the situation every year.

There is another matter which was mainly raised by the hon. member for Maitland. I am referring to the question of advance planning. The hon. member for Maitland … He is so small that I am unable to see him …

He apologized. He will not be long. He has problems with your Ministers.

He raised the same stereotyped argument I used against him when we had problems with them. I shall deal with it in a moment. He said the Railways should not be satisfied with merely keeping up with transport, but the Railways should be slightly ahead of the economic development. This is a sound argument. But then hon. members on the other side should not use it only when it suits them. They should be consistent. This has not always been the standpoint of hon. members on the other side. Hon. members on the other side have entertained quite the opposite view point in this connection for many years. I do not have much time left, but want to quote one or two extracts. This was what Mr. J. Hamilton Russell had to say about this matter [translation]—

Another prominent United Party supporter, who is still the treasurer of the Party, Dr. Frans Cronjé, said the following [translation]—

He had this to say about the Minister [translation]—

So much for the hon. member for Maitland. This was the official attitude of the United Party through all these years. One should not develop the Railways too much; one should rather concentrate on road transport; the Railways is outdated. That has always been the attitude of members on the other side [Interjections.] When it comes to advanced planning in the Railways several factors have to be taken into account. We all know of the new tendency in the world regarding the transportation of freight in containers. This is as innovation and as far as this is concerned, the Railways was not idle. In this respect I should like to quote a paragraph from the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Transport. He said—

In other words, when the Railways and Harbour administration were planning their development in this direction during the past few years they bore in mind that there will have been a complete change over in the world to this new system of container transport before 1980 and that it will result in a great deal of our harbour capacity possibly being unutilized. I do not have to tell hon. members on the other side of the House that harbour capital lay-outs are one of the most expensive lay-outs in the service. The Railways and Harbours cannot, simply because there is a great need at the moment, go ahead and make provision in an haphazard way for harbour facilities which will be idle after four or five years. Sir, it is a fact that South Africa had an exceptionally high real growth of 7% last year. It was an exceptionally high growth rate compared with the rest of the world. This year another economic levelling-off is expected. One cannot expect the Railways and Harbour Administration to plan its development on the basis of the highest peak of economic development in the country; it should base its planning on the average growth rate, but hon. members on the other side do not want to criticize the Railways on a development and planning based on the average growth rate; they would rather regard the highest demands made on the service as the minimum requirement and criticize the Railways on that basis. Sir, the fact of the matter is that the Railways makes a tremendous contribution to our economic development and the stimulation of economic activities in the country. But it is all too obvious that the Railways itself does not determine the rate of that economic development. Whatever the rate of development might be, the Railways should at all times be prepared to keep pace with that rate of development; this is easy to do, and this is what the hon. member for Maitland does not find easy to understand either.

Should the Railways not keep ahead?

Sir, my time is running out, and I really want to say something on the question of bottlenecks in the harbours. This question of bottlenecks existing in the harbours which cannot be argued away fell like manna from heaven into the laps of the Opposition at this point of time, but if the hon. the Minister had introduced this Budget 14 days later, the hon. member for Durban-Point and all the hon. members on the other side, except the hon. member for Newton Park, would have had nothing to make a speech about, because the latest information I have in regard to the harbours, indicates that the position is normal, except in Durban. The latest information furnished to me shows that two-shift systems have been introduced in all the harbours—in Cape Town from as long ago as 16 December last year— and that, at the moment, there is no waiting time for ships in the Cape Town harbour; the position is normal. Pressure is expected to increase again during the fruit season, but the harbour administration thinks that it will be able to cope with this. The same conditions apply in Port Elizabeth; there things are normal as well, to such an extent that, at certain times, empty berths are available. In East London, where the two-shift system was also introduced a month ago, things are almost normal, too; only now and then does one find a cargo boat waiting outside the harbour. But, Sir, the Association of Shipping Lines expects that there will be a levelling-off in the discharge and loading of cargo in the coming weeks, and this will also mean a reduction in shipping traffic in Durban harbour. The Railways expect 73 000 tons of cargo to be handled in the Durban harbour during the week 9 to 15 March, as against an average of 110 000 tons per week maintained over the past few months. It is therefore clear that the situation in Durban is becoming normal again, and if that happens, what is left for the hon. members on the other side to criticize? Other hon. members also advanced some reasons for the bottlenecks in the harbours. It has already been said that we cannot plan for the highest peak of our economic development and thus prevent bottlenecks from arising from time to time. Reference has also been made to the influence containerization has on harbour development, and the effect on harbours because traffic has been diverted from Lourenço Marques.

Tell us about the congestion surcharge.

In conclusion, I want to say that it was said by the hon. member for Durban North that we are dealing with nothing that grips the imagination of the people. I think the hon. member should have another look at the information he obtained from the department recently, in which they showed him chapter and verse the dynamic new developments the Railways and Harbours have in view in regard to this very question of containerization. Plans are in hand to handle 75 000, 20 feet containers at each quay. This represents 1,5 million tons per quay per year, while the average tonnage of general, loose cargo handled per quay per year only amounts to 178 500 tons. In other words, the loose cargo which is at present handled by eight quays, will in future be handled by one properly equipped containerization quay. Is that not dynamic planning for the future? And this will bring about a tremendous saving in staff. One hundred and eighty-five people will be needed for three shifts at such a containerization quay—124 non-Whites and 61 Whites—while a conventional quay, for the same service, requires no less than 1 119 people. In other words, there will be a saving of no fewer than 934 people on these quays alone. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. member for Parow in regard to harbours. He said three things. He said, firstly, that congestion was a sign of a healthy economy, and clearly this reflects no question of mismanagement on the part of the Government. That is a bit like having three mules to take away two bags of mealies and not realizing that this constitutes the grossest mismanagement. He also said the problem would be solved in two weeks’ time. I am happy to say that he did not offer any excuses for the price that has been paid by all of us who live in this country for what has happened over the last year or 15 months. Finally he made one valid point when be said that the harbours should be looked at on the basis of the average and not from the aspect of a high point. I should like to come back to the harbours, Sir, because I think hon. members to the right of me and we on these benches have rightly devoted a great deal of time in this debate to this particular topic.

The other two questions with which I should like to deal are, firstly, the conveyance of people in the light of the estimates put forward by the hon. the Minister and, secondly, if I have time, the matter which the hon. member for Parow also touched on but without getting to the 64 thousand dollar question, namely the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, together with any connections to it which the hon. member so lyrically put forward. I should like to start with two quotations from the hon the Minister. He said in his Second Reading Budget Speech a year ago, on the occasion of his assumption of responsibility for this portfolio—

Now, Sir, that certainly is a question of importance to which we on these benches would like to return in the course of my speech to try to form a judgment as to whether the Minister has measured up to the criterion which he himself has set up. Last Wednesday, towards the end of his speech, the hon. the Minister stated the following:

It sounds, as indeed it should—and I shall come back to this—like an admission of failure or of guilt. A little later he went on to say:

We on these benches hope we are doing the Minister an injustice, but those words could have an ominous ring to them. We would expect such sentiments to emanate from the hon. member for Sunnyside but not from the Minister. The private sector, as the hon. the Minister is well aware, operates in the market place where strict, impartial and objective discipline prevails. Where the investment is large, certainly every variable is subjected to the closest scrutiny. The sensitivity of ultimate success or failure to changes in all the factors is tested, for example, to changes in the various levels of freight rates. The closest possible consultation and discussion is maintained with the Department of Railways and Harbours before a decision is taken to proceed, and indeed thereafter. I therefore think the hon. the Minister must have had something else in mind, something much closer to home, i.e. Sishen-Saldanha. I should like to come back to that a little later because I get the distinct impression, however well it is hidden, that in his new portfolio the hon. the Minister is beginning to see the light in regard to the management of that particular project.

The importance of the S.A. Railways and Harbours to our economy is self-evident from the figures laid before us by the hon. the Minister. There is anticipated revenue of R1 825 million and expenditure of only R6 million less than that. In America there is a saying: “What is good for General Motors is good for America.” This is in view of the importance of that company’s performance, at any point in time, to the state of health of the American economy. The same could be said in our context about the performance of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. If its performance is good or bad, it is likewise good or bad for our economy. The task of the S.A. Railways, it seems to me, can be broken down into two categories, i.e. the conveyance of people and the conveyance of goods, and this is accomplished by plane or by train. I refer to goods conveyed for internal and external trade purposes. As far as the conveyance of people is concerned, this is overwhelmingly a matter of conveying people to their place of work and back again. Again overwhelmingly it is a matter of conveying Black South Africans. It is a striking fact, that in the vast majority of cases transportation to and from the established growth complexes is involved. Indeed, the hon. the Minister made specific mention of the necessity for expediting the conveyance of Black South Africans from the Bophuthatswana homeland to their places of work, mainly in the Pretoria area. There is also the new line between Nyanea and Mitchell’s Plain for the use of Coloured commuters. The same reason was given for the sextupling of the line between Durban and Umgeni. If further evidence is needed, we only have to turn to the Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1976. Not one of the items, from 7 to 24, is concerned with anything but the development of the established economy of our country. They certainly have little if anything to do with the development of the homelands. It is simply aimed at getting South Africans more efficiently to their places of work, where economic integration is steadily increasing, and then back to separation at night. This is not exactly separate but equal development for the economies of the homelands.

We would like to welcome and to thank the hon. the Minister for the improvements in the commuter services as announced for the Reef area, but we would also like to ask him whether the committee appointed to consider the continued expansion of Black South African traffic has made any additional recommendations to the hon. the Minister over and above those he mentioned last year and, if so, what they were. Have they been accepted and put into practice? We would also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that the purchase of 600 main line saloons and 508 suburban passenger coaches will put the Railways into a position to provide a reasonable service—I mean a reasonable service both in relation to the interval between trains and the standard of the carriages—in the areas such as Soweto and elsewhere where they are required.

I should now like to turn to the role of the South African Railways and Harbours as a public carrier of goods, both internally and for the purpose of external trade. We can find little cause other than for dissatisfaction in this regard. The hon. the Minister devoted the major portion of his speech to the difficulties which have been experienced at our harbours, and rightly so, but where he was wrong was in his attempt to portray the fact of the growth in the traffic that had to be handled as being unanticipated and as being something which could not be foreseen. The sins of omission cannot be laid too directly at the door of the hon. the Minister, because they were committed further back in the past by his predecessor and by this Government. Naturally they cannot therefore be put right overnight, which is all too clear from the price which all of us in South Africa have been paying over the last 12 to 15 months. The causes of the congestion at out harbours, with their concomitants of long delays leading to higher costs and surcharges which have been imposed by both the American shipping lines and the Europe/South African Conference lines will continue to have—until the situation is rectified—severe adverse effects upon our country’s competitive position in the export markets of the world. The congestion has now lasted, on and off, for in excess of a year. It is to be hoped that the hon. member for Parow is correct in saying that this congestion will come to an end within a fortnight. The Government says it could not see it coming and, indeed, this is only too painfully correct. It was quite clearly beyond their ken. But let us consider the economic developments which led up to it and see whether other people would not have reached a different conclusion on the same facts and acted sufficiently in advance to prevent the serious difficulties and the very high costs we are now experiencing. Our country’s substantial trade with other countries consists essentially of the export of metals, minerals and agricultural produce. Indeed, this is the fundamental platform upon which the economic development of our country has been built. The proceeds earned by it have of course been used to finance the diversification into and the development of secondary industry, but as of now those exports remain the cornerstone of our economy. It is an obvious corollary that a major proportion of the revenue earned by those exports, namely the foreign currency, will be channelled into purchases of equipment and other imports from overseas to enlarge the platform from which further increases in production will in time emanate. You would have thought that the Government would have taken every precaution and would have given the highest priority to ensure that no barriers were put in the way through the rapacity, or rather incapacity, of our harbours, but I am afraid it has not proved to be the case. It is no use talking about delays in the decisions regarding containerization or the difficulties at Lourenço Marques. The simple fact is that the capacity of the harbours was not capable of dealing with this basic traffic on which the economy of South Africa is built. The original drive or momentum in the rise of the cargoes or tonnage came, as I have said, and as you would expect, from our exports. One would think that the Government never anticipated or indeed never wished such a thing to happen, but you only have to consider the growth in these sectors of the South African economy to know that an economic upswing in the developed countries of the world, together with the weather, will combine to produce these very circumstances, and that the trend in demand for such basic commodities is and must be upwards. Food, metal and minerals, with which our country has been so richly endowed, will in the years to come, as they have in the past, grow steadily in strategic importance. This Government should surely then plan the Railways and Harbours so that their capacity is in advance of that growth. Such growth will surely come, so that in time it will gradually take up the excess capacity. Surely, as that happens, the Government should go on and provide new facilities so that it simply becomes a revolving process. That is the definition of planning, to anticipate the event and not merely to be forced into a position to react when it has already occurred. Of course, as the hon. member for Parow has said, there will be fluctuations as between one year and the next, but the Railways and Harbours should be concerned to provide facilities to service basic trends over a longer period of time. As it is, as we on this side of the House have almost unanimously pointed out, we are paying for the sins of the past. We can but hope that the hon. the Minister will avoid similar faults in the future to those which were made by his predecessor.

There is, however, the question of Sishen-Saldanha. Here the hon. the Minister has our sympathy. We suspect that he is beginning to see the management of that project in a different light. This was perhaps the cause of his mention of priorities, of planning and of the equitable distribution of resources. It must be bitterly difficult to swallow the fact that the management of the line—not to mention any of the spur lines or the connections which have now been raised by the hon. member for Parow —at this point in time, even if it proves not to be a permanent arrangement, is to be in the hands of Iscor.

On Tuesday, 11 February, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, in reply to a question about the latest estimated cost of the construction, said—

We found that answer extremely interesting, because it admitted three things which had previously been denied by the predecessor of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. It admitted firstly that adaptations in design were necessary. Secondly, it admitted that ships of the capacity originally envisaged, could no longer be admitted to the harbour. Thirdly, it admitted that there was escalation as regards costs. There was also a sort of reference to interest which I simply cannot follow until we get further information. No wonder the hon. the Minister of Transport is concerned, because you will recall that the previous figure which was given to us was R460 million. Hon. members will also be aware that the Managing Director of Iscor has already admitted that if he had had to go ahead with the semis plant the amount would have risen from R600 million to R1 000 million. If one assumes that the escalation in this case is going to be similar, even if not greater, then clearly the figure of R460 million—this was denied by this Government a short while ago—is likely to fall far short of the mark. As we have stated in the past, this hon. Minister and the Railways should be responsible for the management of this line. Here we have Iscor, a public corporation, which will have to expend very large sums of money exceeding R460 million by far just to build a railway line, whereas the hon. the Minister has given us figures in respect of the capital expenditure for the whole of the railways and not just for one single line.

There are other questions which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. In a report published in the Argus on Thursday, February 27, it was stated that discussions were at that stage in progress between the S.A. Railways and Iscor on the running of the 860 km export line from Sishen to Saldanha. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to confirm whether such discussions were held. Then we should like to know what the outcome of these discussions was. Thirdly, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister—because certain other Ministers refused to answer questions which were of basic importance to South Africa —whether it is still the intention that the management of this line and/or any connections and the harbour should remain with Iscor. Fourthly, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to confirm whether the whole of that line will be compatible in every respect with other lines which are presently run by the S.A. Railways. Then I should like to know in particular whether he will confirm that the electrical circuits will be entirely similar. Will the supply of voltage to the locomotives be exactly the same? Will the system provide alternating current or not?

As I have said, the S.A. Railways and Harbours Budget has profound implications which will ripple throughout the whole of our economy. We have expressed our concern with regard to the present congestion and difficulties which have been experienced at the harbours. We hope that the hon. the Minister will have sufficient courage to ensure by forward planning, and by planning in advance for the future demand, that this will not occur again. We have pointed out that nearly all the capital expenditure in the cases I have mentioned run entirely contrary—that is on the basis of the information we have been given so far—to the Government’s policy of separate development. We have also pointed out the striking anomaly of the Sishen-Saldanha line and we have expressed concern as to the economic viability of this particular project in the past. We have been given no cause for comfort by the various Press reports.

Finally, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consult with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, as to whether between them, they will make a statement on this matter. Leaving aside the question of the semis plant—which might well push up the amount to R1 000 million—the actual cost of the railway line must clearly be far beyond R460 million because of the escalation of costs. This money is the taxpayers’ money and we are therefore entitled to have a statement from this Government in this regard. It should not be necessary for us to be forced to rely on an in-house journal of the company concerned.

Mr. Speaker, it has now become a matter of repetition that the hon. member for Johannesburg North devotes a major part of his speech to the Saldanha-Sishen railway line and expresses his misgivings about certain aspects of it.

It gives him sleepless nights.

It seems to me as though the real interest of the hon. member in this matter shows a sort of industrial jealousy, viz. that he is actually jealous of Iscor on behalf of High veld Steel, because, with the construction of this line, certain advantages are made available to Iscor. Therefore his interest is not the interest of the general population of South Africa. It is not in the interest of the tax-payer, but the jealous interest of a company in Iscor, which acts in the interests of the whole of South Africa. That is what is at issue here. If I am mistaken the hon. member would do well to state this clearly on a future occasion.

He also raised his misgivings about the planning and the development of the harbour complex to make provision for increasing traffic. This is a refrain which we have heard from various speakers on the opposite side. It is true that the tremendous increase in traffic has caused a traffic jam, but what they do not realize or do realize, but do not want to admit, is that there was an unnexpected, tremendous increase in traffic in the harbours over the past year. In the nine months from January to September 1973, the value of the total imports at all the South African harbours was R2 356 million. As against this, the value of the total imports for the corresponding nine months in 1974 was R3 535 million. Therefore, over the same period there was an increase from the one year to the next, of R1 197 million in the value of the total imports, or almost 50%. At the same time the exports increased in value by 30%. However, it is not as a result of inflation alone that the increase in value was so high. The actual tonnage which was handled, increased, although not quite in the same proportion. In 1974 the tonnage of general goods handled by the South African harbours was 59% more than was the case in 1972. It was also 24% more than was the case in 1973. The normal growth, rate which must be taken into account, is one of 5% per year. However, over the period from 1973 to 1974 there was a growth rate in general cargo of almost 25%. Therefore it is obvious that there will be traffic jams with such an unexpected increase in traffic. In any case, it is also a fact that the political climate in Africa contributed much to the development of these traffic jams. After all, it is not within the powers of the Railways to plan for problems which arose in Mozambique in particular or in Southern Africa in general and which suddenly brought additional traffic to South African harbours.

While I am talking about the role of the Railways in Southern Africa, I think that the Railways is pre-eminently one of the organizations which plays and has played a tremendously important role, also in making it possible for political conditions in Southern Africa to develop on a more stable basis. The effect of the political instability in Mozambique was reduced to a large extent by the fact that the S.A. Railways could have its association with the harbour in Lourenço Marques continue on an almost normal basis and by the fact that the South African co-operation with the Mozambique authorities could be developed in such a way that we could be of assistance in causing the traffic to flow on a reasonably normal basis. Where problems did arise, our staff was able to be of assistance in limiting those problems to a minimum. The fact that this traffic could continue, was also an important contributory factor in normalizing the political relations between Mozambique with, its new political composition and South Africa, something which very definitely counts in South Africa’s favour and affects our task in Africa in general very advantageously.

There are a few matters which I want to raise more specifically later and there are also a few matters in respect of which I want to reply to statements which were made by certain Opposition members. The hon. member for Albany—I see he is not in the House at the moment—referred yesterday to Railway houses in areas in which the occupation of the houses by Railway officials was no longer practical, and in which those houses were unoccupied at the moment. He advocated that those houses could perhaps be used for the housing of the aged or the indigent. Perhaps it is a good idea. However, it is also true that those houses are not in the centre of an urban area or town and that they are in fact isolated. I have had experience in my constituency which indicates that if these houses are made available to the aged or the indigent, those people will not be done a favour. They are actually the people who have to be in contact with the community. If they are aged, they must be in contact with doctors, with the Police, with hospitals and with the community as such. Therefore, to remove the aged or indigent from the community to a place outside, even if the idea is to provide them with cheaper housing is actually to their detriment because they are then taken from the stream of the community. They become lonely there. Perhaps the idea is a good one, but in practice it will definitely not be to the advantage of the persons concerned.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Certainly.

Does the hon. member not think that it will be a good plan to use those houses as Coloured schools, of which there is a great shortage in the rural areas?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the circumstances are which prevail in the area where the hon. questioner lives. I doubt whether it will necessarily be a good plan. It depends where the Coloured community lives. It would be meaningless to make houses available as Coloured schools if these are situated many miles from the Coloured community.

They are in the Coloured community.

If they are within the Coloured area, something of that sort can possibly be considered. It will depend on the situation of the houses concerned.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked the hon. member for Parow whether it was not perhaps due to bad planning that 400 000 tons of steel had to be imported in 1973, 900 000 tons in 1974 and—I think this was the figure which, he mentioned— 230 000 tons in 1975. I think the hon. member for Amanzimtoti did not know precisely what he was referring to. I think the figures which he had, come from the figures which were made available to members of the Select Committee on our visit to the Durban harbour area. The figures to which he referred are actually Iscor’s figures of steel imports, the data here indicates that the increased steel imports by Iscor placed an additional burden on the harbours. They had planned to import approximately 400 000 tons of steel during 1974, but in fact their imports exceeded 900 000 tons. The present planning is to import 227 000 tons in 1975. This figure has nothing to do with the Railways’ imports; it has to do with. Iscor’s imports, and Iscor’s imports have nothing to do with the Railways’ planning as such. If Iscor is suddenly forced by the high economic growth rate in South Africa to import a tremendous amount of additional steel surely something of the kind cannot necessarily be foreseen in the advance planning. It is a result of the fact that Iscor is not yet operating at full production in Newcastle that it was absolutely necessary to import this additional steel for the sake of maintaining the economy of South Africa. Sir, what is interesting, is that the Railways placed orders themselves in the past year for 210 000 tons of steel for rails. This, too, is indicative of the farsightedness of the Railways in making provision for the additional traffic which will have to be transported as a result of the unexpected rapid growth rate in South Africa. Where we expected that the growth rate would perhaps decline to 3,5% during the year, the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council has planned an average annual growth rate of 6,4% for the next five years and an employment figure of an additional one million workers in that period. In other words, the growth rate continues to boom and the Railways will obviously plan accordingly, but it must be expected that bottlenecks may arise again, because obviously the Railways cannot take only the requirements of the peak periods into consideration in their planning.

Sir, then I want to refer to another point which was raised by the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member referred to the transport of carcasses of cattle in cool trucks and suggested that the abattoirs should perhaps be situated in the stock producing areas. There is nothing wrong with that idea as such, but it is not a matter for the Railways. If the need should arise by reason of the abattoirs being planned for those areas, then the Railways will obviously plan to make provision for the needs arising from that, but at the moment, in terms of the Abattoirs Commission Act, it is the responsibility of the municipalities and the municipal health authorities to make provision for abattoirs inside or outside their areas according to their needs. In other words, what the hon. member advocates is not actually a matter which should be advocated in a debate on the Railway Budget; it is a matter which must be advocated on the Agriculture Vote; that is where the hon. members can deliver his plea for the location of abattoirs in other areas, and the question will then arise as to whether it is not perhaps desirable that abattoirs be placed in the hands of private initiative to a greater extent. But that is a matter which must be handled by agrigulture and not by the Railways.

Another aspect which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, is containerization. He said that with containerization, and with the system of double shifts or with the possible introduction of a three-shift system in certain harbours, we were heading for the situation where there might be more capacity than we would really need. Sir, I really doubt whether this will be the case. Containerization will indeed bring about a tremendous saving in man-power. There is no doubt at all about that, because at the moment the handling of general cargo is approximately 15 tons, if things go well, per crane-hour, with containerization it will possible to handle approximately 200 tons per crane-hour. Therefore it will obviously bring about considerable labour saving in that field, and probably in many other fields as well. But with the tremendous growth in the economy of South Africa, and especially with the growth potential as a result of the necessarily more rapid economic development of the homelands, we can expect that the growth rate in Southern Africa—and the Railways provide the whole of Southern Africa with a transport system and not only South Africa, including the economic development of the homelands—will continue to become much more rapid than what, on the average, is experienced in similar circumstances and in similar countries. Therefore we can expect that the facilities for transport handling in South African harbours will also have to make provision in the future for a more rapid growth rate than the normal planned 5% or even 6%, as is foreseen at the moment. With containerization we shall probably handle 70% of the general traffic in the future when it is fully operational and also save in various other fields. The flow of goods through the harbours to their various destinations is facilitated, because it is much easier to have a flow of large containers from the ship to the various destinations. This facilitates clearance because the particulars of the ship’s cargo can be transferred to its harbour of arrival by means of computer control when the ship leaves its harbour of departure, and consequently it is possible to plan to have the cargo off-loaded and handled much more expeditiously. This also facilitates considerably the handling by customs of the general cargo which is packed in containers.

May I ask the hon. member how customs will handle cargo when there is mixed cargo in one container?

the contents of the container will obviously have to be much better documented than the contents packed into ordinary cardboard boxes or wooden crates, and it can be handled more easily by customs when the contents can be ascertained and the duty paid in advance. Surely it will obviously be easier when there are properly checked containers. I do not know why the hon. member for Durban Point cannot understand this point.

I shall ask the Minister whether he will follow your advice.

At the same time it will facilitate security control and reduce breakages. Therefore we can expect that, in general, with the introduction of containerization, much greater efficiency will be possible in the handling of cargo in harbours.

Sir, there is one further matter which I should like to raise with reference to certain planning projects of which we have taken note. One of these is that provision be made in the harbour area of Durban for the construction of a compound for the housing of a large number of Bantu who work in the harbour area. Several years ago the construction of a large compound on the slope of the mountain at King’s Rest on the Bluff in Durban was planned. At that time we felt that it would be wrong to build such a large compound in the harbour area. Misgivings were expressed from various sides, and the Railways abandoned the plan, but I see the plans are now being drawn up for the building of new compound facilities near the general goods shed at Durban. Personally I feel that in an area such as Durban, where there is a quick connection between the harbour area and the Bantu homeland, which is situated several kilometres away near the Louis Botha airport, it is preferable to plan to erect this sort of housing, which can be controlled more effectively with, a view to security, within the Bantu homeland. I notice in the report of the General Manager of the Railways that plans are also being drawn up for the erection of a hostel at Umlazi, which will eventually house 9 000 Bantu, and that, according to estimations, the project will cost R14 million. This means that the cost per person, per unit, will exceed R1 500. At this stage, according to my information, housing is being provided to married Bantu on a family basis in the urban areas of Kwa Mashu and Umlazi at a price which is not much higher, and in certain cases is even lower, than R1 500 per housing unit. Therefore I feel that, especially in an area such as Durban where the homeland is within travelling distance or less than half an hour by bus or train, the Railways, which is one of the biggest employers in South Africa, must rather plan, where they employ such large numbers of Bantu, to provide the necessary housing on a family basis in the homeland where this is practicable. Obviously, where essential migrant labour is concerned, as in the case of the mines which are dependent on the migrant labour of foreign Bantu outside South Africa or in distant homelands for a large percentage of their labour, it cannot be expected that housing be provided on a family basis. Where it is possible in Natal and specifically in Durban, and it is customary that the Bantu, who are necessary for the maintenance of the harbour activities of the Railways, come from the Zulu homeland and that homeland is about 20 minutes’ drive from Durban, there must be a greater degree of planning for housing on a family basis. There is no difference of opinion at all between those who advocate that migrant labour be abolished and the view of the Government in so far as the desirability of its abolition is concerned. As far as the desirability is concerned, we all agree that migrant labour, seen from a social and economic point of view, is not a desirable system. Therefore my plea is that where it is practicable, we ought to tend and to plan in the direction of providing Bantu housing on a family basis. Bantu who are chiefly dependent on an income from urban areas, even if they do come from the rural areas in Bantu homelands, whether these be in the Natal Midlands, the mountain locations or in Northern Natal, ought to be provided with housing on a family basis, as far as is practicable. I say this for the particular reason that the Bantu residential area is within travelling distance from a municipal complex and because it is in line with our policy of regulating employment as far as is practicable, in such a way that housing can be provided on a family basis within the homeland. We all admit the undesirability of the migrant labour system and where we can, we ought to plan for its gradual elimination, if the economy of South Africa can afford it and if it is practicable, by means of the provision of housing on that basis. Especially in this case, where the unit cost per person will be approximately R1 500, I feel that it is possible to provide family housing at the same unit cost for Zulus, who can then be employed in the Durban harbour area. I realize that there are practical problems involved in this, but let us plan in order to limit those problems to a minimum. As far as the migrant labour system is concerned, it amounts to an acceptance of the practical necessity which compels us to continue the system for the time being. The Government is not alone in feeling this way. According to a newspaper cutting which I have before me, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer says the following:

In other words, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, the financial backer of the Progressive Party, accepts that the system will still have to be applied in South, Africa for some time for practical reasons. We also accept that this system will still have to be applied for some time for practical reasons. However, where we can, we ought to plan in order to eliminate the necessity for migrant labour as far as is possible.

The Railways, as an organization, is one of the organizations which bring about the greatest stability in Southern Africa because it offers security to almost 250 000 people. To my mind, it is an organization which is controlled very effectively and has good planning. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the last three speakers on the Government side devoted parts of their speeches to congestion in our harbours. In the course of my speech I should like to deal with the same subject. The three aforementioned speakers all sang more or less the same tune, viz. that there has been an unexpected increase in traffic, that there have been abnormal circumstances and that, according to the hon. member for Parow, these have created a traffic jam. However, none of them mentioned the fact that there was a lack of advance planning. In my speech I shall refer to the specific questions they mentioned.

†Before I do that I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention two matters of a completely different nature. Firstly, I would like to ask him—as I have asked his predecessor over the years—whether it is not possible for him to give consideration to the restoration of what is known as the service man’s concession on the Railways. I think particularly of the service men in the urban areas who, in the past, used to have a concession to get from their military camps or naval bases to their homes over week-ends. In view of the fact that only a small amount of money is involved in such concessions, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not give consideration to a request that the concession for service men be restored. As an example one could look at the case of the naval man. A return ticket from Simonstown to Cape Town costs about R1 while the naval service man earns less than R1 a day.

Secondly, I would like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention something which, I think, the hon. the Minister and the General Manager and his staff have perhaps overlooked. This is in connection with the abolition of the scholars’ concession. Traditionally there has been a concession available to school-children to travel from where they live to their schools at a reduced rate. This was abolished last year. I want to mention this to the hon. the Minister because he said at the time that it was possible for school-children to buy monthly tickets at the reduced rate, because anyone who buys a monthly ticket does get it at a reduced rate. The problem in respect of school-children is that the school terms do not conform with the calendar month. In other words, if the school term begins on the 23rd day of a month the child has to pay by the day to the end of the month before he can get a monthly concession. School concessions as such have been abolished, but there still remains the monthly concession. I would like to ask him to give particular consideration to this matter because it is working out expensively indeed for the limited number—there are only about 120 000 school-children—who commute and who used to enjoy a scholars’ concession.

At this stage I would like to come back to the subject of harbours. In the first place I want to thank the General Manager and his staff for the excellent arrangements which were made on behalf of the members of the Select Committee to visit the harbours of Cape Town and Durban as well as, as I understand, the harbour of Richards Bay which was visited before I came on the Select Committee. The arrangements were outstanding and I am grateful to them and also to the hon. the Minister for having given his approval for those visits.

I now wish to analyse some parts of the hon. the Minister’s speech. He mentioned that the harbours were operating under great pressure, but this is nothing new as this has been the position already during the past eight years. He says that since 1969, and more particularly in the year 1970-’71, there were peak periods of harbour traffic. He also said that we had reached an even higher peak in 1974 leading to a still higher peak in 1975. I accept his statement as being correct. I want to analyse why this situation has arisen. First of all, I think it is due to the fact that— after the Six Day War—the Suez Canal was closed. This, however, is not a new situation, because that was done approximately eight years ago. I think it must be generally conceded by people in this House that the situation in world shipping traffic is never going to be the same even when Suez is opened. Suez at its peak was never able to cater for ships of a tonnage of much greater than 60 000 tons. Even if Suez is reopened and widened the bulk of the world’s oil carriers and ore carriers will still be travelling around the Cape route. Therefore our harbours are going to work at an ever increasing capacity in spite of the reopening of the Suez Canal whenever it takes place.

He made a second point; he said that the conditions in the harbours were due to conditions which had arisen in neighbouring states. This again is in my opinion no valid argument because we have had, for example, the blockade of Beira by the British for the last ten years. We have had a situation which has been ever present in everybody’s mind that there could be trouble in She neighbouring Black states around our borders, leading to harbours being denied to Rhodesia. Harbours have also been denied to other countries on the African continent. This is nothing new. This is not an abnormal situation and it is something which could have been envisaged by any Government with foresight. Then he said that another reason for the traffic congestion in the harbours was the relaxation of import control, which resulted in a larger quantity of goods being imported. This tendency, he said, had lasted much longer than was anticipated. Surely, anybody knowing the strength of the South African economy and the growth potential of the South African economy should have realized that we shall be ever more dependent on imports for as long as we can see into the future.

Then the hon. the Minister says that foreign importers are now using our ports, whereas before they used Beira and Lourenço Marques. I concede that that is so and I concede that that contributes to the increased traffic which is using our harbours. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister that is going to get worse. It is going to get a lot worse and if he shows any foresight at all, he will start taking account of the fact that the harbours may well be denied to Rhodesia one of these days. Rhodesia will then have to depend on us and on us alone. The hon. the Minister seems to imagine that this situation has existed only for the past few years, whereas, if I am correct in what I have said this afternoon, it has existed for a considerably longer period. It is more in the region of eight or ten years than in the region of two or three years. He said that short-term emergency steps were taken, but they should have been taken years and years ago. What are some of the snags to which he referred? He said that wharfs and quays could not be built overnight. I agree with that, but we on this side of the House have been urging the hon. the Minister and his predecessor to build wharfs and quays over the last 10 years. Then I want to refer to what seems to me to be a contradiction in the hon. the Minister’s speech. Firstly he talks about wharfs and quays being built and about the problems and the delays in building them, but then he says that after containerization there will probably be a surplus of wharfs and quays available to us. Does he mean that until such time as he sees the effects of containerization, he is not going to go on building wharfs and quays, or is he going to build wharfs and quays which might become redundant, in terms of his arguments, after containerization? In other words, it seems to me that he is between the devil and the deep blue sea in this case. As justification for the delay in providing container berths, he says that the Government in fact took the decision that there would be containerization in our harbours as long ago as 1970, but that the shipping companies only took the decision to go in for containerization on a big scale in 1974. That may or may not be so. He said further that Durban and Cape Town had taken the necessary precautions timeously and that they had made the necessary preparations, but containerization according to the hon. the Minister’s own argument, is just around the corner. It is going to be operating in our harbours in 1977 and in his own words—

I wonder whether at that time, in 1978, there will be sufficient provision for containerization.

Then the hon. the Minister referred to a third snag. I am in agreement with him on this. He blamed to a certain extent private enterprise and bodies using the harbours for this position because they had not been as helpful as was necessary. In my experience of harbour administration and of the private companies, firms and institutions and more particularly businessmen using those harbours, there are indeed unnecessary delays on their part, they do aggravate the situation and they have caused great problems for the Railways Administration. Then he used another argument. He said there are physical limitations on our coastline which make harbour building difficult and very expensive. I would like to tell him that there are many other authorities who say the South African coast is one of the easiest coasts along which to build harbours. For example one of the heads of an overseas shipping company said just a few years ago:

If the hon. the Minister refers to some of the investigations that have been made into harbours over the years, he will find that, for example, there was the Buchanan Commission as far back as 1923; he will find a report on the position in Table Bay Harbour in 1937; he will find another one of the Railways and Harbours Board on Richards Bay dated 1972. What is interesting about the 1923 report, which covers harbours in general in South Africa, is that while it was put before a National Party Government, its recommendations were actually carried out by a United Party Government. What is even more interesting in respect of the 1937 report which deals with Table Bay and preceded the building of Duncan Dock, is that that report was prepared by a United Party Government and was also put into effect by a United Party Government!

The hon. the Minister then dealt with the question of delays. He said that weather is a contributory factor in the delays that are being experienced in our harbours. This is nothing new. There has been bad weather, inclement weather, ever since the days of Van Riebeeck. Then the hon. the Minister said that there had been an inability or reluctance on the part of businessmen to accept goods after hours. Again, on this point I am with him. According to my own experience the businessmen in many of the coastal ports do not co-operate with the harbour administration. They do the absolute minimum to make themselves available for the acceptance of goods after hours. The hon. the Minister also said that the steel imports had exceeded expectations. He said that there had been an exceptional rise in the import of steel by Iscor. He said that something like 8 % of harbour traffic was taken up with the import of steel. That may or may not have been so, but with the industrial expansion that is going to take place in the Republic over the years, I would have thought that provision would have been made years ago in anticipation of our industrial requirements from overseas.

Lastly, he made a point on which I cannot correct him because I do not know whether he was right or wrong. He said that the delays were in part due to the fact that an abnormal amount of fertilizer had been imported from overseas. I would like to ask him why we are importing so much fertilizer from overseas. I would have thought that we have enough fertilizer in South Africa for the whole of Africa. Then he referred to other short-term measures. He referred to the development and harbour expansion that has been taking place in Durban and East London over the years. I may say that I was most impressed with what we saw in Durban harbour the other day. The hon. the Minister referred to the mechanical handling machines that are being installed at all of the harbours. He referred also to the staggered export loading date system applied to our exports. I think that that is a sensible system. It seems to be working well. He referred also to other matters of a more minor nature such as the provision of more adequate tug and harbour boat facilities at all the harbours. That is all to be welcomed. It is something that should have been done years ago and something we have been asking for for years. Then he suddenly put the cherry on top of the cake. He said that in 1974 he appointed a national advisory committee consisting of representatives of commerce, industry, shipping, stevedores, despatching and clearing agents and State departments, and that this committee in turn had sub-committees. If ever there was a need for the appointment of such a national advisory committee, there was such a need at least ten years ago. All of the things to which I have already referred in my speech could have been prevented had there been this co-ordination and co-operation ten years ago instead of its coming about only in 1974. The hon. the Minister said that the double-shift system sprang directly from this national advisory committee. Members on both sides of the House have apparently welcomed this double-shift system. He says that emergency measures have been taken to recruit additional personnel and to train them by way of a crash-training programme. Where have I heard those words before? The hon. member for Hillbrow, his predecessor as chairman of our labour group, Mr. Steyn, who is now sitting on the other side of the House, and the Leader of the Opposition have been lodging please for years to have crash-training programmes in order to uplift White people and the non-Whites who could then take the jobs formerly done by the Whites. He says there has been a rise in productivity in the harbour activities in Durban and in Cape Town. Naturally, if the measures to which I have referred, are adopted, there must be higher productivity and considerable improvement. I congratulate the hon. the Minister for realizing that now.

He also says that harbour vessels have been provided. Here again he refers to 1972. Since 1972 harbour craft and tugs have been provided in ever increasing numbers. Again I am most impressed by what I have seen of the harbour craft, in particular the tugs. There are tugs, dredgers and cranes of all types such as floating cranes and dockside cranes, all having been provided since 1972. He also mentioned the fact that specialists have been trained in harbour administration and he referred to specially trained harbour administrators for which 20 additional senior posts have been created in the past few years in the administrative, engineering, shipping and technical fields. These are all welcome steps that have been taken by the Minister or his predecessor in the last year or two of his career in this House. But, as I said earlier, these steps could have been taken a long time ago. The events involving Suez took place a long time ago, and when Suez is reopened there will still be traffic congestion in our harbours unless timeous provision is made. The importance of the Cape Sea route can never be underestimated and can never be taken away from us. It is a vital shop-window to us in that the service we provide to international shipping in our harbours should be a credit to South Africa and, of course, of benefit to us in the process.

Let me again refer to the reports I have read on harbour development in South Africa over the years. Even in the report of 1923 there was reference to the possibility of certain harbours being built in South Africa. Admittedly reference was not made at that time to Richards Bay. I think Richards Bay is a magnificent development, judging by what I have read and heard. However, emphasis was laid on the fact that the main harbours of South Africa were to be Durban, which is now, I think, the ninth largest in the world, East London, Port Elizabeth, Mossel Bay, Cape Town and Walvis Bay. Mention was not made of Saldanha Bay. I have already praised the development of Richards Bay which I think—If I may be permitted to look into the future—is going to provide for the requirements of the Witwatersrand as a whole probably more than any other area in South Africa.

However, this afternoon I specifically want to deal with Mossel Bay. I believe that it is very necessary that we develop harbours south of Durban. I believe that future harbour development will lie to the south and west of the country. Mossel Bay, to me, is one of the areas that has been most neglected of all the coastal areas in South Africa. I would say that Mossel Bay has a potential as a deep-sea harbour which is second to none. In addition to that, however—and this does not seem to be generally realized—Mossel Bay is, in point of fact, closer to Sishen than is Saldanha Bay. It is also not realized, perhaps, that if Mossel Bay were to be developed as a harbour with the ancillary railway connections and the air connections, some of which I believe are going to be built, one would have Mossel Bay opening up a part of South Africa which I believe has a great and wonderful future, i.e. the Karoo. The Karoo will be able to use Mossel Bay as a harbour far easier than any other port, and I think that a remarkable future awaits the Karoo when the dams have been built and when there is more irrigation in the once arid areas of the Republic. Those areas will use the harbour closest to them; they will not go to Port Elizabeth or to East London; they will go to Mossel Bay. I ask the Minister therefore to consider very seriously the possibility of having an investigation into the building of a deep-sea harbour over a period of time at Mossel Bay. Admittedly it cannot be done overnight. This would open not only the Little Karoo, but it would open up the Great Karoo, and I think the Minister will agree with me that in the Karoo there are potential mineral riches and wealth, which at the moment are even unthought of.

Then I want to refer to the other harbour which I mentioned during the course of a speech on harbours last year, namely Saldanha Bay. As I understand it, a situation has been reached where there is a stalemate. It looks as though the dry dock which was to have been built by some sort of consortium at Saldanha Bay is no longer going to be built. It seems to me as if the possibility of a general harbour being built at Saldanha Bay is also receding into the limbo. I cannot see Iscor undertaking the building of a general harbour and a dry dock, nor can I see a consortium doing it. Therefore I believe that the Railway Administration is the only body that can possibly take the initiative and bring about the building of two very necessary things, firstly, a general harbour at Saldanha, for which there will be an enormous demand when the north-west is opened up and, secondly, a dry dock which is absolutely essential here in the south. If the Minister with his department could take the initiative, he could provide the impetus which I think no other body at the moment can provide in the case of Saldanha Bay. Because there are some people today who believe that modern development, modern industrialization, has an adverse effect on the environment, many studies have been made by people who are keen on the environment and who know something about the environment at Saldanha Bay, and they have come up with a number of schemes which I will make available to the hon. the Minister and, which will show that if a general harbour and a dry dock were built at Saldanha Bay and even if there were to be an oil terminal in the vicinity of Saldanha Bay, the environment in fact would not be affected. One of the suggestions which has been made is that a wall should be built from Donkergat to the shore in a straight line, but that on the east side of the Donkergat whaling station, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, there could be an additional outlet built so that there would be a constant supply of fresh water into the then enclosed area. That, they say, would not affect the environment and the beauty of the Langebaan lagoon and the other inland waters at Saldanha Bay. Sir, I think that is something to which the Minister can give his consideration. I would like to say to him that if he rejects Saldanha as a possible site for a dry dock, then he has got to give serious consideration to the building of a dry dock, which his predecessor would not give, in Table Bay. There was talk at one time of his predecessor having said that a consortium could build a dry dock in Table Bay, but nothing came of that. Unless the Minister takes the initiative, nothing will come of it now, but if ever there was a need for a dry dock to be built in the south, then it is now. In the last financial year, according to the General Manager’s report, some thing like 800 ships required our dry docking facilities, which are hopelessly and completely inadequate and which could be an earner of foreign revenue. Sir, in Australia, for example, there are no fewer than 12 dry docks. I would commend to the Minister, therefore, an intensive study, through his department, of the dry dock possibilities of Saldanha and Cape Town.

In conclusion, I have been asked by the hon. member for Green Point to draw to the Minister’s attention a matter that he raised with the Minister during the last session, and that is in connection with the yacht and power boat harbour of international status at Granger Bay. We would like also to thank him for the facilities which we believe he has made available to the Oceana power boat club for a slipway and for the erection of a clubhouse. We would like the Minister in his reply please to give us an up-to-date report as to what the situation is and to tell us whether such a harbour is going to be built, what its cost is going to be, what progress has been made and by what date it is likely to be completed.

The hon. member for Simonstown will excuse me if I do not react to his speech, except by saying to him that in respect of what he said about the harbour at Mossel Bay and the opportunities which can be created for the Karoo, I obviously agree with him. I believe that my colleagues, the hon. members for Mossel Bay and Oudtshoorn, will be equal to the task of discussing this matter with the hon. the Minister, so that they may help the hon. member for Simonstown and me to open up the hinterland, the Karoo.

Sir, one can make a very interesting study of the development of Cape Town harbour. It is interesting to know that the harbour actually consists of four docks today and that these four docks are actually representative of the four phases of development of Cape Town harbour. The first one is called the Alfred Basin. It is the oldest harbour in South Africa and it was built originally for sailing ships. This was followed by the Victoria Docks, and with the advent of the steamship it was put into service. After that came the Ducan Dock, which played its major role during and after the Second World War. Thanks to good planning by the hon. the Minister and his Department, a large new dock is being built today, one of the most modern in the world, capable of berthing container ships. This major development is taking place in Table Bay harbour because development here must keep pace with the essential growth in the economy of South Africa.

Obviously one has to do with railway authorities who have to contend daily with cold economic facts. Therefore I am also particularly pleased that besides this talent which the Department shows, they are also prepared to give attention to other things, perhaps far removed from the economy. Here I am thinking particularly of the conservation of certain Railway monuments. I refer specifically to the decision to restore the old bell tower at the Alfred Basin. It is interesting to know that this old bell tower was built in 1883 in the Victorian-Gothic style, originally to be used as a signal tower. In the old days, however, it was used as a reading room for ships’ officers. During the Anglo-Boer War and also during the First World War this old bell tower was used by the Royal Navy. I trust that when this bell tower will be restored, it will be used effectively, inter alia, by the public of Cape Town too.

With the electrification of railway lines, however, there will be other monuments in the course of the years. I am referring to the old steam locomotives which are being used less and less and will quite probably not be used at all some time in the future.

Like the United Party.

I hope, however, that their numbers are not dwindling as rapidly as those of the United Party. But these old steam locomotives have a tremendous amount of admirers throughout the world. It is said that there are about 5,5 million steam enthusiasts around the world. Many of these people are organized into historic railway societies. I know, for example, that there are two such societies in Japan. In the United Kingdom there are six; in France three; in Germany two; and America has two large societies. Therefore there are altogether 5,5 million people who are potential tourists for South Africa. Seeing that 62 steam locomotives traverse the De Aar-Kimberley section every day, the highest number traversing any section in the world, I think the Railways can derive considerable revenue from this source.

Of course, I do not want to elaborate on tourism as such now, but nevertheless I want to make certain proposals which ought to enable the hon. the Minister to find a good income. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to establish a railway museum at De Aar, the place where the largest number of steam locomotives operates. The whole museum need not be accommodated in a building. Some of the smaller railway apparatus will obviously have to be accommodated in a building, but it will certainly be possible to have an open-air museum for the locomotives. I should also like to see that it will be a living museum. By that I mean that one can arrange, for example, for the oldest working steam locomotive in South Africa to be accommodated there with a number of the oldest passenger coaches and the oldest dining saloon. From these a train can be marshalled for transporting such enthusiasts. It has been my privilege to travel with such people. They travel thousands of miles from America and Great Britain to Kimberley, where they board the train to travel to De Aar and back. I travelled with them over that section. At every station where the train stops they leave the train to take photographs of the locomotive. They are tremendously enthusiastic. I repeat that this is a source for tourists which has not yet been exploited by us. Those people come specially to South Africa to be able to travel in a steam train. In my mind’s eye I see us travelling in such an old train and some of the old, traditional dishes being served in the dining saloon. Perhaps we can also make provision for proper “witblits” and a little “mampoer” to be served with those meals. At Kraankuil station, which is only 30 miles from the P. K. le Roux Dam, the tourists can possibly be met so that they may be taken to the Dam and back by means of luxury railway buses. From Kraankuil they can be taken back to Kimberley to visit the local diamond industry. A new source of revenue for the Railways can be exploited this way.

Mr. Speaker, the debate thus far has been a technical debate and there have been very few signs of a desire or an ability to investigate the possibilities of using the giant S.A. Railways and Harbours organization in a more imaginative way in order to give a dimension, an impact and substance to the policies of the Government in respect of the people who are employed by the Railways, in respect of the image which is created of the Railways as an employer and in respect of the Railways as a servant of South Africa. It is true that the South African Railways and Harbours is, as has been said by the other side, a giant organization. It is in many respects a very impressive organization, of its kind unique in the world. It employs more than 100 000 Blacks and more than 100 000 Whites in South Africa. It is vital to our economy, it is the stimulator and the basis of the South African economy and it is a dispersed organization which operates in small communities throughout the country. It employs people in virtually every one of the communities of South Africa. It provides housing, education, health services and cultural activities to these people. It has all the characteristics, all the capabilities and the potential which are required not only to provide transport for South Africa’s people, for its workers, not only to supply transport for South Africa’s products and raw materials, but also to contribute in a very meaningful way to many other aspects of South African life and policy. The point I want to make this afternoon is that the image of South, Africa which is presented to the outside world and the image of the Government which is presented to the workers of South Africa, and in particular to the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa, is an image which can be made or broken by the S.A. Railways and Harbours. In other words, the S.A. Railways and Harbours can by so conducting themselves in respect of their relations with their own workers and in respect of their relations with South Africa—its commerce, its industry and its community as a whole—create a favourable image not only of itself as an organization but also of South Africa. This afternoon I would like to discuss a few of the ways in which this can be done. I would also like to suggest that in this year when the hon. the Prime Minister has in a dramatic way taken the initiative in Africa by creating détente with Africa, by creating better relationships with our neighbours in Africa and by creating a better overall image for South Africa, and where certain promises and undertakings have been made on behalf of South Africa and the Government to the peoples of South Africa, there is a tremendously challenging and exciting opportunity for the Government to use the S.A. Railways and Harbours, this vast organization employing almost a quarter of a million people, in order to advance, substantiate and promote the policies of the Government with regard to détente and the other promises they have made. Our representative at the United Nations Organization said—we must look at the significance of this—that discrimination did take place in South Africa. For the first time in history the Government has had the courage and the candour to admit this. Secondly, it was also said that discrimination could not be defended. Thirdly, it was said that the Government would move away from discrimination. Let us look at some of the things the Government can do, via the S.A. Railways and Harbours, using this organization as a medium, to give substance to their undertakings and promises to the world and to South Africa.

In the first place, I believe that the Government can, here and now, take steps to investigate and to create a programme which they can announce in the near future to do away with discrimination based on the grounds of race and colour in respect of two things. The first is in respect of the employment and remuneration of their own staff, and, secondly, the provision of services, facilities and amenities to the travelling public of South Africa and those people from outside of South Africa who use the services of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. It is not good enough to state a principle, neither is it good enough to state an intention. What we call upon the Government to do is to investigate, create and announce a programme setting out the steps they intend taking in this field and adding to that programme a time-table as to when they intend taking those steps. In other words, it is not good enough for the Government to say that they are going to do away with discrimination in respect of the employment and remuneration of staff. They must say how they intend bringing it about and when they intend bringing it about. Then our bona fides as a country and their bona fides as a Government and the bona fides of the organization or organizations concerned, will not be doubted anywhere in the world. This goes for all the different grades of employment on the S.A. Railways and Harbours; not just in respect of stokers, shunters, etc., but every single grade in the commercial, operating and technical sections. These grades should all be available to qualified people among the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks of South. Africa. When people are employed in those positions they must be paid the rate for the job and not a lower rate because if they are paid a lower rate it is exploitation and therefore unacceptable. It is also important that the S.A. Railways and Harbours should accept the policy of choice in the provision of facilities, amenities and services to the public of South. Africa. It is the policy of the Reform Party that those people who wish to avail themselves either of separated mixed services should be entitled to do so. [Interjections.] We sincerely commend to the South African Government that they should apply the policy of choice to the travelling public of South Africa in respect of the services which are provided at all levels by the S.A. Railways. Those people who want to use separate facilities must be entitled to do so. Those people who want to use mixed facilities must be entitled to do so. Where no separate facilities are readily available then all the facilities must surely be available to the public as a whole.

The second point is that the Government must present the details of the policy they intend implementing regarding existing and future railway systems in the African homelands of South Africa. At this early stage it is important that the Government should announce what policies it intends implementing with regard to existing and future railway systems in the African homelands, whether the homelands are going to be independent or not in the future. In this respect I think that is important that the Government should tell South Africa and the homelands exactly what these policies are and what their details are. The Government must give an indication that they are in fact going to take steps to provide sound basic transportation systems for the homelands, that they are going to start providing the installations which are required and that they are going to start training people at the various levels of the operating, the technical and the commercial fields in order to take over those railway systems and to operate them effectively and successfully in the homelands of today and of the future. That is one of two very important things. We believe that very soon the entire question of the consolidation of the homelands will have to be effectively reviewed. The old policy of buying up White land, dividing it and handing it over to the citizens of the homelands is no longer acceptable and cannot achieve the objectives for which it is intended. We believe that new boundaries will have to be drawn in order to bring about geographically and economically viable homelands and that a new commission of the status of the Tomlinson Commission, a new prestigious and competent commission will have to be appointed to go into the entire matter and to re-examine from a scientific point of view all the economic, agricultural, geographical and demographic aspects of the homelands once again. New boundaries should be drawn to make the homelands viable, economically and geographically, and then their political viability will be something which we can talk about and debate. We believe that the homelands should have the choice as to whether they want to be independent or not. It must be their choice entirely. I want to make a very important point. Where it is proved that railway installations and harbour installations are necessary, desirable and vital for the economic viability of any homeland in the future, then we must not hesitate to include those installations in the homelands and to hand them over to the control of the homeland concerned. Unless there is economic and geographic viability in respect of every one of these homelands there cannot be political viability, and this is a very important aspect of our policy. We sincerely commend it to the Government.

It is very important that we must now decide what our relationships with the homelands are going to be and what the railway systems which connect us and link us with the homelands will be in order that there should not be discriminatory practices which will offend the citizens of those countries or any other citizen of colour travelling between these areas and thus cause bad relationships between ourselves and the homelands. You cannot have trains which are totally multiracial whilst they are travelling in the homelands but as they cross the border you have to separate the passengers into White, Black and any other colour. You would have to hang up signs, “non-White, Bantu, Black” and so forth. You would have to separate people in terms of the facilities and amenities which are provided. You cannot have a train which as it crosses a border between a homeland and South Africa will automatically separate into separate coaches and compartments with separate facilities the Blacks from the Whites. You have to accept at this stage that you must announce a policy in order to deal with this.

The third point is very important and we want to commend it to the Government. This is to appoint to the Railways and Harbours Board representatives of the Black, the Coloured and Indian communities of South Africa. The Railways do not just cater for White South Africans; they cater for every race group in South Africa. The Railways are the servant of every race group in South Africa and of their interests. The Black passengers, in fact, are increasing on the Railways in South Africa while the Whites are decreasing. It is discriminatory, unfair and unjust that the other race groups in South Africa are not represented in the top management of this organization. It is the policy of the Reform Party—once again we commend it to the Government—that every commission and every board, whether Government or semi-Government, which serves all the racial communities of South Africa, should have Black, Coloured and Indian as well as White representatives. If that is not done we shall be creating a discriminatory situation which cannot provide for good future relationships in South Africa.

There are one or two points which, I should like to make in addition to those I have already mentioned. I believe that the Railways should undertake to review the remuneration of their staff and also the payments made to pensioners on a regular basis. I believe that it should be a firm undertaking to the workers on the Railways and the former employees of the Railways —it should in fact be a charter which is presented to them—that the Railways undertake regularly to review their remuneration and the pensions which are paid in order at least to compensate for the erosion of the value of money due to inflation. If we do that, we can do away with all the discussion which takes place here; we can do away with some of the petty considerations and criticisms, and we can do away with the need to drag this matter through the political arena, as one hon. member has said. We can do that if we are prepared to underwrite such a charter to the Railway workers and to the Railway pensioners. When I say “Railway pensioners” I mean Railway pensioners of all colours, White, Black, Brown and Indian. This charter should provide that their pensions and their salaries will be adjusted to compensate for the erosion of the value of money. I want to make it very clear today that equal pensions for equal work done in respect of Black, Brown, Indian and White pensioners is an important point which must be included in such a charter.

I want to raise a final point. We believe that the Railways must make a more dynamic and more enlightened contribution to the conservation of the environment in respect of two points particularly. If we read the annual report we are very pleased by what is set out there, they have done a great deal in this respect already. There are, however, some things which the Railways can do in addition to what they have already done. I think particularly of the question of reducing the consumption of scarce energy resources and the taking of further action to combat the pollution of the atmosphere, rivers, seas and the environment in general. When the Railways decide to change from steam locomotives to diesel locomotives or from diesel locomotives to electrified units, they decide on the economics of the situation and not on the basis of the fuel which is used. With the new fuel prices in mind, they decide—I think by means of seven journeys either way—whether it is economic to go from diesel to electrified units, I believe that that should not be the consideration. The consideration should be the use of very scarce fuel reserves and the pollution which results from the use of diesel fuel in those units.

Now I want to move as an amendment—

1. (1) announces a comprehensive programme for the South African Railways and Harbours Administration setting out both a detailed plan of action and a proposed time-table to remove discrimination based on race, colour and sex in respect of—
   1. (a) the employment and remuneration of staff; and
   2. (b) the provision of services, facilities and amenities to the travelling public;
2. (2) presents details of the policy it intends implementing regarding existing and future railway systems in the African homelands, with particular reference to—
   1. (a) the provision of sound basic transportation systems for the homelands;
   2. (b) the inclusion in the homelands and handing-over to them of Railways and Harbours installations that are desirable and vital for their economic viability; and
   3. (c) the abolition of discriminatory practices to ensure that no offence is caused to citizens of the homelands;
3. (3) undertakes to appoint to the Railways and Harbours Board representatives of the Black, Coloured and Indian communities of South Africa;
4. (4) undertakes to review the remuneration of the staff, as well as the pensions paid to former employees, at regular intervals to ensure that salaries and pensions keep abreast of the erosion of the purchasing power of money; and
5. (5) presents a detailed plan setting out a dynamic and enlightened contribution by the Railways to the conservation of the environment, particularly in respect of—
   1. (a) reducing the consumption of scarce energy resources; and
   2. (b) further action against the pollution of the atmosphere, rivers, seas and the environment generally.”.

The amendment is a whole speech on its own.

Yes, it is in fact a speech. I want to say that if the Government responds to the argument I have advanced here and takes these steps, the Government will not only be creating in a dramatic way a good impression within South Africa in regard to the Black, Coloured and Indian citizens of South Africa and the workers on the Railways, but by means of the Railway Administration it will also be creating a good outward impression of itself and also of South Africa as a whole in regard to the way in which it treats its employees. I want to state that a few steps such as those I set out in my amendment will enable the Government of South Africa to give added impetus to its policy of détente in Africa and also to the removal of discrimination and the improvement of race relations in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston has mentioned many subjects which are very close to my heart. [Interjections.] I find myself in total agreement with him in regard to many matters. The rate for the job on the Railways particularly, is a necessity. I must admit that, like him, my mind boggles at the thought of the multi-rail systems we would have in a divided South Africa. The problems that would arise from such a system would be considerable. Certainly, many of the points the hon. member has raised deserve the urgent consideration of the hon. the Minister.

In a debate of this nature it is necessary for us to step back and take a long and very objective look at our railways and harbours to decide whether or not they are being successful in providing the efficient transport system needed by a fast developing industrial country such as South Africa. I think the answer is that the Railway Administration always appears to be lagging slightly behind the needs of the country, always a step or two behind the stage they should have reached to provide a really adequate transport system and an adequate service for the economy. Ideally, our transport system should be slightly ahead of or, at the very least, keeping pace with the rapid expansion taking place. In spite of the enormous amount we outlay in capital expenditure each year, development never quite keeps pace with demand. I do not think that the management can ever say to themselves: We are totally and utterly in control of the situation; we have no worries at all about our ability to cope with anything that comes our way. The harbours are a case in point. Under pressure our harbours have not been able to cope adequately with increases in landed and shipped cargoes which, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Simonstown, among others, have mentioned could reasonably have been foreseen if one examines the steady rise in this regard since 1964. Admittedly, there was a drop in 1972 but over the 10 year period the increase has been very steady indeed. There are a variety of reasons for this inability to cope but the crux of the matter is that instead of being in a position to deal with increases without any trouble at all, a crisis has developed—we hope that it is coming to an end for now—which is costing the country a considerable amount of money. The same situation exists right throughout our railway operations. We always appear to be a step or two behind. Instead of looking like a crisply efficient organization that can deal with anything that comes its way, the Railways always look as if they are under tremendous pressure, which of course they are; they are just about keeping their heads above water. A drive around Kazerne any day of the week does not give one the feeling that the Railways are looking for more business and that they are eager to do that extra business. When one drives in at the gate one does not find an inquiry office where one can find out where to find the department which one has to visit. It is an enormous and confusing place where a considerable amount of work goes on, but in no way is the customer—and the public of South Africa are the customers as far as the Railways are concerned—made to feel welcome or made to feel that his needs are being catered for. The Railways do not appear to be looking for that extra business Somehow or other the Railways handle everything that comes their way, but in no way do they handle customers with enthusiasm. I want to say that I believe that the hon. the Minister and the Government—a lot of this is the heritage of the past and I am glad to see changes coming about—have saddled the management of the Railways with an almost impossible task because over the years they have allowed economic good sense to be overridden for ideological considerations.

Oh, please!

I hear “Oh, please!” from the other side.

Who wrote your speech for you?

I wrote it myself.

Did you? Oh, well done!

Who writes your speeches?

After listening to his speech, Sir, I can only say to the hon. member for Durban Point that it was so bad that only he could have written it.

Is that why you could not speak yesterday?

Mr. Speaker, I have the highest possible regard for our present Railways management. I believe that they are being hamstrung by the obstinacy of this Government, in particular in regard to labour matters. Again, this is beginning to change. I see that they are beginning to see the light.

I want to develop this argument in relation to the labour position on the Railways a bit further. More than anything else this has bedevilled efficiency in that the absorption of Black people into the service has been far too slow. Again, this is accelerating but it is not fast enough. In the face of the critical labour shortage over the years it has been far too slow. Government policy and therefore Railway policy is that Blacks may not occupy jobs unless Whites are not available. If Whites become available, Blacks must step down. I believe that technically this is the situation. The rate of absorption has been stepped up considerably so that something over 12 000 Black people are at present temporarily filling White positions. In spite of the up-grading of a substantial number of Blacks, the Railways continue to suffer from shortages of skilled workers. Mr. Verster, the Assistant General Manager in charge of staff matters, is quoted—I think the hon. Minister mentioned this in his speech as well—as saying that in both the bread-and-butter grades and the artisan grades the Railway Administration is currently 25% short of its full complement. If this is true, Sir, how can the Railways hope to run at maximum efficiency when they are under pressure? They just cannot do so. Why in the past was the Government prepared to sacrifice efficiency in order to keep the Railways just a little bit Whiter? May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is now prepared to train and employ as many Black people as is necessary to bring the Railway payroll up to full strength? I would like an answer to this from the hon. the Minister.

Why only Black people?

Because the White people are just not available.

What about Coloureds and Indians?

Coloureds and Indians as well are Black people.

To the Black power people.

Even your Prime Minister calls them Black.

Sir, I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he wait a little bit and listen to what I have to say. The Railways cannot afford to be held up at all in attaining maximum efficiency. It is vitally important that the Railways be fully staffed with able people, whatever the colour of their skin. As long as they are able, the Railway Administration needs them, and it is up to the hon. the Minister to bring this about. Firstly, I think that his subterfuge of calling the same job by a different name when it is done by a Black is also not good enough, with every respect. To call a fireman a “coalman” because he is Black and to pay him a different wage just does not wash. The job is identical to that of a fireman, whatever name is given to it. Let the people doing the job at least be paid the same amount.

You are completely ignorant about these matters.

I am not ignorant about them. The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that this is just a subterfuge to employ Black people at a lower rate of pay. Could I ask the hon. the Minister whether or not the Railways are going to consult the Black people when they start their job evaluation programme? We have a big job evaluation programme coming up where this matter is going to be looked at. Is the hon. the Minister going to talk to his Black people and ask them what they think about it, or is he just going to impose from the top this whole operation of job evaluation on to the Black people? If Black people are going to be consulted, what representative mechanism is going to be used? Is it going to be adequate in the absence of unions? Sir, when we look through these Estimates of Expenditure, particularly the summaries of staff, we see that all sorts of job categories are listed. Looking at these summaries, we get an indication of just how the Railway Administration regards Black people. The job categories which are listed here include highly and lowly paid jobs; the number of people employed in these categories is shown here and also the total amount of wages paid. On page 77, under “Transportation Department, Cartage Services”, we find that the following jobs are listed: Drivers in charge, drivers, attendant (time recording office), caretakers, messengers, goods yard gate attendants, sheeters, railworkers, and then “non-White”. Is “non-White” a job category? What are these people doing? Is the work they are doing so unmentionable that it is not even listed here? Sir, you can look on any page, under any department, and you will find the same thing. Under “Road Transport Service”, we find checker, drivers, railworkers, trainees, and then again “non-Whites”. Why have they got a special category? Is merely being a non-White a paid category? Why cannot the Administration list exactly what these people are doing? There are thousands and thousands of people, listed in these Estimates of Expenditure who are simply categorized as non-Whites and nothing else. Nobody knows what they are doing, presumably; they are just there. I really do believe that in future when the summaries of staff are drawn up, we should at least be shown exactly what these non-White people are doing. Sir, I believe that this rather sums up the attitude of this Government to the Black people in their employ. They do not regard them as being permanent workers doing necessary jobs who are entitled to the same consideration and the same benefits as White workers. They tend to regard them as temporary sojourners who are not doing a useful job of work. I suppose this could be termed a Freudian slip. They do not list any occupation for these non-Whites at all, and this is so in every department.

You have said that a dozen times.

Yes, and I am going to say it again. If I say it often enough, it might get through the hon. member’s thick head. They regard them as temporary sojourners who are not even entitled to the dignity of job classification. This is going to have to change if the railways are ever going to run at maximum efficiency, because we desperately need Black people to bring the railways into a position where they are ahead of the demand for service rather than lagging behind.

Let us take a look at how the average man in the street regards the Railways. When you try to get a Railway department on the telephone, you frequently have to listen to the telephone ringing at the other end for 30 minutes, or even 45 minutes. In fact, I once hung on for that long waiting for the phone to be answered. People who are subjected to this sort of treatment wonder what on earth the Railways are about and what is the level of efficiency in the Railways; why is nobody answering a telephone? Are people too lazy to answer the telephone, or is it due to shortage of staff? I think the answer is, of course, that they are short-staffed. On this question of short-staffing, perhaps I can best illustrate what I want to say by telling you a bit about Kazerne, where I attempted to trace a missing load of goods, a job which I unfortunately have to do quite often.

Was it a case of K.W.V.?

Yes, my case of K.W.V. was smashed by the Railways. I paid a visit to the Kazerne offices looking in fact for a load of stone from Bitterfontein which had got lost somewhere along the system. I walked into a particular office, to which I had been referred, to find a gentleman sitting in solitary splendour behind a desk, with about seven or eight other desks around him in one office but with nobody sitting at them at all. I asked what had happened to everybody else. Was there a flu epidemic or had a plague struck them or what? He said: “No, as a matter of fact, I am the last person left in this department. I am doing the work of seven people and I cannot stand it any longer. The worst of this situation is not only that I am doing other people’s work, but I am also due for promotion, but do you think my boss will recommend me for promotion when he knows that if I am transferred out of this department on promotion he will have nobody to do the work? So here I am stuck in this job for ever because there is nobody else to do the work. What they should be doing is to get some non-Whites to do the job I am doing right now”. Sir, this indicates very clearly indeed, and I think in a nut-shell, the dilemma that faces the Railways. The faster they can bring able people, whatever their skin colour, into jobs like this, the quicker the Railways will be able to become efficient to the maximum degree. And they are not efficient to the maximum degree. I do not think the General Manager or any of his staff, or even the hon. the Minister, would claim that they have maximum efficiency, because they have not. They have a long, long way to go. Sir, you know, the whole question of answering telephones, which I referred to a little earlier, is something which I think should be looked into. Nothing gives a worse impression than a telephone not being answered, and this happens right through the Railways. Try ringing the parcels office at the Johannesburg station, or try ringing airways, particularly after hours, and try to get an answer from them. Often one has to hold on for up to half-an-hour. Surely we can do better than this. It does not take all that many people to man the telephones on the Railways. Let us do it adequately, so that it will begin to look like an efficient organization. Perhaps it is a minor point in view of the fact that the Railways are confronted with so many problems, but this must be done if the Railways are ever to look like an efficient organization. In private enterprize, if telephones were answered the way they are in the Railways, nobody would do any business at all. But because the Railways have a monopoly and can treat the public in any way they like, we have this inefficiency.

I want to raise another question, i.e. the question of payment of non-Whites in the Railways service. Is it the policy of the Railways always to pay its workers a wage which is above the poverty datum line? A report in The Star of 26 February 1975 indicates that Government employees, non-Whites, as a whole are still being paid an average wage which is below the poverty datum line. No one can expect a decent day’s work out of an employee who is being paid less than a subsistence wage. The Government has often told private enterprise that there is nothing to stop employers from paying a higher wage. Any move by the Railways in this direction would be welcomed by members in these benches. I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply that everything is being done to raise non-White wages as fast as possible, but in the face of a poverty datum line which is climbing all the time, I do not believe that Railway wages are keeping pace.

There is another matter I should just like to raise again. The hon. member for Simonstown has already raised it. Last year in this debate I raised the question of concessions for scholars. I was told that there was, in fact, no necessity for the Railways to grant concessions to scholars and that it was only children from elite schools who required such concessions. Well, if the hon. the Minister has been reading the newspapers since that time, he will have seen dozens of letters from people who have been severely and adversely affected by the situation now pertaining to scholars’ concessions. Many people are now overtaxed to a degree where it becomes difficult to send children to school. Cases have been brought to my attention in Pietermaritzburg in Natal where Indian children are struggling because their parents simply cannot afford to pay the full rail fares. There are many cases in the Peninsula of people who are having considerable difficulty in getting their children to school because there are many places in the Peninsula where it is not possible to simply send a child around the corner to a local school. Children have to cover a considerable distance by train to get to school. I have had letters from a couple of women in the Transvaal. One letter which I particularly remember is from a divorcee with three children. She was a working woman who had to work to keep her family. She was unable to spend time at home to look after them and had been forced to send them to boarding school in Belfast. I think it was—in any case one of the platteland schools. The burden of having to pay full fare’s when she brought them back from school and sent them to school at the beginning and end of the holidays, was a crushing one. She was at her wits’ end because she just could not find the money to get them to school and she did not know what to do. There have been many absolutely heart-rending letters in the newspapers about people who are in this terrible situation. Hundreds upon hundreds of Black children can only get to school by rail, and they get no concession at all. I think one gentleman said that he was paying between R30 and R40 per month to get his children to school. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to review the situation. The situation is desperate for many people and I certainly think it deserves his attention.

I now wish to proceed to airways. I specifically want to refer to the timeous departure of various flights. I have done quite a lot of flying around the country in the last few months and it has now become the exception rather than the rule for the aeroplane to depart on time. I did travel on a flight the other day which happened to be dead on time, but as I say this is now the exception rather than the rule. On many occasions flights have been from an hour to an hour and a half late. I know that there is considerable pressure on the airways right now because petrol restrictions have encouraged people to use the airways much more than they have in the past. I know that at many times, particularly during rush hours, the airways are totally overtaxed.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 87.

Mr. Speaker, for a period of two days I have been listening to every speech made in this debate. I did not find this long session unpleasant, but interesting and illuminating. However, to be able to reply fully and in greater depth to the arguments raised here in the course of hon. members’ speeches, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment as printed on the Order Paper—

I think this is one amendment I might persuade the hon. the Minister to accept because it is simply putting the English version of this clause in line with the Afrikaans version. The Afrikaans version reads “is” and the English version reads “may be”. I therefore propose that the English version be changed accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment because, firstly, I am of the view that the amendment does not alter the meaning at all.

It does.

The hon. member did not put her point when she was on her feet. She is making her point now and I wonder whether I should not sit down and give her an opportunity of arguing the point. I personally think, and this is my submission to the Committee, that the words “may be” as they stand are actually better English than the word “is”. If we read the proposed new subsection (3A) which the hon. member wants to change, we have the following—

This is ordinary English. It means for the period which may be necessary. To insert the word “is” would be to put an Afrikaans word into an English sentence; a literal translation. I am of the opinion that the wording as it stands is better English than would be the case with the word “is”, which would give it an Afrikaans tinge.

Mr. Chairman, I am not arguing the semantics per se of the correct English, but the possible interpretation. “May be” has a much wider connotation than “is”. In the one case it is open to question as to how long it “may be” necessary, while in the other it means that when the person who has been absent returns it no longer “is” necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate for the record that we agree with the interpretation placed on this by the hon. the Minister. I do not wish to waste the time of the House with such a frivolous discussion.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

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

This matter was discussed on a previous occasion when a similar Bill on a very much wider scale was dealt with a couple of years ago, but I do not think that we concluded the discussion then. I have two cases to which I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and of which he is probably aware. Firstly there is the case of Cine Film (Pty.) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Police, 1971(4). He will find the specific references on page 587. I shall deal with this in a moment. Secondly I want to refer him to the case of Pullen, N.O., Bartman, N.O. & Orr, N.O. v. Waja. 1929 T.P.D, at pp. 838-9. In both these cases the question of the validity of a search warrant and the basis of the issue of a search warrant are referred to. In the first case that I have mentioned there is a reference to the criminal code as it exists and in the older case there is a reference to the code as it existed in 1917, and also to the code as it existed in the old Cape Parliamentary days, in the days of the Cape Legislature, under an ordinance. In both these cases the judges stated that, in their opinion, although the law did not require that an offence should be stated in a search warrant, they felt that it was desirable. I quote Tindall, J.—

On that same page, page 587, to which I have already referred, another case of 1948 is referred to, in which the same judge, as Acting Chief Justice, had this to say—

In both these cases the whole question of vagueness was the basis of the actual applications to court.

The case of Cine Films (Pty.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police, to which I have referred, dealt with the case of a search warrant that was issued to seize a number of films without specifying which and without specifying the nature of the offence, and which was issued on the grounds that there was the likelihood of an offence having been committed. In that particular case one of the points made by the applicant was that at no time, even up to the stage when the application was made, had the Attorney-General made up his mind as to what offence had been committed, and as to whether he intended to prosecute or not. That was one of the issues brought before the court. The applicants were concerned about the delay caused by the seizure of a number of films which would affect their business seriously whilst they were completely unaware of any particular offence. The question of the reasonableness of the magistrate’s decision in issuing the search warrant was decided in the favour of the Commissioner of Police. It is the third point, viz. the validity which caused the comments that were made. The question of validity was raised on the grounds that it was vague and therefore the aggrieved party in so far as the search was concerned was completely unaware of what offence was committed. There was also some dispute as to the rights of the complainant on whose complaint a search warrant was issued. The question of copyright was involved in that particular matter. In the other case to which I have referred we have had such eminent judges as Mr. Justice Tindall, whom I am sure the hon. the Minister remembers and the late Mr. Justice De Waal who was the Judge President of the Transvaal. They both came to the very same conclusion, viz. that it would for many reasons be desirable that there should not be such vagueness in the issue of a search warrant. They even went further than that. An earlier ordinance stated that the offence should be disclosed, but that ordinance was repealed and the provision referred to not repeated in the Criminal Procedure Act of 1917. In terms of this Act it was not necessary to disclose the contents, but it relied entirely on the reasonableness of the magistrate or justice of peace. The Judge President went further and said that he felt that it could be read into the particular section, but he was not prepared to contest the viewpoint of the judge who made the judgement. So he concurred in the judgment that it was highly desirable that this should be the case. In this extract I have read he gave the reason why. There is the question of resistance and the question of a man’s affairs being taken over completely. He is apprehensive that his apprehended personal belongings are removed from the premises just because a possible offence might have been committed. The search could have been limited to certain of the assets of the person whose goods are being searched and into whose privacy—this is something which should be protected in particular— this invasion, if one might call it that, is taking place. Taken on the whole, it seems to me that it is desirable to take notice of these particular judgments. Whilst we are making some effort to improve the criminal procedure code we should take sufficient notice of this and make provision for it so that any doubt in anybody’s mind could fall away—doubts as to whether the matter was vague, doubts in respect of the wisdom or the reasonableness of the decision of the magistrate or justice of peace who issued the warrant and doubts on the reasonableness of the action of the Police officer charged with the execution of this particular warrant. A tremendous responsibility rests upon the Police officer. At times he becomes virtually the butt of the aggrieved person to whom this action, though perfectly reasonable, may seem to be unreasonable.

Whilst I can go into very much more detail in regard to the contents of cases, I think the hon. the Minister when looking at the excerpts I have read and at the contents of this case, would find that the question of validity plays a very important part in a matter which appears before the courts. With these learned judges taking this point of view, I think it is a matter which should also receive the careful consideration of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (1) On page 4, to omit all the words after ‘‘shall,” in line 43 up to and including “him” in line 46 and to substitute “before such execution hand to any person whose rights in respect of any search or article seized under the warrant have been affected”;
2. (2) on page 4, to add the following provision at the end of the proposed section 45:
   “Provided that any such search shall as far as possible be made in the day time and in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the search is made.”;
3. (3) on page 6, in line 2, after “may”, to insert subject to the provisions of section 50B in respect of the search of any person”;
4. (4) on page 6, to add the following as a paragraph (b) to the proposed section 47:
   “(B) Any person who wrongfully or maliciously or without reasonable cause exercises the powers of search conferred by this section, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred rand and shall in addition to such penalty be liable to pay to the person lawfully in occupation of the premises when the same was searched such sum by way of damages as the court may award.”;
5. (5) on page 6, in line 49, after “such” where it occurs for the first time, to insert “reasonable”;
6. (6) on page 8, to insert the following subsection to follow subsection (1) of the proposed section 50A:
   “(2) Any person who wrongfully or maliciously or without reasonable cause conducts any search or seizes any article shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred rand and shall also be liable to pay to the aggrieved person such sum by way of damages as the court may award.”;
7. (7) on page 10, in line 49, to omit “thirty” and to substitute “sixty”;
8. (8) on page 16, in lines 40 and 41, to omit “to which the State has been enriched by such disposal” and to substitute “of the market value of the property”;
9. (9) on page 16, in lines 61 and 62, to omit but not exceeding the proceeds of the sale”; and
10. (10) on page 18, in lines 29 and 30, to omit “such country” and to substitute “the Republic”.

To put it very briefly, what I am trying to do in each case is to retain the present position in accordance with the existing law. It is as simple as that. Wherever the hon. the Minister has introduced changes which I think are undesirable, I have attempted to restore the situation as it obtains under the existing Criminal Procedure Act. I can go into detail on each of the proposed new sections.

My first amendment simply attempts to make sure that a copy of the search warrant is handed to a person before a policeman carries out the search I feel that this should be an obligation and not merely a circumstance depending upon a person demanding to see the warrant. The second amendment simply reinstates the old proviso into the Criminal Procedure Act. The third amendment does tie up with a later clause in the Bill which lays down the regulations under which a woman suspect may be searched. I am trying to make this regulation more specific simply by including it also in this clause. The fourth amendment is to bring back the provision that any person who wrongfully or maliciously or without reasonable cause exercises powers of search, shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to a penalty. The fifth amendment aims to have the word “reasonable” restored to make sure that a policeman, in carrying out investigations, shall take only “reasonable” steps. Whereas the word “reasonable” occurs in the existing provision I see no reason why it should be omitted from the new section the hon. the Minister proposes to insert in the Criminal Procedure Act. In my sixth amendment I am, again, trying to insert a penalty if any person wrongfully or maliciously or without reasonable cause seizes any article. The seventh amendment aims to make the period within which a person may claim any object or article which has been seized more reasonable. At the moment such an article has to be reclaimed within 30 days, which I think is a little unreasonable. Consequently I simply ask that this period be extended to 60 days. I believe that my eighth amendment speaks for itself. I do not want the compensation to be limited to the amount “to which the State has been enriched by such disposal”, but I want it to be the market value of the property. My ninth amendment ties in with that. I think that my tenth amendment is probably the most important one. According to the proposed new section 501, where an article has been seized in connection with an offence, that article may be delivered to the Police of a country other than South Africa if the offence concerned in the other country is punishable by death, by imprisonment for a period of 12 months or by a fine of R200 or more. I think this is unreasonable. I think it should only obtain where the offence concerned is regarded seriously in the Republic itself and not solely because it is regarded seriously elsewhere. Other countries have other ideas about the seriousness of a crime. Therefore I simply want to omit “such country”, i.e. other countries, and substitute “the Republic”.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 25.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I feel that it is high time that this House discussed the fate of people who are presently being detained without trial under the Terrorism Act.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! I shall allow the hon. the Minister of Justice to state his point of order, but in view of the limited time for the debate I request him to be very brief.

I shall try to be brief, Mr. Speaker. I want to contend that the hon. member for Houghton may not debate the subject which appears on the Order Paper, for in my respectful submission this would be in contravention of the sub judice rule as interpreted by the hon. Mr. Speaker of this House.

The subject of the hon. member’s motion reads as follows—

The only Terrorism Act we have is Act No. 83 of 1967, and the only provision concerning detention without trial is to be found in section 6 of that Act. The relevant parts of that section are, in brief, the following—

This is sufficient for the purposes of my argument that section 6 deals with the detention of a person whom a Police officer has reason to believe to be a terrorist. By definition “terrorist” means—

In other words, people who are detained in terms of section 6 may be charged in terms of section 2 of the Act. If this is the case, I submit that any discussion of such detentions falls under the sub judice rule. What is the meaning of that rule for us here in Parliament? I should like to refer to an explanation of this rule, which in my humble submission is a very good and perfect explanation, which you yourself gave here as Speaker and which was reported in column 4053 of Hansard of 30 September 1974. According to this you said—

Mr. Speaker, this part is very important—

The presiding officer in this case being yourself, Mr. Speaker—

If I may just explain …

Order! The hon. the Minister must now be very brief.

I shall be very brief. Mr. Speaker, in this explanation you said three things. The first was that if there was the slightest danger of a trial being prejudiced, any reference to it in debate was disallowed. You went on to say from when this applied; you said from the moment the law was set in motion by a charge being made or by an arrest which could result in a charge being made. You gave a very good reason, Sir. You said that the basis for this strict application of the rule was that it was well-nigh impossible for you as the presiding officer to judge in advance what effect any such discussion might have. Sir, here we have a case where the hon. member says she wants to discuss detentions under the Terrorism Act. Under the Terrorism Act people can only be detained in terms of section 6, and section 6, which I have read to you, Sir, concerns the detention of a suspected terrorist and a terrorist may be brought before a court in terms of section 2 of the Act. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling that no discussion on these matters is allowed at this stage.

Order! May I just ask the hon. the Minister whether all persons who are presently being detained in terms of the Terrorism Act will be tried in the near future?

Of the people who to my knowledge are being detained under the Terrorism Act, some will be tried as soon as tomorrow.

That was not my question.

There are a number of them who are still being detained or interrogated and whose documents are still being examined; they, too, may be brought to trial.

Order! I need not hear any further arguments. The hon. member for Houghton may proceed. I would only be wasting the limited time of this House if I were to furnish my reasons for this ruling now. I shall furnish my full reasons at a later stage.

Sir, the point that I wish to make is that this discussion is in fact long overdue, and to some extent I blame myself for this. I should have known better than to accept the assurances that were given by the hon. the Minister at the end of last session, or the Press statements of various officers in the Police Force, that the detainees would shortly be tried or released. Sir, in December the hon. the Minister said that these people would be brought to trial within a few weeks, and on 8 December Maj.-Gen. Geldenhuys, the head of the Security Police, said that they would all be brought to trial early in June. It is now not so early in March, and as far as I can work out, of the estimated 45 people who were detained following the attempted holding of a banned pro-Frelimo rally at Curries Fountain, Durban, only 13 have been charged; the others are still being detained. Sir, some of those people have been there since 25 September last year, in other words, for 166 days. According to the information that I have been able to obtain from Press reports, from the distressed relatives of detainees who have been to see me and from the other all too few people who are concerned about the fate of these wretched people, something like 25 to 30 people still remain outside the due process of the law. They have been held incommunicado for over five months. One Press statement announced that they would give State evidence, but interestingly enough, none of them is being held under the 180- day law which was designed, as we were told when that measure was passed to protect State witnesses. This information, Sir, I obtained from the hon. the Minister by way of a question in the House this year, and it is about the only authentic official information that one can obtain at all about people who are in detension under the Terrorism Act. Sir, not even Parliament need be given any information about detainees: not even the courts can interfere with the operation of section 6 of the Terrorism Act or order the release of detainees. No court can pronounce upon the validity of any action taken under section 6, which enables the police to arrest anyone they suspect of terrorist activities, or of having information about terrorism, and to hold such person incommunicado indefinitely as long as they like.

When that Bill was passed, Die Beeld put it this way—

It seems almost incredible to recall that the official Opposition at that time actually supported the Second Reading of that Bill in principle having believed the assurances of the then Deputy Minister of Police that this Act would only be used against terrorists.

We voted against section 6.

Of course the hon. member did, but he and his party supported the principle of the Bill at Second Reading and voted for the Third Reading, although they did not get a single amendment to section 6 passed at the Committee Stage.

Opposing the Second Reading was opposing the principle of making terrorism a crime.

Sir, detainees are supposed to be visited by a magistrate, where possible, once a fortnight. They are supposed to be allowed to make written representations to the Minister. I want to know how many of these people have been informed of their legal rights under this law and how many have used these rights. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how much longer he is going to keep these people in detention, what further information does he think his tough security officers are going to be able to obtain from them that has not already been obtained. I want to quote to the House words that were used 35 years ago by a man who subsequently became a Minister of Justice and later occupied the highest position in this land. He said—

And, Sir, those words were being used in wartime, against the internment of people during the war, and I cannot improve upon the words of Mr. Blackie Swart. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has no concern at all for the parents, the wives and the children of these wretched detainees. Has he any idea of the crushing anxiety under which they are presently suffering? Sir, I have some idea, because these people have been to see me in deputation and their anxiety is heightened by the knowledge that people have died under mysterious circumstances when being held in detention without trial, people like the Imam. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of the wild rumours that are flying around about the detainees. Sir, one cannot look at the arrests which followed the attempted holding of the banned meeting at Currie’s Fountain and elsewhere in isolation. I maintain that they were the culmination of a long series of confrontations between the Security Police and Black organizations like SASO, the Black People’s Convention and the Black Allied Workers’ Union, confrontations which over the last few years have resulted in banning, house arrest, charging and, in some cases, the gaoling of the leaders of these movements. It is interesting to note that although the detentions I am discussing followed the holding of a pro-Frelimo rally at Currie’s Fountain, the rally per se is completely irrelevant in so far as these detainees are concerned because a different set of people entirely, 19 other people, have been charged under the Riotous Assemblies Act with attending this banned meeting. After all, even the Government has been making some pro-Frelimo noises lately. Now, the real relevance. I maintain, of the Currie’s Fountain rally is that it gave the Government just the opportunity it had been waiting for, the opportunity to move in and to detain people and to interrogate them in an effort to smash up these Black organizations. That is what is behind the detentions and nothing else.

I want to remind the Government of one or two facts of life. Long ago it banned the ANC and the PAC. It banned and house-arrested and gaoled their leaders and declared these organizations to be illegal organizations. What happened then, Sir? In their place other organizations sprang up, like Poqo and Spear of the Nation, more anti-White, more militant, more hostile, and then the Government smashed these organizations. It declared them illegal and banned and gaoled their members, and in their place came SASO and the BPC, the Black People’s Convention, and the Black Allied Workers’ Union. I want to remind the Government that all these organizations are the direct result of the Government’s policy of stressing race differentiation, of fostering Black consciousness and of fostering Black nationalism. These organizations, Sir, are a direct result of excluding Black people from the law-making processes of our country. They are the direct result of the entrenchment of race discrimination. As long as these things obtain, the Government can smash Black organizations, and others will continue to rise in their place, ever more hostile and ever more militant. Sir, has this Government learned nothing from the lessons of Rhodesia and of Mozambique? I believe there is one way and one way only to ensure the permanent disappearance of movements such as these and that is to remove genuine grievances and to ensure equal opportunities for all people in South Africa, failing which we will be confronted with a dreary repetition of bannings and detentions and gaolings.

I want to say that I find it somewhat ironical that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should have made a plea the other day for an open trial for Sithole in Rhodesia. He should save his pleas for his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice. [Interjections.] I believe that justice like charity begins at home. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs ought to be pleading with the Minister of Justice to do something about releasing or charging detainees who have been held incommunicado for 166 days. I want to remind the House finally that the record of South Africa … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I think the subject with which we are dealing is a very important one to our country and a very important one to the image of our country. As far as we are concerned we appreciate that in certain circumstances such as when the security of the State is threatened or when there is the danger of grave public disorder, it is justifiable for the State to have powers to detain people for the purpose of interrogation. I think that especially in the world in which we live today everyone is aware that in Great Britain, which is held up as the model of the house of civil liberties, they also have found it necessary in the circumstances, to introduce legislation providing for detention for the purpose of interrogation.

For five days.

The difference between us and the Government and between us and the Progressive Party is that while we believe that these powers are necessary in the modern world in which we live, we have always believed, as we do now and as we have always demonstrated, that these powers must be exercised subject to the surveillance of our judiciary. Indeed, section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act. 1966, provided that in respect of similar offences to this one the Police could detain and interrogate people but after 14 days they had to go to a judge and justify the detention. The judge could then order the detainee to be released or lay down the conditions of further detention. We supported that because it was reasonable, but the Progressive Party opposed it. Let us put the myth to rest for once and for all. The hon. member for Houghton and her merry men there tramped the country telling people what is not true and that is that the United Party supported section 6 and unlimited detention. [Interjections.]

Order!

Indeed she knows that in fact we did oppose it. What that section provides is that if there is reason to believe that a person might have committed an offence under the Act or is withholding information relating to such offence, he may be detained. I think one must appreciate just what section 6 does. Section 6 is a legally grotesque provision because it provides that you may be detained for the rest of your natural life in the discretion, in the end, of the Minister. That is how far it goes. It does our legal system of which we are justly proud a great disservice and it distorts our image abroad. I think no better proof of the effect that this provision and these detentions are having upon our image abroad could have been given than that given by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Friday. Because he was concerned about the international credibility of Rhodesia he went so far as to say that he hoped that they would try Sithole on a criminal charge in open court so that—this is what is important—his arrest would be seen to be a part of the ordinary criminal law and not a political action. The same argument applies in respect of these detentions which have heavy political overtones, because the people concerned are in fact Black people.

What is remarkable about these detentions is that the hon. the Minister of Police will give us no information and yet we read in the newspapers of Monday that the Attorney-General in the Transvaal, who is in charge of prosecutions, has said that 13 are to be charged1 and that there are 24 who are not going to be charged or appear in court tomorrow'. The Attorney-General says that he does not know the names of the others—I think the number is 26— and he does not know how many of them he is going to call at the trial. This is a bizarre sort of situation: The trial starts tomorrow; the Attorney-General does not have jurisdiction over the detainees, they are entirely under the jurisdiction of the police, and he does not know whether he is going to call any of his witnesses. However, in a report in the Sunday Express the police are reported to have said that many of these people will be called. The hon. the Minister must clear up some of these questions. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by telling hon. members that as far as my department is concerned, we do not detain people any longer than is necessary. I know that the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members will not believe me when I say that we do everything in our power to get people before the courts, to interrogate them and to examine all the documentation that has to be examined as soon as possible. In the specific case of this group of people from Saso who were arrested, I told the Police from the start that finality had to be reached as soon as possible as far as these people were concerned. Hon. members must not think that the Police have been detaining these people for such a long time. Hon. members will recall that a small number of people were arrested on 27 September 1974. In October 1974 more people were arrested, and some of the people who will be tried tomorrow were arrested in November 1974 and January 1975. In the same way I may mention the people who will not be tried tomorrow. Some of them were arrested in September 1974, others in October, others in November and still others in January 1975. Surely it is not correct to say that these people have been detained for a period of 166 days.

Some of them, certainly.

Neither is it correct to say that no one may visit them, etc. Let me state the situation quite clearly. I do not want to refer to other countries and nations, but I want to tell the House—the hon. member for Durban North conceded this in his opening words—that in many places where there have been terrorist activities, the people have lost, not because the soldiers were beaten by terrorists, but because of subversion within the country There was subversion in the Government, in the Public Service, in the army, etc. In some cases governments have fallen in certain parts of the world, not because the terrorists achieved a specific real victory, but because those governments were not alert enough to see what was going on within the country. In all humility I now want to tell this House and the legislators of the country who are gathered around me that the responsibility for this department has been entrusted to me. This department must ensure that South Africa may be governed in peace and order and that this Parliamentary building may continue to be used as it should be used and that efficient administration may be provided. Do not tell me that the danger of terrorism is far removed from us. There are other kinds of terrorism as well. There is terrorism of the spirit as well. There is terrorism in South Africa which walks in the dark. I do not apologize for section 6 as my friend on the other side of the House does, for I need only look around me to realize that we have no choice and that we are waging a full-scale war as far as the values of South Africa are concerned. I am not prepared to neglect my duty and to allow lawlessness to take over here. I do not intend to do so, and as far as this particular group of people is concerned, the hon. the House may judge for itself. All Saso’s offices have been searched and a mountain of documents, have been seized and these have to be worked through There is a good deal concerning the people we are detaining, and I know there are hon. members here who want verse and chapter in figures, but I am not going to provide it. Those people all have to be interrogated and questioned. Their statements have to be checked against those of others and we have to see whether there is really a case against these people. I do not agree with the hon. member for Durban North when he draws the comparison between Sithole’s case and that of these people. These people are going to be brought before an open court and those who are not brought to trial will be released. The hon. member cannot blame me for saying that I cannot sort out which people are guilty, against which people we have a prima facie case and which people we have to release. Surely we first have to arrest everyone and interrogate the people. We have to examine the documents and submit them to the Attorney-General. There are people working day and night to get this finalized. If the hon. members could see the work that has to be done in this regard they would not complain about the period. I am sorry for the people who are in prison: I do not like to keep them there, but at the same time I do not want my country to go to rack and ruin, just because I regret that these people have to be kept in prison for two months, or in some cases for up to three months.

The voters are behind you.

No, Sir, I have no choice. We have to do our work and we have to use section 6 to be able to do it. This is giving South Africa the peace, stability, law and order it needs. Let hon. members reflect on these things. It also gives South Africa the time it needs to talk the way the hon. members on the other side are talking about what they should do about race relations, whether these should be handled by means of a federation or in some other way, or by means of qualified franchise. There sits an hon. member who even constitutes a one-man commission of inquiry into qualified franchise.

Do not talk politics.

These things give you the opportunity to put your heads together and to see how race relations may best be handled, and everyone knows what our standpoint is.

We cannot allow South Africa’s peace and quiet to be disturbed just because the hon. member for Houghton does not want people to be detained in prison under section 6. [Interjections.] I can only tell the House that I shall try to the best of my ability—I do not want to give out that I am very wonderful—to respect people’s dignity wherever I possibly can. I shall try to bring people before an open court as soon as possible and to release as soon as possible the people against whom we do not have a case. Hon. members must not expect me to pay attention to the hon. member for Houghton and her kind and to bring disaster upon South Africa by acting unwisely. That I am not prepared to do. [Interjection.] What I am prepared to do is to listen to all reasonable arguments. I have received representations from the families of people who are being detained, and I challenge any person on that side of the House to say that I have treated the people brusquely or without respect. I have replied to them all, and where people have asked me whether their children are in good health, I have made inquiries to ascertain whether the doctor has been there and whether the magistrate comes every two weeks to see that all is well. I have gone to the trouble of phoning to Natal and I have told the people that their children are in good health and that there is nothing the matter with them, but that we h,ave to detain them a little longer because we are still interrogating them.

I cannot tell the House any more than this, namely that I am prepared at all times to act as humanely as possible. I repeat, however, that I demand from hon. members the right to act in the interests of South Africa as I am guided to act. As long as I occupy this position I shall continue to do so. The hon. member for Houghton may carry on about it as much as she likes. No matter what the cost, as long as it is in the interests of South Africa I am satisfied that people should be detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act.