Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening I was indicating that the economic troubles experienced by the Railways are also experienced by the railway systems of other countries and, indeed, that they have even greater financial problems than our Railways do. The railway systems of many of those countries are heavily in the red, evidencing losses totalling millions of rands, in some cases even thousands of millions of rands. All those financial problems can surely not be ascribed to poor administration. How can all the railway systems suddenly find themselves suffering from poor administration? No, the root cause of that problem is not poor administration but the destructive effects of the recessionary conditions and inflation on the transport industry throughout the world. No country, and this goes for South Africa as well, could escape this situation.

What does this prove to us for the purposes of this debate? It proves that things are still going well for the S.A. Railways in comparison with the railway systems of other countries. It also underlines the fact that there is very good and sound control in the S.A. Railways and that it is not necessary for us to learn from other countries, least of all from the British, as was proposed here. This also indicates to us that it is unnecessary to call in people from outside the Railways to help put matters in order, as the hon. member for Durban Point wants to do. In its own ranks the S.A. Railways already has the best economists and experts in the country, officials we can be very proud of.

The hon. member for Durban Point also made a distasteful attack on the Railway commissioners. Does the hon. member realize that the Railway commissioners, under the chairmanship of the Minister, form the Railway Board and that that board acts on the expert advice of its economists, experts and officials? When the hon. member for Durban Point expresses his lack of confidence in the Railway commissioners, he is not only expressing a lack of confidence in the Railway Board, but also in those Railway experts who continually advise the board, and the hon. member is therefore also treading on the toes of the railway experts. One consequently begins to wonder at the motive of the hon. member for Durban Point. Does his motive not perhaps involve getting at the officials in some way or other? Perhaps the hon. member just does not have the courage to come right out with it. The hon. member is treading on the toes of the people in the Railways who are furnishing South Africa with the finest and best possible service. We have the utmost confidence in the officials of the Railways.

They are doing a gigantic task for the Railways and for South Africa.

They are a rubber stamp in any case!

It is strange that the desirability of the Railway Board’s existence has never been in doubt throughout the history of the Railways and that the board’s composition is still the same as it has always been, even when the SAP Government was in power. Why did they not have any doubts about Railway commissioners in those days? Why are those officials now being criticized?

My time is up and I must end off. Broadly speaking, with their criticism in this debate the hon. members of the Opposition made a complete blunder. What was the reason for that? Because they completely neglected to take into account the external factors, the serious recession in which the world finds itself, though it is specifically these factors that determine the course of events for our Railways.

I want to give the hon. member for Durban Point, the main Official Opposition speaker in this debate, and other prophets of doom who took part in this debate, one idea to think about, something which one of their own people said about the economic prospects for South Africa. They all know Dr. Frans Cronje, a prominent member of the UP and a businessman of repute, a man who knows a great deal more about financial matters than the hon. members in the Opposition benches. In The Citizen of 9 March 1977 he said—

And then—

I quote further—

It is this kind of optimism and confidence that South Africa and the S.A. Railways need.

Mr. Speaker, I gained the impression that my good friend, the hon. member for Durban Point, is cross with someone, but at least not with the hon. the Minister of Transport. He reminded of a chap who is cross with his wife and then walks through the house slamming doors and kicking the cat. The hon. member gave a detailed account here of the economic crisis in the country, as he sees it He made a few sweeping statements and tried to get at the Government, the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The hon. member for Durban Point also aimed a kick at the hon. the Minister of Transport by saying that he also shares responsibility.

We know the hon. member for Durban Point. The more he displays his indignation, the more he evidences an inability to discourse. I do not take exception to everything he had to say, but there is one matter the hon. member really cannot get away with because I did not actually expect it of him. I am referring to his attack on the Railways and his imputation that in the past few years the Railways has been on a “spending spree” as far as capital development is concerned. Such nonsense I really did not expect from the hon. member for Durban Point. I would expect it from an uninformed backbencher like the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who does not know that till just the other day, two or three years ago, we had to listen to just the opposite arguments, touching pleas from the hon. member for Durban Point and all the other hon. members opposite. Then they used just the opposite argument. That was while South Africa was experiencing a boom and there were delays in the harbours and bottlenecks in the traffic. Then, under the baton of the hon. member for Durban Point, a chorus of recriminations were levelled at the Minister in the strongest possible language. He was shortsighted, it was alleged at the time.

An attack was also launched on the planning staff of the Railways because they supposedly did not think big enough. We have heard those clichés before in the days of the former hon. member for Wynberg, Mr. Hamilton Russell, i.e. that the Railways’ philosophy should be always to be slightly ahead of the economic development of the country. What has now become of that philosophy? The year before last the hon. member for Durban Point made a song and dance about the expansion in our harbours, particularly when there were extensive delays in the harbours. In the strongest possible language the hon. member condemned the hon. the Minister by saying that years previously we should have invested more money and more capital in the development of harbours. The hon. member accused the Government of being shortsighted and of not keeping the development of the country in mind. At that time I myself told hon. members on that side of the House that their enthusiasm was running away with them, that they were trying to make us believe that we should plan expensive harbour development on the basis of peak traffic requirements and that the sensible way to do things would be to plan for a reasonably average growth of 20% and to develop the harbours accordingly. The hon. member for Durban Point should rather have had a look at what is happening in our harbours at the moment and then conceded here that he was wrong, as usual, but he has the temerity to allege that the Railways had gone on a “spending spree” as far as capital development was concerned. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti then piped up and became quite ecstatic when he said they wanted no further capital expenditure. The hon. member said: “We do not want any more capacity.” The hon. member also wanted to know what the planning staff of the Railways had been up to. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is probably under the illusion that one can create capacity in the Railways the way that hon. member scoops his porridge out of a pot in Natal.

When it comes to the planning of railway, harbour and air services one cannot take a decision today and expect it to be carried out tomorrow. The planning of those services is long-term planning covering not days or months, but years. If a plan is eventually decided upon, it still takes years before the specific plan is implemented, and once one has started one cannot stop; one must then try to complete the project as quickly as possible so that you can pick the fruits of your capital investment. If one stops in the middle, or if one extends or delays the process, one has spent one’s capital unproductively and put one’s money into something that has not earned one anything. The hon. member’s own political prejudice, however, does not allow him to think further than his nose. The reason why it is so difficult for an undertaking like the Railways to curtail or delay capital projects is because there is so much money involved in those projects and because there is so much interest involved in fruitless capital. For that reason it is a tremendous achievement, under the present circumstances, for the Railways to have been able to save no less than R266 million on the capital budget.

The whole Opposition attack merely indicates once more the mental state they are in. Apart from the increases in rates, that was the most important attack from the Opposition and that is why I am dealing with it in detail. For them there is endless despair. They are pessimistic. They see no hope for South Africa’s future or for themselves, nor do they see any hope of an economic revival. [Interjections.] Sir, that is why the hon. member for Amanzimtoti says in blatant ignorance: “Immediately stop all development. Bring the development to a standstill.”

Unnecessary development.

The hon. member must not confirm it now. He ought to be ashamed of it. We on this side of the House are not, at this stage, as shortsighted as hon. members opposite. We must bear in mind the natural growth that will continue to take place in the Railways. The difference between hon. members opposite and ourselves is that while we have faith in the future and in the economic recovery of South Africa because we have faith in ourselves, hon. members opposite have no faith in themselves and can therefore have no faith in the economic recovery of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I now come to the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove who is not here at the moment. I do not think he is absent on purpose. I should like to address a few words to him. The hon. member for Orange Grove gave us a typically Prog solution to the problems of the Railways. In the first place he complains endlessly about the increase in rates for livestock. I want to point out to him that this year the Railways suffered a loss of R12 million on the transportation of livestock. With a tearful jerk in his voice he spoke of “the killing of the poor farmer”. Sir, I almost thought I was seeing a Prog who loves farmers! All at once, however, he made a volte face and toppled his whole argument by launching a scathing attack on the hon. the Minister on the grounds of the uneconomic services the Railways has to furnish. I now want to ask that hon. member what he actually wants. What does he mean when he speaks of “realistic economic tariffs”? The same argument holds good when it comes to his complaint about how the increase in rates will hit the Black commuters. I must point out to him that this is one of the sectors of the Railway service in which tremendous losses are suffered. That is what he calls uneconomic social traffic. In the past year, on suburban third class passengers, the Railways suffered losses of no less than R38 million. R26 million of that amount is already being subsidized by the State.

What kind of solution does the hon. member for Orange Grove offer for the problems of the Railways? He says we will help the Railways and relieve its burdens if we throw internal air transport open to competition. He says we would relieve the Railways’ position if we allowed an even greater measure of free competition in the case of general traffic. In other words, he wants us to allow more of the high-rated traffic to go to private cartage contractors. Then, according to the hon. member’s argument, we would simplify the Railways’ task. He also says that we must remove the pipeline and harbour profits from the general account. He does not want us to have those items included there. Then, he says, the Railways will be able to get back on its feet without the increase in rates. Sir, where on earth have you ever heard such an argument? It is a typical Prog fantasy world in which the hon. member is living.

The hon. member also asked some questions about the takeover of the Sishen-Saldanha scheme, and I should like to say something about that. From the very beginning I have always been a strong supporter of the idea that this scheme should be run and controlled by the Railways.

You did it very quietly.

I frequently advocated it in this House. I am now glad it has become an accomplished fact. The scheme will basically be taken over and run on guarantee principles. It will not be subsidized by the existing Railway network, except for assistance in the initial years. To keep railway and harbour rates within reasonable limits during the initial period, so that exporters with overseas contracts can compete, special competitive rates will apply for the first three years. Losses are foreseen in the first three years, but the S.A. Railways will make a maximum contribution of R15 million per year for the first two financial years and a maximum contribution of R5 million in the third financial year, i.e. in 1978-’79. The balance of the shortfall for those three years will be financed by Iscor. Although the railway line is classified as a multipurpose line, the mass transport of ore will have priority. Facilities for the acceptance and handling of other traffic will first have to be supplied, for example stations, staff, junction lines, etc. On the line which is 880 km long there are, at present, only nine junctions. Up to now about 3,8 million tons of ore has been carried, of which 2,5 million tons has been exported. The capacity of this scheme, however, is 28 million tons per year. I foresee that it is not only going to be one of the more significant export undertakings we have tackled in South Africa during the past few years; it is also going to be one of the most profitable schemes for the Railways, particularly because of the great benefits to the scheme involved in the integration of the extensive facilities at the disposal of the Railway service.

There is also another aspect I want to emphasize, and that is that the takeover of the scheme entails security for the ordinary man in the service of the Railways. At the time the trade unions expressed their fears about two systems co-existing with different wage and labour structures. Those fears have now been allayed by the takeover. I think it is a good thing that the railwayman’s security can be guaranteed. During the past few difficult years the railwaymen have done their share. They have been loyal, controlled and productive. The least we can do for them at this stage, if we cannot give them increases, is to assure them that their work is not placed in jeopardy.

The hon. member for Maitland had a few things to say about uneconomic traffic. All I have against that is that he tried to imply that it was this Government’s baby.

I did not say that.

He did not come right out with it, but he nevertheless put it in those terms.

No.

Very well, then we leave it at that, but the hon. member knows, of course, that that is as old as the hills. It dates way back to 1910, and he ought to know that all the Governments up to 1947, including the SAP Government, endorsed it. No Government, until this Government came into power, ever did anything to rectify that matter. It was this Government which made attempts to rectify it, but now the hon. member still says that nothing is being done in this connection. The hon. member also said that the Schumann commission had, in fact, published a report containing recommendations in terms of which the matter was to be rectified, and what was now being done about that? Nothing was being done about the Schumann commission’s report, he said.

I did not say that.

The hon. member must go and read his speech in Hansard. He said nothing was being done to implement the recommendations of the Schumann commission’s report. The hon. member ought to know better than that, particularly now that he has a seat over there. When he was sitting amongst the UP members we expected that sort of thing from him, but now he is sitting closer to the Nationalists.

Surely the hon. member knows that since the Schumann commission’s report appeared, adjustments have been made with every increase in rates, in order to implement the commission’s recommendations, and that the gap has, in reality, already narrowed considerably. Prior to that time 75% of the Railways’ traffic was transported at less than actual cost, while at this stage there is only a mere 57% being transported at less than cost. I agree with the hon. member that there are still considerable shortcomings, particularly if one bears in mind that 78% of the tonnage from agricultural and mining is still transported at less than cost. The hon. the Minister, however, was tempted to narrow the gap further in this budget by gradually further implementing the Schumann commission’s recommendations—the hon. member must concede that it has to be a gradual process because otherwise the whole economy of the country will be disrupted. With the present budget moves had to be made in that direction with the greatest possible circumspection, particularly because of the prevailing economic situation, since increases in the low rates involved a tremendous cost factor, particularly in respect of raw materials which, at this stage, are of the utmost importance because the costs in respect of raw materials are, in reality, a basic factor which has a great impact on the eventual price of the product. One must also accept the fact that the Schumann commission’s recommendations can never be fully implemented—if that were to be done, I would not want to hear hon. members opposite—but the Railways must nevertheless strive for a rate structure that varies between 20% higher and 20% lower than transport costs. I think that would be an ideal situation.

We cannot get away from that, and it is a pity that the unavoidable increase in rates should mar an otherwise strikingly good budget. We cannot get away from the fact that the increase in rates is going to have an impact on our economy. It is going to percolate through to all aspects of our economy. But that is not all. The pity of it is that there are always those who use every opportunity to improperly exploit such a situation and to push up prices beyond all proportion. This we must accept, but the hon. members opposite tell those people what to say.

No, no!

Yes, the hon. member for Durban Central is a specific example.

I did not do so. I said exactly what you are now saying.

Experience has taught us that it is no use warning or appealing to those unscrupulous people because they simply go on with their exploitation.

That is exactly what I said.

Having said that, I want to state here today, with the upmost decisiveness, that under the circumstances this budget is one of the most interesting and imaginative railway budgets I have ever encountered in my period of service in this House. One finds this budget striking because its content, design and finish attests to exceptional craftmanship, knowledge and ingenuity and exceptionally modern ideas on budgeting procedure. Although we do not expect hon. members opposite not to criticize the increases, I cannot understand why some of them do not, at times, look beyond the increase in rates and express their appreciation for the exceptional qualities in this budget.

My time is almost up and I still want to react to one aspect that was also raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and which gave me the impression that he was not quite sure of his facts. I am referring to the question of the weakening of the relationship between high-rated and low-rated traffic.

I did not mention that at all.

No, I spoke about that.

Very well then. It was the hon. member for Durban Point. I did not realize that he was also ignorant about that aspect. The truth of the matter is that that was one of the important problems the hon. the Minister had with this specific budget. High-rated traffic is the most sensitive barometer of rail traffic and there is no doubt that we have now reached a stage where that sensitive balance, maintained for many years, has been seriously disrupted. The drop from high-rated to low-rated traffic has brought about a loss of R60 million during this financial year. This R60 million represents the difference between the deficit of R33 million which the hon. the Minister had to announce and a surplus of R27 million he could have had under different circumstances. The decisive factor in this trend was, of course, the decrease in harbour traffic. Harbour traffic is high-rated traffic. The restrictions on import control have had a great influence in this connection.

Who imposed the restrictions, the Opposition or the Government?

Up to 1974 the Railways was in a position where it could transport at least 20% of the tonnage of high-rated goods or could get some of that traffic. This gave the Railways 52% of its revenue, but in 1975 this dropped to 17,2%, with a revenue yield of a mere 47%. 1975 was the first year that the revenue from high-rated traffic dropped below 50%, and we are now budgeting for a further decrease to 14,7% in the coming financial year.

That is not what I said.

There is, of course, the hope that the situation will improve, in particular, as I have said, because the loss of harbour transport has had a great influence on the discrepancy. If the economic position improves we expect, of course, that there will be a larger amount of harbour traffic and that the balance will, to a certain extent, be restored. Personally, however, I do not think we shall ever succeed in reaching the 20% figure. On the other hand one must also be realistic and take into consideration that the fact that we transported 83% of the low-rated traffic indicates that we exported many raw materials, a very good thing for the country. The tonnage of general freight shipped has given the harbours an increase of 30% in the past nine months. This is a great stimulus to our economy in these times when we are struggling with an unfavourable balance of payments and when the country’s ability to export is of cardinal importance. There is still the prospect that with the Richards Bay coal export facilities and the Saldanha Bay ore export facilities, which could mean an additional improvement of 19% in low-rated traffic for the next year, there could be an even greater effect on, and a greater stimulus for, the economy. These things are good for our country, but we must also take into account that they are not all that good as far as the Railways’ account is concerned because the low-rated traffic involved is not all that advantageous to the Railways.

Unlike the criticism hon. members opposite expressed in this debate, I want to say that in this critical year and in the next the Railways will play a cardinal role in improving South Africa’s balance of payments as a result of the export possibilities that exist.

I want to conclude by saying that this imbalance that has developed between highrated and low-rated traffic has also drawn our attention specifically to another very important trend in the transport industry. We must accept the fact that the future task of the Railways will increasingly have to be seen to be the transportation of mass freight, particularly with a view to export. In carrying out its task, the Railways Administration will have to reconcile itself to this trend, accept the challenge and fully equip itself for its task. In no way do I mean, however, that the Railways Administration must now simply sit with its hands folded and see the high-rated traffic it still retains slipping through its fingers. It would be a good thing, however, for us to watch this trend and to equip ourselves with a view to the future, particularly in respect of our priorities.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot help being continually and constantly amazed at the capacity of the NP and its members on the other side to acclaim as a victory a budget such as this one, a budget which has been forced upon the country, a budget which is probably one of the most serious set-backs to transport planning that we have and to endure in many years. The hon. member for Parow was almost in rapsodies when he spoke about the brilliant planning, the execution, the rare imagination which had been shown by the Railways Administration in cutting the budget. The hon. member for Parow has waxed lyrical about this budget, the budget in which the Government has gone out of its way to put South Africa ahead of the field by cutting off the R200 million of capital works which now have to stand down for the current year. One wonders why the Administration planned these things. Why were they so dense that they could not see what was coming if they regarded this to be the great victory which the hon. member for Parow now sets it out to be? There has no doubt been a very earnest setback, indeed, to the planning which the Railways Administration has undertaken in South Africa. Nobody will deny—neither the hon. the Minister nor that hon. member will deny—that should capital funds be available now at a reasonable rate of interest, the Administration would not push ahead with these plans. The Administration would definitely go ahead and expand the capacity of the Railways. They would go ahead with the planning which has been undertaken and which has been brought to the state where it is almost ready to be implemented.

I am absolutely unable to understand why it is that throughout the speeches of all hon. members on the Government side not one of them has come to realize that there is something seriously wrong with the capital position of South Africa, with the economic position of South Africa, a position for which the Government as a whole is absolutely responsible. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North came to the House with the usual bucket of syrup which he poured all over the hon. the Minister saying what a great guy the hon. the Minister was, and so on. He praised the hon. the Minister for his far-sightedness. However, what kind of far-sightedness is it when an hon. Minister, who is a member of the Cabinet, is taken by surprise when certain charges, which are administered by other members of the Cabinet, are implemented? What kind of far-sightedness can that be? The hon. the Minister sits in the Cabinet with other hon. Ministers, other hon. Ministers who put up the price of coal and of electricity, or who allow those prices to go up. Certainly, they must discuss this. There must be discussions in the Cabinet as to whether these things can take place or not, but the hon. the Minister comes here with a bland face and tells us that he has been taken by surprise. He says he did not know that this was going to happen, but here we were now and we were down the drain in this and that respect and all tariffs had to be increased in order to cover the so-called surprise which overtook the hon. the Minister.

I really cannot see how the hon. the Minister can take any kind of credit for a budget like this at all. These people, who claim to be such great patriots and who claim to see the need of South Africa, and all this kind of thing, instead of giving the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet the hard time that they deserve for making such an unconscionable muck-up of the country’s economy, come and pat him on the back so that his shoulder blades must ache every time he gets into bed at night. The Minister has come along and told us that this is not going to affect our cost of living. He said: “No, maybe it will increase by 1%, but that is all.” Sir, we must be forgiven if, when we sit here and look at the hon. the Minister, we remember a day when another Minister, the Minister of Finance, said that the devaluation of the rand which we had was a great victory for South Africa. It was not going to affect the cost of living of the people at all. It was going to help us and would be money in our pockets. The fact that our money was going down in value meant that we would sell more abroad, that we would all be richer, and this kind of thing. I fail to see why we on this side of the House must accept that the hon. the Minister can come along and give us that kind of hogwash and that we have got to swallow and believe it. We do not believe it for one single moment, not at all.

I wish to say a few words on behalf of the poor old farming community. This community is peculiarly exposed in this particular stage of our existence. My reading of the reaction of the farming community to this latest lot of tariff increases is that an absolute blanket of gloom has descended upon the whole farming community throughout South Africa. If you prefer, a tarpaulin of gloom has descended upon the farming community. For the third time approximately 18 months the hon. the Minister has come along and raised tariffs. These tariffs affect the farming community in every single way. Everything that they do is affected by what the hon. the Minister has now imposed upon them. It is even worse than that, because the last time the hon. the Minister raised tariffs on livestock carried, he told us that this was a totally uneconomic operation that the Railways undertake. It was something which only covered 50% of the cost of carrying livestock. However, the tariffs have gone up again and we are still no closer to any kind of economic tariff.

The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Parow said that there has got to be a closing of the gap between high and low-rated traffic, so irrespective of tariff increases to meet the increased costs of the Railways, the farming community can still look forward to a rise in the tariffs that they will have to pay on livestock transportation. This will simply be done to carry out the recommendations of the commission which said that this gap must be closed. I believe that the farming community is in a situation which is almost intolerable. The very reason for this is that every single thing that the farmer has to pay for is going to go up. It is going to go up between the supplier and the farm, because tariffs have gone up, and the original price that the farmer has to pay the supplier will also go up, because the supplier has to get it carried by the Railways. The rise in cost will not only be the 15% that the supplier is going to put on his price, because it will also mean that the farmer will have to pay more for everything that he sends off his farm. I think that it is important that one should realize that when livestock, or whatever it may happen to be, is marketed, it is the farmer that pays for the transportation and not the consumer. In the case of the price of meat, it is not the consumer who is going to pay the farmer the railage. The producer of livestock is today in the situation that we are already on the absolute ceiling as far as prices are concerned. We are bumping our heads against customer resistance. There is no margin whatsoever whereby the farmer can recoup any of the increases which the Minister has now put on the transport of livestock. What I think is more serious is that there is absolutely no way in which the farmer can recoup himself. The only way in which the hon. the Minister, or the hon. the Deputy Minister or anyone else, can help the farming community, is by an increase in the floor price of meat. That is the only way in which it can happen. But if one is already bumping on the ceiling, what is the use of increasing the floor price? As I see it, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is going to help the farming community. That is one thing that is worrying the hon. the Ministers of Transport, Agriculture, their Deputy Ministers and everybody else.

You are not farming any more.

I may not be farming myself any more, but I represent one of the most important farming constituencies in South Africa. It is one of the most important meat producing constituencies in South Africa. In my constituency there are at least three associations which produce over R1 000 000 worth of turnover in livestock every year. How can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me that I am not farming any more?

That does not guarantee that you will not talk nonsense.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister tells me that I am talking nonsense, will he tell me now that the rates will not go up for the fanner at all? [Interjections.] It has been said that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced his budget last year, was going to squeeze the lemon till the pips squeaked. There is only a very faint squeak coming from the farming community today. I honestly think that the hon. the Minister must take cognizance of this fact.

I want to raise the question of the timber industry, which depends very heavily on the Railways. The rule of thumb which is used to estimate the cost of railing timber is that about half the gross price to the farmer goes to the Railways. In the last year, according to the report of the General Manager, the amount of unworked timber fell, for no other reason than that markets were more difficult to obtain, and in the present year they are even more difficult to obtain. The pulp industry is no longer taking in timber on the same scale and the mining timber industry is in the doldrums. In addition, there is now going to be an increase in the railage that those timber producers will have to meet. The one shining light in the whole of the timber industry today is the chip export trade to Japan. This is a matter which had to be re-negotiated with the Japanese a couple of years ago, after the devaluation which was such a brilliant victory for the NP. It had to be re-negotiated because the value of the yen went up as against our rand, and the price we were getting was totally uneconomic. Anything which is going to upset that deal is going to give the timber producers an absolute body blow. This is not unworked, but worked timber. It is due to the fortune of God alone that that timber only has to be transported from Cato Ridge to Durban, and I suppose that since it is down-hill all the way, the Minister can take it cheaper than anybody else can! I believe there is certainly one thing which the hon. the Minister must give his attention to as far as the farming community is concerned, and that is that that contract with Japan is not going to be adversely affected by the rates which he is now going to levy.

I read in the report that the amount of wattle bark transported has come down. The amount of livestock transported has also come down. One of the most obvious things one can say about the budget is that if the hon. the Minister is losing money on all these services, the most obvious thing in the world is to try to encourage other people to take them over from the Minister.

That is what is happening in livestock.

Yes, it is happening with livestock. In my constituency there are lorries moving around carting about 200 sheep at a time to the abattoirs. There are timber lorries carrying 25 tons at a time and which travel 150 miles and more because it is far easier, more convenient and cheaper to carry it by road than by rail. Sugar is being transported in that way from Eston to Mount Edgecombe because it is far more economic to move it on that basis. I mention this because I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, and I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not here. There is, however, one thing the hon. the Minister can do in this regard. It does not concern his particular department, but it is nevertheless a factor which can help him. I refer to the price of diesel fuel. The big transport lorries run on diesel fuel, and these are being used to take the burden of a lot of the traffic about which the hon. the Minister is complaining. This is a weapon in the hon. the Minister’s hands, and perhaps he can persuade the other members of the Cabinet to see to it that the price of diesel fuel is kept down, whether it is by subsidy or any other way, to make sure that timber and livestock within certain areas can be transported by road.

I do not pretend that one can transport livestock from South West Africa to Cato Ridge in a lorry. It should, however, be done in a certain radius as is being done already, for example, in my constituency where very heavy loads of as much as 25 tons of timber are being transported over a distance of 150 miles. The hon. the Minister should encourage this; he should see to it that transport of this nature is encouraged by maintaining the price of diesel fuel at a reasonable figure.

If one thing has dominated this whole debate, it is the question of capital usage and the shortage of capital. A matter I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister is the question of capital-intensive investment, and I shall take this further in another debate. The Railways have always been big employers of labour and it is a common factor with the Railways, as with every other industry in South Africa, that they are moving away from labour-intensive investment to capital-intensive investment. In South Africa we have the counter-problem of a growing population who are relatively unskilled and who are going to need employment. In view of the shortage of capital that we have, somebody is going to have to sit down and take a decision as to how much further we can go along with capital-intensive investment, which is cheaper, which cuts the costs and which makes productivity higher, but which is depriving people of a job. Sooner or later we shall have to grapple with this point. The Railways Administration is one of the most important factors in this regard, because traditionally they have been the employers of labour on a very large scale. I mention this merely in passing, because I think it is something to which we shall have to return and give our attention later on. I certainly believe that the Railways Administration has to have a look at that particular aspect of their own investment. I think the hon. the Minister could initiate a study of this matter, because, certainly, employers of labour in South Africa are going to have to give the matter their most serious attention.

Mr. Speaker, all of us would probably agree that Natal cricket has done well this season but I cannot unfortunately, say the same of the Railways study group from Natal. I am thinking in this regard of the hon. members for Durban Point, Amanzimtoti, Durban Central and Mooi River, the four Natalians on that side who participated in the Second Reading debate on the Railway budget. Not only were their batting and bowling performances poor, but we also discovered from their speeches that there is one thing the hon. Opposition sorely misses. We have discovered that the hon. members for Maitland, King William’s Town and Simonstown are missed when it comes to the quality of the contribution of the official Opposition. When we assess the Railway budget on the basis of the contributions which were made by that side of the House we must, unfortunately, say that nothing positive came from that side—or from the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. The hon. member for Mooi River reproduced the same lamentations in this House as the hon. member for Durban Point, but at least he made a recommendation. In the Railway Budget debate, the hon. member advocated an increase in the floor price of meat! It is beyond one’s comprehension. In the Additional Appropriation debate, and also in the debate on this appropriation, the hon. member for Durban Point conceded that certain problems did exist, but then he suggested, in his dramatic way, that there was a solution to the problems, and that the Railways should take a look at what the people in Britain were doing and should appoint similar specialists to solve the problem in South Africa.

Coupled with that we had the uncalled for attack on our Railway Commissioners. That hon. member ought to know just as well as I do that if persons from outside were appointed to such a so-called board of directors, the hon. members on that side of the House would not be satisfied with those persons. Surely it is very clear that if persons are drawn from outside, it may happen that we could have a representation of interests in this so-called board of directors. If the hon. the Minister were to accept this suggestion by the hon. member for Durban Point, those appointments would have to be made by the Minister. If this were done, it would very soon be said that political appointments were being made. The Minister would also find himself in a difficult situation if he wanted to make appointments which would satisfy the Opposition. I am saying this, for the persons concerned retain their individuality after all, and I want to accept that there would be some of them who were NP supporters just as there would be some of them who would be PRP and IUP supporters. I must add, however, that I do not know whether they would find sufficient official Opposition supporters to serve on such a board of directors.

Sir, throughout this entire budget debate the hon. members on the opposite side of this House called upon only one person who criticized the budget as a witness. That person was the director of Assocom, Mr. Raymond Parsons. In his Press statement Mr. Parsons enumerated five points, and very conveniently two of those points were not mentioned. Why? Sir, I should like to quote two of those points which were not mentioned. I am quoting from the Press report in question—

Then he comes to the next point—

But, Sir, let us consider the other negative points of criticism expressed by the director of Assocom. Inter alia, he expressed criticism in regard to the expected unemployment. “Unemployment will increase,” he said. Sir, cognizance has been taken of this, and the slow-down envisaged by the Railways is in fact aimed at acting as a brake on this possible unemployment. Mr. Parsons also said the following—

Sir, what would the reaction to such “cutbacks” be? Would it not in fact be conductive to greater unemployment? The last point he made was the following—

Mr. Speaker, we wish to agree with that. Every effort must be made to attract that capital, but I must say that that side of the House has not made the slightest contribution towards attracting that capital, for with vituperation one would find it very difficult to accomplish that.

Sir, let us look at the answer which the hon. member for Durban Point gave to the problems one is experiencing today, not only in South Africa, but throughout the entire world. According to the hon. member, one must now look to Britain. We have consider what is happening in Britain. I have also considered the position in the United States, in France, in West Germany, in Italy and in Belgium. When we consider the situation in those countries, there are a few factors which we have to bear in mind. The hon. member for Tygervallei referred to one of them yesterday already, viz. efficiency. Was any criticism expressed from that side of the House in regard to efficiency? There was none.

The criticism dealt with the costs. Now, when we draw a comparison between the costs in South Africa and the costs in these other countries which I mentioned, we find the following interesting information: Last year the cost per ton kilometre in Britain was 6,47c, in France 4,77c, and in West Germany 10,33c. In South Africa it was 1,44c per ton kilometre.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Durban Point expects us to do now is to appoint a board of directors to institute an investigation into how we in South Africa could possibly succeed in managing to come out on an amount of 6,11c per kilometre, while we in South Africa have in reality already succeeded in coming out on a cost of 1,44c per kilometre.

However, when we consider what is happening in Britain today, one can understand and accept that the hon. member for Durban Point meant well by suggesting that we should consider the position in Britain. I came upon a few documents from Britain. The first document was “Consultation Document Transport Policy”. It would appear to me as though this document is the first document which has been published since the establishment of the board of directors to which the hon. member referred. I also have with me the “Transport Policy and Opportunity for Change—Comments by the British Railway Board on the Government Consultation Document” and I also have the Railway Gazette International. When we consider these various documents, we find in them a summary of the position in which the various railway systems find themselves. In this document reference is made to what the actual contribution of the Governments was. In these other countries the Governments make contributions towards defraying the costs. In some cases this is done by way of a subsidy and in other cases the amount is simply adjusted. One should not only take the contribution of the Government during the past few years into consideration, but also the increases during the past few years. In Britain the Government contribution for passenger services during 1970 was R110 million. In 1975 it was R500 million. This represents an increase of 445% over five years. As far as freight conveyance is concerned, it rose in 1976 to R103 million—a total therefore of R603 million per annum in Britain.

As far as Amtrak is concerned—the American system in which in fact owed its origin to the financial problems in which the American systems found themselves—the expected Government contribution in 1975 was R614 million. The eventual contribution was R653 million. In West Germany the total Government contribution in respect of passengers in 1970 was R770 million. In 1975 it was R1 480 million. This is a total assistance of R2 960 million per annum. In the Netherlands Government assistance in 1973 amounted to R151 million, and in 1975 to R265 million. In France it rose within two years from R1 140 million to R1 332 million. In Belgium, where there is a network of only 4 300 kilometres, the Government had to subsidize the Railways to the tune of R380 million in 1973 and R470 million in 1975. In Italy the figure rose in one year by R148 million to R850 million.

Mr. Speaker, the most important point is that in spite of the increased contribution on the part of the Government, the tariff increase in recent years in these seven countries was an average of between 8% and 50%.

When one considers this situation, one realizes that in spite of factors with which we have had to contend and which was similar to those which resulted in increases abroad, this Government has succeeded in introducing a budget which is still within the means and limits of every sector in South Africa. When one considers this “Consultation Document” which was compiled in Britain, one finds certain recommendations. One wants to accept that these are the recommendations which the hon. member for Durban Point had in mind when he came forward with the so-called answer.

Are you really so stupid?

No, just wait a minute. If the hon. member for Durban Point would exercise a little patience I shall tell him in a moment what Amtrak stands for. When one considers the recommendations in this “Consultation Document”, it is clear that a dramatic and rapid change is necessary in Britain. But when one reads the reply to this of the British Railways Board, one arrives at the conclusion that a danger is beginning to manifest itself not only in Britain but also here in South Africa, a danger which that side of the House is encouraging, viz. the oversimplification of the problem situation. I do not think that anyone can reproach me if I accuse not only that side of the House of doing this, but also their fellow-travellers, for they are concerned about the present only. They are concerned only about the short term. Now, I must say that lately there has been a little realism, too, on that side of the House. Against all expectations they dropped the book by Dr. Wassenaar, Assault on Private Enterprise, like a hot potato. I think that, during the past few weeks, there has been more of an assault on “Government departments”. We concede that the railway system in South Africa is not faultless, but I also think that that side of the House will have to concede that it is this Government and the S.A. Railways which has made constant movement in South Africa possible, and that that movement has at least always been in a forward direction.

In his foreword to An Opportunity for Change the chairman of the Railway Board had the following to say—

Therefore we can tell the hon. member for Durban Point that simply appointing or advocating a new board of directors will not solve everything.

Perhaps the time has arrived in South Africa for us to ask the Opposition, the industrialist, the public and the consumer for a new approach to the Railways and in particular to our transportation system. I want to return briefly to this later on. I do not think there has ever been any product or commodity in South Africa which made a greater contribution to the development of this country than the South African Railways. I am not saying this simply because the Railways conveys our products, our gold, our ores and our agricultural produce; I am not saying this simply because our Railways have brought out-of-the-way places within reach; but I am saying this because the South African Railways has frequently deprived itself financially for the sake of the economy of South Africa. That side of the House criticizes the mistakes which were made in the past, but this sacrifice, if I may call it that, of the South African Railways, it has indeed made on behalf of the South African industrialists, the South African consumer and also on your and my behalf, in order to keep our cost of living as low as possible.

I want to return to the publication An Opportunity for Change, in which the British Railway Board criticizes the recommendations of the “Consultation Document”. From this it becomes clear to me that when criticism is levelled at the Railways, it is in most cases attributable to a lack of knowledge. Consequently they say—

As far as freight business is concerned, one reads in this publication—

That is precisely the prospect we wish to hold out in South Africa. If the economic upturn comes, it will alleviate the burden on the South African Railways accordingly. Consequently it is clear to me that the chairman of the British Railway Board tried to bring home a certain idea in Britain, an idea which we have also tried to bring home in South Africa before, but not always with success, particularly as far as the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, and that idea is that the South African Railways is an industry which is as specialized as can be. The result of this specialization is that one must, as it were, grow within the ranks of the S.A. Railways to be able to make a calculated contribution to the development of the Railways, to the growth of the Railways and to the planning of the S.A. Railways. That is why we are pleased that the S.A. Railways has succeeded, as far as their future development is concerned, in training officials of the S.A. Railways in such a way that they will be able to undertake the financial planning of the railways in future. In this Railway Gazette International an article is devoted to “Management Development”. I think it is fair that we congratulate the S.A. Railways, for in this international publication the following is stated—

When we consider the highest aim of an organization with more than 260 000 employees, we can say that an effort has to be made to evaluate and train the right people for managerial posts. This is precisely what the S.A. Railways is doing with this management development. I think the time has arrived for everyone, whether on the S.A. Railways or elsewhere, whether in this House or outside, to accept that the leader of the future, the business manager of the future, will have to be possessed of a few characteristics for the sake of the community and also for the sake of the group in which he finds himself. I think the five most important characteristics which a business manager or business leader will have to possess, are, firstly, to be able to keep pace with development. Secondly, he shall have to be able to display an insight in technical problems. Thirdly, he shall have to be able to evaluate the economic climate. Fourthly, he shall have to be able to understand human behaviour patterns, and, fifthly, he shall have to be able to carry on a dialogue competently. It will, moreover, be necessary for him to keep on adapting his actions to new values in the business world. It is the duty of any proper management to ensure that managers are suitably equipped for this task. It is necessary that the possibility be created for anyone with potential to be taken up into a management position, regardless of their academic training, regardless of qualifications or experience. But it is necessary that such an evaluating mechanism should be absolutely objective. It is necessary that it should be acceptable, to the staff being assessed in such a way too. It is also necessary—and this is very important—that it should be defensible in respect of all aspects. Then, I think, it is also a good thing if one does not isolate oneself in a shell, but brings in people from outside to observe and criticize. I think the Railways has done this with their training centre. One of our well-known academics recently had this to say—

I think the Railways has played its part. The hon. Chief Whip referred to the fact that until recently the Railways was conveying 75% of its freight below cost. This was subsequently reduced to 57%. Today between 74% and 78% of our agricultural produce and agricultural means of production, as well as items connected with our mining industry are being conveyed below cost. Therefore I think we owe the S.A. Railway officials, the Railway workers, more. If we were placed in a normal economic situation, I would maintain that these people are not being paid enough. However, I believe that if the economic climate returns to normal again, the Government will know what its duty to its Railway worker is and make it possible for him to live his life to the full to the mutual benefit of everyone in the employ of the Railways Administration. Then all Railway officials may co-operate anew in the interrelated interests of all of them and they will be able collectively to encourage everyone anew to serve the interests of the community.

In my opinion it is time we took a good look at ourselves as well, so that each one of us would, in his own personal life, could try to apply what the Railways Administration has made its goal, i.e. to evaluate. In these times in which the burden is heavy, we shall have to try to succeed in omitting to take along with us what is unnecessary. The burden of life is already heavy enough. As far as I am concerned we are quite entitled to say to the hon. the Minister, to the Railway commissioners and to their officials: Continue along the course you have adopted this year, for you shall reap the benefits of it.

Last but not least, I should like to refer to another matter. During this debate we listened to various speakers of the official Opposition from Natal. To a great extent the hon. member for Durban Point personifies to my mind the official Opposition in its present form. In him we see the person who still gets up to fight occasionally. In him we see the person who occasionally becomes confused on behalf of his party. In view of this I recall that the hon. the Minister referred in his Second Reading speech to a change of name for the Railways Administration. I think the time has arrived for us to consider this. But I wondered whether we could not find a name similar to the one used in America—the so-called Amtrak. On closer examination, however, it appears that we already have an Amtrak in South Africa. It is not an Amtrak similar to the American system. Our Amtrac stands for: “After many times Raw is absolutely confused.”

†Mr. Speaker, and to show you how confused they are, I want to spell confused with a “k”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethlehem ended off his speech by referring to the official Opposition. I wonder if it is not opportune at this moment ot ask the official Opposition and the Government whether they want to continue with this debate, whether they want to continue with this fighting, in view of the fact that in the Johannesburg city council these two parties have just formed an official coalition. [Interjections.] I think it is rather … [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time now to answer questions. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member no longer believe in sharing power? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North must contain himself.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that in the Johannesburg city council the NP and the UP are now sharing power. [Interjections.] That hon. member should be very careful. He will just add to the embarrassment and to the confusion and to the humiliation felt at the moment in the ranks of the UP.

You are the guy who is humiliated!

This is tantamount to selling out and creeping to the NP. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate … [Interjections.]

Order!

The official Opposition is now in an uncharacteristic situation. Their contention is that the Government is taking South Africa for a ride. I think to an extent they are correct. There has also been some shock expressed by some hon. members who feel that the motives of the hon. the Minister in increasing tariffs are somewhat insane. I think they believe that the hon. the Minister of Transport has some “loco motives”.

We are all shocked at the increases. We are all deeply concerned about the effect these increases will have on South Africa. We are particularly concerned about the effect it will have as far as the increases in commuter travelling costs are concerned, and especially with reference to the underprivileged sections of our community. We are very concerned about the effect it will have on food prices, as a result of the effect it will have on the transport of fertilizer, equipment and produce. One has had the peculiar situation in this House that the Government speakers have given the impression that it is all good news, while the speakers on the Opposition side have given the impression that it is all bad news.

I think to an extent there is a great deal of bad news, but there is also some good news. I do not want to associate myself with the speakers who reflected so severely on the ability of the top and middle management of the Railways. I think that if one looks at the problems with which the Railways have to contend under the circumstances under which they operate and at all the factors involved, one must, when one studies the performance of the S.A. Railways, compare it with similar systems in other parts of the world. Though there are many shortcomings in our system, although there is tremendous room for improvement and many deficiencies which can be removed, our system certainly compares, in many respects, favourably with many other systems in the world. I think it is important that that should be said. In saying that I do not want to create the impression that I approve of everything that the Railways do. I want to emphasize that particularly in the lower levels of its operations—the lower level management—there is tremendous room for improvement. Efficiency, performance and productivity of many of the thousands of workers in those fields can be improved. I should like to come back to that later on.

The hon. member for Bethlehem made a comparison between South Africa’s rates per ton kilometre and those of other countries and between the rate of increase in tariffs in South Africa and in European countries. The hon. member indicated that, although we should be concerned about the increases and our situation, it was not all that bad. I would like to add just one further positive comparison to what was given by the hon. member, namely to compare the figures for 1970 of the South African Railways and the British Railways. The total open route for Britain is 18 227 km of rail to South Africa’s 22 000 km. Over that distance of rail Britain operates 3 639 locomotives compared with the 4 180 locomotives operated by South Africa. However, the figure for derailments in Britain, which is supposed to have one of the most advanced and sophisticated systems in the world, is 250 whereas for South Africa, with its longer distances and more locomotives, the figure is 205. So, at the outset there are positive aspects as far as the performance, management and conduct of the South African Railways are concerned.

Unfortunately, there are also many negative aspects and many things happen which spoil the good picture which can be painted of the South African Railways. For instance, last year we had a R500 000 spares racket. I do not know if this has finally been cleared up. It brought the South African Railways into disrepute. We also had the situation where a four-wheel drive truck was converted for hunting purposes for the Minister of Railways. I am told that that was in order, but when things of that nature happen it creates a bad impression. Last year it was revealed that the Railways had found it necessary to build, at a tremendous cost, a luxury dining room in the new harbour control building in Cape Town to be used on rare occasions by the Minister of Railways and other senior officials. Now there is a rumour rife within the Railways—and the hon. the Minister is in a position either to deny or confirm it—that at this very moment special luxury coaches are being constructed for the General Manager in the Salt River works. It may be true or it may not be true, and I think the hon. the Minister should use this opportunity to say whether this is true or not.

A great deal was said about capital expenditure. Whether or not the Railways should have spent the amount of money over the last year that they have spent—in previous years there has been the comment that they should have spent more—there is one salient fact with regard to the capital position of the Railways which must be referred to.

Mr. Loubser, the General Manager of the Railways, said last year that the Railways had managed to get only one half of the capital requirements they wanted. Why is this so? Here is a responsibility which rests on the entire Government. They must wake up before it is too late and realize that unless they are prepared to bring about radical changes in their policies at home, South Africa will be starved more and more of international capital, which in turn will bring about escalating economic problems and will eventually smother the activities, not only of the Railways, but of South Africa’s economy as a whole. The Railways have taken many steps to economize, reduce costs and to improve efficiency. It is reported that they have for instance reduced their staff by some 4 000 last year, not by firing people, but by not filling vacancies. We know that a 10% increase for the entire staff of the Railways will cost the country some R100 million. With the co-operation of the staff, this increase has not yet been given. I think the Railways staff should be given a very big “thank you” by the South African nation for the fact that they have so far been so patient and that they are not contemplating taking positive steps to obtain such an increase. But it is true that the Government is going to have to face up to the need of increasing the salaries of Railway staff. It is not something which can be put off much longer, and when it comes it will be a further drastic demand on the financial resources of the Railways.

There was also some comment with regard to free enterprise. The suspicion exists, both from the point of view of private enterprise and observers of the Railways, that the Railways deliberately take away work from free enterprise which the latter could have effectively performed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to lay down a principle along the lines that the Railways will give to free enterprise all that work which free enterprise can do as or more reliably than the Railways and at the same or lower cost than the Railways can. I believe that if the hon. the Minister is prepared to lay down this principle as a policy, satisfaction will be obtained.

There was also some comment with regard to the socio-economic responsibility and the activities of the Railways. The S.A. Railways spend R600 million per annum and the purchasing power of Railway employees is some R883 million per annum. Whether they like it or not, the Railways do have a socio-economic responsibility, particularly in terms of the tariffs that apply to the farmer, affecting production costs and transport costs of food, and with regard to the commuting costs of the underprivileged people of South Africa. When recently a twin line was announced from Soweto to Johannesburg, Mr. Jack Lloyd, a S.A. Railways’ senior planning engineer, said the line should not be seen as financially viable, but rather as a sociologically viable proposition. The Railways, in other words, recognize that they have a social responsibility. I think it goes much further than that in that it is also an economic responsibility, because it is economically important for South Africa that those workers should be transported rapidly and effectively from their places of residence to their places of employment, keeping in mind that in terms of the laws of the country the workers cannot stay where they wish to stay and that they are very often forced to stay very far from their place of employment. These trains are crowded and violence and crime is rife on them. Unless the S.A. Railways can ensure that transport is available and that the commuters are safe, they will be contributing to the creation of circumstances which are explosive and could give rise to further problems and unrest in South Africa.

The same applies to the production and provision of food in South Africa. I do not care whether it is the South African Railways or the South African Government that has the responsibility, but there is a fundamental responsibility resting on them in a country like South Africa, which has millions of people living below or at the bread-line, which has a large unsophisticated population, where hunger is a constant threat, where the spectre of starvation is constantly present, where people cannot give up the purchase of luxuries in order to buy food, because when their standard of living decreases, it simply means that they have to eat less. In this regard, the Government and the Railways have the responsibility to see to it that these people do not eat less. The Railways and the Government play a very big part in seeing to it that these people are in the position to obtain food.

It is in the field of the removal of apartheid that the S.A. Railways can play a very big part indeed. The Railways can do something positive about the immense cost of apartheid to the S.A. Railways and to the country. They can probably not do anything about the inevitable factors giving rise to the economic difficulties of the Railways, but they can do something about the immense cost of apartheid. I should like to refer to the immense capital costs for which apartheid has been responsible in South Africa in the past. There are 1 042 railway stations in South Africa and at practically every one of them a number of facilities have been duplicated because of the Government’s determination that Black and White people should be separated and should not come into contact with one another. One finds different bridges and subways, different entrances, different ticket offices, different waiting rooms, different facilities, and different coaches are used for the transportation of Black and White people. Sometimes one even finds different trains running between the same stations. Different staff must be available, and there are different signs, different equipment and different forms that have to be supplied. In the entire structure there is separation between Black and White at a tremendous cost to South Africa. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to tell us what the cost to South Africa has been of the demands of apartheid in the provision of railway services. For instance, the Johannesburg railway station cost R21 million, and I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to tell South Africa how much of that R21 million was necessary to provide for apartheid, not necessarily to provide services or facilities, but to ensure that there would be apartheid and that Black and White would not come into contact with one another. The Cape Town station cost R18½ million. Can the hon. the Minister tell us how much of that R18½ million was necessary to accommodate the apartheid attitudes and requirements of the Government? We are told that the new Durban station is going to cost R80 million, which is an indication of the tremendous inflation in the costs associated with construction. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to say to us that he will not build an apartheid railway station in Durban but that he will build a railway station for people irrespective of colour or, if he insists in doing so, will he be prepared to tell us what that apartheid railway station will cost South Africa? I think it is only fair, just and reasonable that if the public of South Africa insist on apartheid and they are prepared to pay for apartheid, the Government should have the decency and the honesty to tell them what they are paying for and how much they are paying for the apartheid that they want.

The Government can do a great deal more, because apartheid pervades the labour practices within the Railways and job reservation applied by the Railways exists throughout that organization. In the report that was laid before the House, we notice that acute shortages are still being experienced in grades such as station foremen, guards, conductors, drivers, shunters, checkers, examiners and repairers. This necessitated the use of non-Whites and the figure for non-White employment in 1975 was 6 073. In terms of a question that was answered in the House the other day, more than 16 000 Africans, Coloureds and Indians were said to be doing jobs that were previously done by Whites. Added to that statement was the fact that these jobs were in fact the right of the Whites and that the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians would not be permanently in those jobs if the jobs were needed by Whites. I think that is a diabolical statement which the hon. the Minister made. I think it is absolutely essential to give these Black, Coloured and Indian South Africans who have moved into those jobs security of tenure in those jobs. After all, the hon. the Minister wants them to perform efficiently, and for them to do so, they have to be happy and secure in their work. They cannot be happy and secure in their work if they feel that they are temporarily there at the pleasure of the Whites and at the pleasure of the Government. One of the first things the hon. the Minister must do, is to tell them that they are permanently in that work, that they have been accepted in that work and that they are going to get the same training and the same pay for the same work done as is the case with White workers.

In a reply to another question that was asked it was stated that due to staff shortages last year, 10 194 goods trains were cancelled. We also learnt that 140 000 Whites and 134 000 Blacks worked overtime last year. The total cost of this overtime to South Africa was R83 250 000, of which the Whites were paid R72 750 000. The indications are that there are staff shortages and that overtime work—which is not a good thing and I will tell you now why it is not a good thing—is being done. The Government has in South Africa a vast potential of Black, Coloured and Indian people with the ability, talent and desire to become employed permanently, productively and effectively in these positions. It is up to the hon. the Minister to change the system and to make it possible for those people to fill those jobs. Overtime is not a good thing and it should be discouraged. Employees tend to accept overtime pay as part of their normal income and their normal employment. When that is cut back, as is now the case, in terms of the steps that the Railways are now taking against inflation, those people feel aggrieved and suffer as a result. It is far more healthy to reduce overtime to the minimum necessary and to improve people’s incomes in order that every person should have an income to give him a decent and normal standard of life.

I believe that the hon. the Minister can do a great service to South Africa by removing apartheid from the Railways. This is after all in line with the Government’s intentions. It is in line with the policy that the Government has set out in the United Nations and it is in line with what they have been saying to the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians of this country. The hon. the Minister of Transport has a golden opportunity to say that he is going to use his department to remove apartheid from the system to show South Africa what can be done in an organization which is apartheid-free, and in that way he will make a tremendous contribution to the success and the happiness of his department.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston started his speech by referring to a coalition. As a Natalian I should like to convey my congratulations to the Natal cricket team for having won the Currie Cup. In this connection one can probably say that apart from the Railway budget, two things have attracted a great deal of interest recently. One was the Currie Cup and the other, the events in the ranks of the official Opposition. However, there is a parallel between the two events, because in the battle for the Currie Cup, Western Province dropped out recently when they were beaten by Transvaal, and now Natal has emerged from the struggle as overall winner. In the UP, too, there was a disappointment recently when the leader of the UP in the Cape resigned. Then it was still hoped that the Transvaal would be able to do something, but I take it that there is good reason to believe that the leader of the UP in the Transvaal is also going to resign. In that respect a spirit of gladness still reigns in Opposition politics in Natal because they at least still give the official Opposition unanimous support.

As far as the Railway budget is concerned, a few important matters have been raised in this debate, to which replies must be furnished. The hon. member for Durban Point, who was the Opposition’s chief spokesman in this debate, moved the following amendment—

Is it not all true?

The truth of a number of these statements is beyond question. It is quite correct that due to the increase in rates, overall production and living costs will be increased. That is correct. Even though it is only temporary, this will lead to a drop in standards of living, due to the simple fact that costs will rise and because a number of employees in South Africa will not receive a corresponding salary or wage increase. However, I very much doubt whether this in itself will lead to greater unemployment. I doubt whether this budget can be responsible for greater unemployment, nor do I think that it will involve greater social insecurity. Let us accept for the moment that this budget will lead to an increase in production and living costs and that this will entail a drop in the standard of living, and let us then argue the question whether this is a reason to refuse to accept the budget. What is the alternative? The alternative would be that there should be no increase in rates, and what would the effect of that be? The effect would be that the transport system in South Africa would be facing a deficit of more than R340 million within a year. Might this not involve a collapse of the economic stability of the transport system of South Africa? Surely it is ridiculous to say that because this involves an increase in the cost of living, we cannot approve it. After all, it is a well-known fact that in the present situation, in South Africa particular, we are prey to a recessionary situation which is a world-wide phenomenon. Perhaps it did not have so great an influence on South Africa last year, but this year its influence has been felt far more and this makes it necessary for us to tighten our belts more and be prepared to accept certain things, inter alia, an increase in costs, in the hope that it will be temporary. Together with the inconvenience entailed by increased costs, we must bear in mind at all times that the important point is that the transport and railway system of South Africa should continue to be soundly based. This is the really important consideration. To be able to do this, to keep the transport system of South Africa on a sound economic basis, there is unfortunately no alternative at this juncture but to increase the rates. The Railways, unlike a firm in the private sector, cannot ensure by way of advertisements that they will get a greater volume of traffic. As the primary transport organization in the country, the Railways can only convey the traffic that is there. That is why the Railways has to be run on a sound economic basis.

In the course of his speech the hon. member for Durban Point referred to certain aspects relating to the private hauliers in Durban’s harbour area. I wish to react to this and say to him that I accept that some of the hauliers or the haulier organization discussed the matter with him and that he is doing his best to act as their spokesman here. An important consideration is that the large-scale use of containerization has introduced a new system into harbour transport and transportation in general. The arrangement that private hauliers in Durban handled the bulk of local goods worked well in Durban as long as containerization did not enter the picture. But due to the introduction of containerization, the whole system has been changed. There are now container stacking areas which have to be very effectively controlled by computer to be efficient. 30% of the traffic for the Durban area will be transferred from the stacking area to general container depots and all that traffic which is not regarded as bulk traffic, viz. the multi-container traffic in which goods being sent to various destinations are packed into one container, may still be handled by the private hauliers. Apart from this, about 30% of the total harbour traffic will not be in containers and that traffic, too, may still be handled by the private hauliers. In other words, an estimated 56% of the total traffic will still be handled by private hauliers. However, one cannot expect that a new system which will have to be handled very carefully, should be left to 40 different hauliers with more than 2 000 vehicles. It would be simply impossible for 40 different hauliers with 2 000 different vehicles to handle this system—necessarily a carefully controlled one—in an orderly fashion. For the sake of the efficiency and orderliness of this system it is therefore essential for the handling of the containers in the general container stacking area to be left to one body only, namely the Railways, which has introduced mechanization and has done all the necessary spadework to enable it to handle this effectively and with dispatch. For the sake of the efficient operation of this system the Railways will simply have to handle that aspect of the work. I am now referring to the large quantity of traffic coming from the container stacking area. The private hauliers will still be able to handle all the general cargo which enters the harbour and has to be shipped. They will still be able to handle the goods which have to be packed into containers in the harbour area and the other goods which need not be packed and do not constitute container traffic. To maintain, therefore, that this system will deprive the private hauliers of their livelihood is incorrect.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that 309 mechanical horses and 660 trailers were standing on blocks because they were ordered as long ago as May and June of last year, whereas a start will only be made with containerization in June 1977. The total number of mechanical horses delivered for the harbours and goods depots throughout the country up to the end of January this year amounted to 327 and the number of trailers was 818. In the case of Durban, 101 mechanical horses and 233 trailers were delivered.

Where do you get those figures from?

These are official figures. The private hauliers have to register their facilities with the traffic department and that is why information of this nature is in fact available. I accept that the information which the hon. member for Durban Point provided was given to him, but it is not quite correct. The total requirements for Durban harbour and city up to 31 March 1979 comprise 177 mechanical horses and 709 trailers. This includes the equipment for both the internal service within the harbour and the cartage service in Durban. Delivery is country-wide in accordance with a programme which takes into account the capacity of the contractors and the fact that the equipment cannot be delivered at the very last moment. Major projects are programmed in advance.

The hon. member added that the expenses had already been incurred by the private hauliers. He said—

The vehicles of the harbour hauliers are registered by the department, as I have just mentioned. According to the latest information they possess jointly more than 384 trailers, only 20 of which are suitable for the conveyance of containers. According to the department’s calculations about 624 trailers are needed for an effective cartage service. Say for example that all the harbour hauliers’ trailers, namely the 384 less the 20, could be converted—the hon. member for Durban Point said that only 200 were suitable—then at least 240 additional trailers would have to be purchased. The conversion of the 364 trailers at the cost tariff for equivalent work for the Railways is calculated at a minimum of R850 each, in other words, R309 400 for the conversion of the 364 trailers that already exist. To have an effective service it will also be necessary to provide 240 additional trailers at a cost of R6 000 each if all this work were to be handled by these private hauliers. This amounts to a total cost of R1,75 million. I accept that the figures provided by the hon. member for Durban Point were given to him, but they are not quite correct.

May I ask the hon. member how it is possible, if it is in fact true that as he indicates there are only 20 available trailers which can be used, that the private hauliers are at this moment handling the total turnover of 2 500 coast-wise containers?

The information that 20 trailers are at this moment suitable for container traffic is the information which the private hauliers have registered with the authorities.

How do they handle it?

If the information is not correct, they have neglected to register the information correctly with the authorities, as is their duty, or else it is true in any event that they will not have sufficient trailers to deal with all the traffic.

Which authority provided the figures?

I obtained this information from the officials of the Railways.

Now I should like to deal with a few other aspects. As far as the rates increase is concerned, I, as a representative of an agricultural constituency, must likewise express my regret that the rates for livestock have once again been increased. It is true—as hon. members have rightly remarked—that these costs should only be borne by the producer, by the fanner himself. He cannot pass them on to the consumer. I accept that where they can be passed on to the consumer, they are distributed among the total population of South Africa. In such cases, and in view of the existing economic circumstances, increases are essential at present. However, where such a service has to be borne by a small number of producers and where that service cannot be passed on, this involves heavy burdens. I regret that it was deemed necessary to increase the freight charges on livestock once again, the third time in a short period.

Another aspect raised in the course of the debate was the fact that the profits on the pipeline are so substantial. On paper this looks like a reasonable argument, but we must take into account that there are special factors which ought not to be lost sight of. In the first instance, it is a fact that only half of the white petroleum conveyed is conveyed by means of the pipeline. The other 50% is conveyed in tankers. This aspect has already been fully investigated by a commission. I note that the hon. member for Benoni is unfortunately not present. I should have liked to hear from him whether he agrees with the opposition that the rates for the pipeline should be substantially reduced. According to information at my disposal, the commission that investigated this matter also made the recommendation that the pipeline should be commissioned. The commission also recommended that the rates should be standardized on the same basis as the rate which applied to the tankers. It was the Van Eck Commission. The late Dr. Van Eck, the father of the hon. member for Benoni, personally made these recommendations. It was on the basis of those recommendations that the rate was standardized, because 50% of the white petroleum had to be conveyed by tankers. What chaos it would have caused if only the rates which applied to the pipeline were reduced due to the enormous profits, whereas half of the white petroleum which has to be conveyed throughout the country was still conveyed by tankers at economic rates? Anything of this nature would surely have caused absolute chaos. That is why it is essential, to my way of thinking, that the Opposition in general should accept for once and for all that because half of the white petroleum is conveyed by tankers and the other half via the pipeline, it is impracticable to lower the rates for the pipeline, while leaving unchanged the rates applying in respect of the tankers. Surely it is economic logic that the parity between the two should be maintained.

There is one further appeal I want to make, an appeal which, unfortunately, I shall be unable to make during the Committee Stage because it concerns a matter which does not fall under any specific Vote. It concerns the running of the Sick Fund of the Railways. There are certain rules which apply to that fund. I am aware that it is essential that there should be certain rules, for example rules relating to the panels of doctors available. However, there are nevertheless cases where in my opinion, some spirit of compromise should be shown and where the panel allocation system should not be adhered to with such absolute strictness. Without mentioning names, I want to refer to one specific instance. A railway pensioner from my constituency visited Johannesburg. His wife fell seriously ill there and had to be taken to hospital urgently and be treated by a specialist in Johannesburg. Under the rules of the Sick Fund it was a requirement that she be treated by the doctors of her panel in Ladysmith. In this case, however, the treatment was a matter of urgency, and it was impossible and, in the opinion of the specialist, undesirable, to allow her to travel long distances in the condition she was in to be treated by the doctors of her panel. However, because she had to be treated urgently, she was treated by a doctor on the Witwatersrand, and expenditure of more than R1 000 was incurred. However, the Railway Sick Fund refused to pay out this amount because, strictly speaking, it was not allowed in terms of the rules of the Railways Sick Fund. As a result, this railway pensioner had to pay more than R1 000 because he had his wife, who was in need of urgent treatment, treated in Johannesburg, viz. outside the area of his Sick Fund panel. I am aware that the Railways Sick Fund does not fall entirely under the direct control of the Railway Administration, but is largely run by the staff themselves. However, I want to appeal to the officials involved to be more accommodating and to have a greater understanding for people who have problems and are emergency cases, as in this specific instance. I think it is essential for attention to be given to this and I want to ask that this should in fact be done.

The Railways is probably one of the most important enterprises which contributes towards the total economy of South Africa. If, therefore, it is necessary to keep the Railways on a sound economic basis by means of increasing rates, then that does not constitute a crisis. Economic fluctuations of prosperity and recession are always occurring. Unfortunately we are at present experiencing one of the low points. To remain economically sound, we have to keep the Railways on a sound economic basis. To be able to do so it was essential, in the present circumstances, to increase rates. To run the Railways on an unsound economic basis would have had an effect which would be felt throughout the economy of South Africa. It would have been inadvisable and inappropriate and would have given rise to consequences which would in the future have had a detrimental effect on our economy. I therefore ask that in spite of the present unfavourable economic situation, the Railways should continue on a sound basis and that we should make provision, even in these circumstances, for the extension of the Railway system on a sound basis. We are at present experiencing exceptionally difficult international conditions. In view of the developments in Africa, particularly on our borders in both the east and the west, I am convinced that all the developments in Africa form a prelude to what will probably be a third world war within a few years. I am convinced that these are strategic moves made by Russia to develop its power base and at one stage or another America will have to say: “So far and no further”. I foresee that we are probably heading for a world war and South Africa will have to have a sound, economic transport system. It is therefore essential in my opinion that the Railways should make provision even now for an increase in the carrying capacity of the main line between the Witwatersrand and Durban because it is the carrying capacity of this line that is causing bottle-necks at the moment. I am also of the opinion that it is essential that the harbour facilities at Richards Bay be expanded to make provision for general traffic as well. I predict that this will be necessary within a few years and it is therefore desirable that planning, at least, should be carried out at this stage so that that traffic may be handled as soon as possible. South Africa’s transport system has always been prepared for any emergency. When our air service was prevented from flying over certain African countries, we were ready, almost in the same week, to fly around the horn of Africa. The Railways has an able management and able staff. It is true that deficiencies do exist, but in general it is in efficient hands. The planning of the Railways is of the finest. I therefore want to express my full confidence that the Railways in South Africa will continue to operate to the best advantage of South Africa, its economy and all its people.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to congratulate the hon. member for Klip River on his very interesting and stimulating speech.

I have listened attentively today and yesterday, to the debate and the arguments advanced by the Opposition. Instead of solutions and alternatives, all they produced was a stream of words. They failed to suggest a single solution.

I have studied the budget and have tried to measure it against accepted and recognized financial and economic principles. If one measures the budget against this criterion, one finds, in the first instance, that what we have here is a vast organization whose sphere of activities extends to the furthest outposts of our vast country. The Railways plays a vitally important economic role in this organization. However, as the hon. member who spoke before me spelt it out, the Railways plays not only a major economic role but also a very important strategic role. Nor does it end there, however. In recent times it has also become clear that our Railways plays an important diplomatic role in the interests of South Africa. I think that that role will one day occupy a very important place in our history.

Not only is the Railways the biggest employer—I need not stress this again—it is also the biggest capital investor, the biggest purchaser of consumer goods and the biggest export organization. This fact has been referred to time and again in the course of this debate. What steps must and can be taken to balance these giant-sized books at a time of price increases and reduced revenue? If one measures this budget against that criterion, it is clear that one first has to ask oneself: What does the top management of this organization look like? That, surely, is the basis which any economist would adopt as his point of departure. If we measure the Railways against this criterion, I am very grateful to be able to say today that this country is blessed with people in that top management who need stand aside for no one. These are people of whom we can justly be proud. It is a top management unequalled in any other country.

If, in the second place, one measures it against economic standards, one asks whether there has been planning. This budget proves—hon. members who spoke before me, have already spelt this out—that there has certainly been very thorough planning here, and combating of inflation, another important economic aspect. Thorough planning has been carried out so that expenditure may be curbed—there are good examples of this—so that productivity may be boosted, so that fewer trains may carry more and so there labour saving may be effected. About 4 000 posts are no longer occupied as a result.

At this juncture one might as well say— and it should be publicized—that we are now living in a period in which, if anyone has a job, he should look after it because only then will he be able to keep it. The time has come for us to stress this aspect, because it is only when one gets the best out of a man that we shall solve our problems.

However, there is another economic aspect, too, viz. savings on capital works, of which there are very good examples. For example, there is the use made of self-generated fund investments with which to finance new capital works. This is an excellent new method indicated by the budget. We have advocated reduced imports here in the House of Assembly. This has happened, because we made laws and rules to reduce imports and it is the revenue of the Railways that is now being prejudiced thereby. If all these and yet other steps are taken, only one solution remains to us in this country, namely to do what is unpopular and increase rates. We on this side of the House do not flinch from doing this, because it is the only solution.

As a matter of fact, I prepared myself to discuss the S.A. Airways, and to begin with I want to say that I am exceptionally proud of the S.A. Airways. In contrast to the hon. member for Orange Grove, I am proud of the achievements of our S.A. Airways, because the S.A. Airways is still the branch of our transport service of which we may undoubtedly and with reason be proud. We are proud not only of its achievements, but also of the staff. I want to stress this, because the staff on the ground, in the air, at the airport and far away overseas are doing a tremendous job for South Africa. We in this House have every reason to be proud of these people and their achievements.

In comparison with other countries we are doing reasonably well in spite of problems such as rising fuel prices, the influence of devaluation, the additional flights we have introduced and increased international fares which are imposed on us and which we cannot do anything about. If we also take into account the fact that the routes our airline has to follow are so much longer than the routes which our pool partners have to follow, this single item sets us back R20 million per annum, because this is the additional amount in fuel that we have to pay, only because we have to fly a longer distance. If it had not been for that, we should actually have been doing very well. If we had been able to fly a direct route, no other airline could hold a candle to our air service. Even until last year our results of working were exceptionally good.

Today we have a fine fleet, and I think it is the biggest fleet our airline has ever had. For example, we have five 747 Super-B aircraft, six SPs, eight Boeing 707s, nine Boeing 727s, six Boeing 737s, three Hawker-Siddeleys, and our newest addition is four Airbuses. This gives us a total of 41 aircraft, which in my opinion is something to be proud and grateful about.

However, it is a pity that it was necessary to increase the fares. Nevertheless, there is no other solution. I can, however, assure hon. members that our domestic fares do not compare at all badly with those of other countries in the world. I did a little research in this connection and found that a single ticket from Cape Town to Windhoek, a distance of 792 miles, costs R71. The single fare from the city of Brasilia to the Iquassa Falls, a distance of 795 miles, is R83,81. The fare from Cape Town to Durban, a distance of 774 miles, is R71, but the fare from Milan to Catania in Italy, a distance of 640 miles, which is substantially less, is R96,80. The distance from Johannesburg to Windhoek is 734 miles, and in that case the fare is R66. In Norway the distance from Oslo to Tromso is 719 miles and in that case the fare is R67,70. The distance from Johannesburg to East London is 479 miles and the fare amounts to R53. In England the distance from London to Inverness is 456 miles and in that case the fare is R72,80, in other words, a difference of R21. I could continue in this vein, but what I really want to indicate is that although we are in the unfortunate position of having to increase our fares, our fares are still reasonably cheap compared with those of other countries.

This brings me to the other issue raised yesterday by the hon. member for Orange Grove when he advocated the separation of the various services. For example, he said that the S.A. Airways should compete on the open market with private enterprises. However, I have now spelt out what the situation is in other countries and therefore we can justly be proud of the situation in South Africa as far as fares are concerned, because in spite of this problem, our airline and our whole system are still doing extremely well. In recent times a great deal has been written about delays on our air routes. A great deal has been said on the matter in this House and there was a brief reference to this issue yesterday. I want to make the statement that a good domestic service is an image builder. If I may say so, what I mean thereby is that overseas visitors who travel to this country either on the S.A. Airways or on some other airline, and who have to make use of our domestic flights, are impressed by a good domestic service. It acts as an incentive to make more use of the services of our S.A. Airways on the international routes. Already it is a feather in our cap that so many of the overseas visitors already make use of the S.A. Airways in spite of the fact that they have to travel a longer distance. However, because our flights are uninterrupted and are therefore direct flights, we are already being well supported in this respect.

I think that our people ought to regard it as an act of patriotism to fly on the S.A. Airways when we go overseas. However, the fly in the ointment is the issue of delays. This is one of those factors which does our image harm and can cause inconvenience. It is also true that it is human nature not to want to wait. If one is in a hurry, one minute feels like ten and ten minutes feel like an hour. Passengers are also inclined to leave insufficient time between their appointments and times of departure of the aircraft. The slightest delay upsets that passenger’s programme. I do not think it would be inappropriate to request our passengers once again to leave sufficient time between their appointments and their flights. Last year I pointed out that in 1972 there were 18 delays for every thousand flights. However, later on that position changed substantially due to the efforts made by the Airways to convey the large number of passengers. When we encountered fuel problems and the speed on our roads was reduced and the fuel prices were substantially increased, the Airways had to handle more passengers with the same number of aircraft at their disposal. New aircraft could not simply be bought off the shelf and as a result new capacity had to be created. Flying hours were increased and turnaround times were substantially reduced—from 45 minutes to 30 minutes. Every available aircraft was taken into service. We now have six seats instead of five in a row. Two of the older 707s were also used on the domestic routes. All these measures contributed towards the airways increasing its capacity by 22%. Economically speaking we got the most out of an aircraft. This gave rise to very good results of working, because an aircraft that is in the air is earning money, whereas one that is on the ground is not earning money. However, these procedures made the Airways susceptible to delays. The slightest fault in an aircraft caused a delay, because spare aircraft were not available and it was therefore necessary to wait until that one was repaired. Under such circumstances, delays cause a chain reaction because if an aircraft is delayed early in the morning at Jan Smuts, this causes it to be delayed for the rest of the day as far as its route takes it. There are many kinds of delays, but I do not want to dwell on all of them because my time is getting short. Passengers that have already booked in and do not turn up, constitute one of the biggest problems experienced. To solve this problem, use is now being made of the so-called transit lounges. At Jan Smuts such a transit lounge has already been provided in the old international hall, which passengers who have already booked in may not leave. They remain there and from there they go directly to the aircraft. In this way the problem of there being luggage on the aircraft whereas the passenger is missing, will be eliminated. This is a very important reason for delays. Another reason is the computer that is sometimes out of order. Over-bookings occur and freight has to be loaded on board. Here at D. F. Malan I was an eyewitness of a situation when we had to wait about 20 minutes while a vast quantity of airfreight had to be loaded on board. This kind of thing simply happens and causes delays.

There are other reasons for delays too, for example a lack of sufficient staff. Sometimes it happens that some of the Black workers do not turn up. They get their money on Friday and then the next time one sees them is on Tuesday. In the meantime the people are saddled with major problems in that regard. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that some of our Airways staff sometimes lend a hand themselves to do that work which other people were supposed to do. Poor weather conditions are another reason for delays, but the biggest single reason is technical problems. Because we have such a good safety record, no chances are taken, if I may use that expression. Consequently this sometimes causes long delays. Because we do everything to ensure the safety of our people, the slogan—and I should prefer this to remain the slogan—is: “Rather late than never.” At peak periods we have no reserves, and the resultant high utilization has the effect that the aircraft cannot always be on time.

Looking at the situation in our country, it is also clear to me that as far as delays are concerned, the picture is not quite so sombre as it may appear. In the “On time rankings” of the periodical Air Transport World, one finds a very interesting exposition. In August we had 1 281 departures from Jan Smuts Airport, 1 195 of which departed on time. In other words, 93,2% were on time. I shall not have the time to go into this further and draw comparisons. Let me just say in conclusion that the Airbus which is now being taken into service will solve many of these problems. Although I do not think it will eliminate the delays entirely, I am convinced that punctuality is going to improve.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 75.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively and with great interest to the debate which has been conducted here since yesterday. It followed a budget which was submitted to the House and in which substantial tariff increases were announced. Tariff increases are naturally unpopular. Nor do I expect any member of this House to regard them as popular. In fact, personally I should have preferred to lower the rates rather than raise them. But in the light of present economic conditions in this country, I had no choice.

Since yesterday, a debate has been conducted on the proposals contained in the budget. I think the hon. member for Kempton Park, who has just spoken, summed it up very well when he said that instead of alternatives or other solutions, we had only a torrent of words. I noticed certain features in the debate which has been conducted. Firstly, I want to say that I heard no allegations of mismanagement or of a lack of good management. On behalf of the management and the officials of the S.A. Railways, with all its ramifications, I want to express my gratitude to the House for this. A second feature is that no personal attacks were made on me.

We have already written you off.

Hon. members could very easily have referred to me as “the incompetent Minister”, etc. This was not done and I want to express my personal appreciation in this regard …

We do not state the obvious!

… to the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. members on both sides of the House.

After all, there is a coalition in the Johannesburg city council.

A third feature was the singularly capable way in which this side of the House debated.

That must be the joke of the century!

The hon. members on this side of the House dealt with one argument after another, and it is true to say that too few arguments came from that side of the House for this side of the House to reply to.

That is why you had to match two speakers against one!

However that may be, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. members on this side of the House who replied so effectively to the arguments.

There are certain matters of policy which, in my opinion, can be argued further, matters of policy such as the socio-economic services which are rendered, the self-financing of capital projects, the higher depreciation to which, inter alia, the hon. member for Maitland referred, etc. To give me an opportunity to discuss these matters of policy after fuller consideration, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosettenville is not here at the moment but I gave him an indication that if he were to move an amendment which was acceptable, I would consider accepting it. However, there is a great deal more involved in such an amendment than I initially realized and I shall be pleased if he will give me the opportunity, after this debate has been concluded, to discuss the matter with the department and to go into the various possibilities. I shall then consider moving an amendment in the Other Place. He can trust me on that score because in essence I agree with his argument. It all depends on whether it will be possible for our department to do this, in the light of the Rumpff report.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the reply of the hon. the Minister and the undertaking which he has given to have another look at this matter. We were convinced all along that the hon. member for Rosettenville certainly had merit in the amendments which he moved and it was his intention, too, for the information of the hon. the Minister, to move the following amendment—

This was simply to correct the original amendments which he had moved. However, in the light of the undertaking given by the hon. the Minister, we shall not move this amendment now. As the hon. member for Rosettenville is not present to withdraw his amendments, they must stand, but we shall not press the issue.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 80:

Mr. Chairman, in terms of this clause “an accused may examine the charge at any stage of the relevant criminal proceedings”. It is a well-known fact that very often an accused is represented in Court and it is our contention that where an accused is represented, or has a legal representative, the legal representative should also have access to the charge at any stage of the relevant criminal proceedings. I do not believe it is necessary for me to say any more on this particular matter, except to move formally the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

If the hon. the Minister will look at section 310(3) of the existing Act, he will find that it reads as follows—

In other words, the amendment which we are now putting to the hon. the Minister is nothing more than a restatement of the existing law.

Mr. Chairman, we on these benches support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, particularly in view of the fact that it stands in the Act at present in the section to which he has referred.

Mr. Chairman, I agree in principle with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I want to indicate, however, that we should not like to put it that way in the Bill because in fact it is unnecessary. Throughout the Bill a pattern is followed according to which reference is made only to the accused. After all, it is general knowledge that the moment an accused is represented, his legal representative automatically has access to the charge sheet. That wording has been left out throughout the Bill. It is in fact stated this way in the existing Act. I am aware of that. Nevertheless, it is the case that whenever a man receives a charge sheet, a copy of it is automatically handed to his legal representative as well. Consequently, I do not think it is necessary to state this expressly. In any event, this simply makes the Bill inelegant, if I may put it that way.

Mr. Chairman, while I understand what the hon. the Minister says, I must point out that I have had many experiences, especially with reference to section 380 of the Act, where there is a similar wording. Section 380 states that a person who has made a statement is entitled to it. We have had endless difficulties, because people who subsequently become accused people, ask for their statements. Very often prosecutors and members of the Attorney-General’s staff say: “No, the section says the person who made the statement can have the statement. I am not going to give it to you.” That has happened many times, and I hope that if the hon. the Minister is not going to accept this amendment, he will give a direction to the department to the effect that where the legislation refers to the accused, it also includes his legal representative.

Mr. Chairman, we shall inform the people in the departmental code that it should be like this.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 85:

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the proviso in clause 85—in line 28—which reads—

If one looks at section 165 in the present Act, one will find that the proviso there reads—

Further on, in section 168, it states—

Now, it is the same thing we find in this clause. However, section 168(2) of the Act goes on to say—

As I see it here, the requirements in the existing Act that a notice should be given, is sometimes not really enforced. I do not believe that we should again now perpetuate what we see is sometimes not necessary in the existing Act. I cannot see how it can be that the State will be prejudiced in any way at all if an accused, appearing before a court, immediately states, before he is requested to plead, that he has various objections to the charge. If one deletes the proviso—and I will move an amendment to this effect in a moment—subsection (2)(a) will provide that—

As I see it this covers the situation. There are occasions where illiterate accused may well raise what amounts to a valid objection in terms of subsection (1), not knowing that it is in fact a valid objection before plea. Then the court may well say that because of the proviso the accused must give reasonable notice. The court will have to decide what is reasonable notice, but the mere fact that there is a proviso that there should be notice of some sort is, I believe, not necessary. I believe that the court is adequate and competent to take steps in terms of subsection (2)(a) and that the proviso is therefore not really necessary under these circumstances. Therefore I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, in principle I agree with the hon. member for East London City, because if a charge sheet is defective, whether the court has had notice of it or not, the moment the court or prosecutor sees it, the court is entitled to make an amendment to it. The only reason why I would not like to omit the words—and I raise this for the consideration of the hon. member—is because it gives the representative of the accused an indication that he must timeously bring his objection as any postponement is against the accused and will cost the accused money. These words will immediately indicate to an accused that his representative must give timeous notice of such objections, which are purely technical and which will then give the State the opportunity of bringing the necessary amendment, which the State has an inherent right to in any case. I think this provision is in favour of the accused himself and if we delete it we will find legal representatives who will not follow this guideline as it were, but will come to court and take a postponement. It will mean another day’s hearing and another day’s costs for the accused. As the clause reads now, the court can ask the legal representative when he was briefed and if he says that he was briefed two weeks ago, the court can ask him why he did not give adequate notice of his objection. This deletion will be against the accused, because an adjournment will automatically follow if there is some material amendment which the State wants to look at. The State prosecutor will immediately say: “I want a postponement in order to find out what amendments I must propose.” I think that if it is laid down in legislation itself that timeous notice must be given, it will be in favour of the accused.

What about the unrepresented accused?

As I have said, it does not really matter if the person is unrepresented and cannot find out if there is a technical defect. The court will probably see a technical defect in the charge sheet and will immediately say to the prosecutor that he must stand down and there will be a postponement, unfortunately against the accused. However, if the accused has legal representation he will be warned before the time, because as far as the accused is concerned, the expenses are pretty high.

Mr. Chairman, I understand what the hon. member for East London City is trying to do and I also understand what the hon. the Minister is aiming at. It seems to me that you have got to have a clause requiring notice. Notice to the State is important, because it tells the State whether they need to call witnesses on that day. Very often witnesses come from far away. There are two things they have to know. Not only must they know that you are going to object to the indictment in the charge; they must also know the grounds. It is a prerequisite that one should set out the grounds. I do think, however, that there is some merit in what the hon. member for East London City says, viz. that there should be a clause stipulating that it can be waived by the State or that the courts may on good cause dispense with such notice. At this stage I do not want to move an amendment, because there is already one before the Committee, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to retain the requirement for notice. If there is an additional subsection in exactly the terms of section 168(2), they can dispense with the notice in those cases where it is not necessary. I think it is necessary for the State, but I think there should be a proviso in terms of section 168(2) in the present Act to the effect that it can be dispensed with.

Mr. Chairman, I am not against it, but I think it is unnecessary because a waiver is inherent in this right that the State already has. There is no sense in the State carrying on with a defective charge just because a man has brought an amendment at the last moment. I think a waiver is automatic. This is more a guide-line to the legal representatives, as the hon. member for Durban North has pointed out. I think that is correct. A waiver is inherent in the provision as it is.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 87:

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment which I have on the Order Paper, is to enable the accused to request further particulars and to enable the court to order them before or during the trial. That is the effect of the amendment.

In the existing legislation, in section 179 of the code, those precise words appear in the first subsection. I quote—

I want to make the point that is not an amendment which in fact hampers the court in arriving at the truth. This amendment does the exact opposite. Its intention is to enable the court to arrive at the truth quickly. There are decisions which lay down that the court will not refuse to make an order on the grounds that evidence has already been led. That is the present situation. If, however, one has a clause such as we have in this Bill, viz. that one can in effect only ask and be given further particulars before any evidence has been led, it is an artificial device to restrict the ability of the court to arrive at the truth and to clarify the issues.

Nonsense.

Somebody on my left says it is nonsense, but the point is that if it has happened in the past—I have pointed out that it has happened, as in Rex v. De Coning, 1954 (2) on page 647—that the court has granted an order for further particulars after evidence has been led, it obviously does that because it is to the advantage of the court and all the parties in the case to know exactly what the issues are. Anybody who has been involved in substantial trials knows that issues—it is often difficult to define issues— can change during the course of a trial. It very seldom happens that one has to ask the particulars after evidence has been led, but where it does happen, it is very necessary. It is like the person who once said that one does not need a six-shooter very often, but when one needs it, one needs it very badly. In this situation, where one has led evidence and one needs further particulars, there should be such a power. It is in fact being taken away. I am pleading for the status quo as it is at the moment. I would like to make the point that neither the Botha Commission nor the original Bill which the hon. the Minister brought before the House contained a clause such as the one which is now before the House. If there is an obscurity at a certain stage in the trial which needs clarification and the court is unable to satisfy its own mind, it will end up with the situation where it has to give the accused the benefit of the doubt and, in this way, even more accused may be acquitted on technical grounds. I therefore move the following amendments—

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address my remarks to the hon. member for Durban North because it is not quite clear to me from the wording we are considering now, exactly what he wants and I should like clearly to understand what he wants because it is obviously an important issue. The existing wording of the Bill says—

To me that seems to suggest that either before the trial commences, but after receipt of the indictment or at any particular stage during the leading of evidence—for example, when evidence on one aspect of a number of charges or a charge has been completed and before one moves on to the other—one could apply for particulars so that one is not taken by surprise at the next stage of the prosecution’s evidence. That is as it stands at the moment. The hon. member for Durban North suggests that the words to which I have referred be omitted and that “either before or at the trial” be substituted. The words “before the trial” are understood and it is clear, but the words “or at the trial” are not so clear. Does it mean at the commencement of the trial or does it mean at any stage during the trial proceedings? If it does mean at any stage during the trial proceedings, then it is not clear to me that these words which are proposed to be inserted, are very different from the words which are already there. I wish to emphasize that I approach the matter from a spirit of inquiry, because the change which the proposed amendment seeks to make to the wording of the Bill is not clear to me.

Mr. Chairman, the position is, as it stands in the Bill, that—

I can only understand those words in one way, namely that a right is given to the accused only before any evidence has been led, before there is any evidence at all. In other words, what is proposed in the present clause, as I understand it, is that one can ask for particulars only up to the moment when the first word in evidence is led. The amendment which I have moved is to bring the situation into line with the existing Act, so that particulars can be requested either before or at the trial. In regard to the words as they stand at the moment, I have a commentary by Judge Harcourt in his book on criminal procedure where he says—

The words as they stand in the law at present, namely “either before or at the trial” have therefore been held to mean after evidence as well. As the words stand in the Bill, namely “at any stage before any evidence in respect of any particular charge has been led …”, I understand that to mean that one cannot ask for particulars after evidence has been led. Therefore I suggest that my amendment will allow particulars to be asked for and granted after evidence has been led.

Mr. Chairman, I propose to support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North because I think he is correct. I get the impression that the hon. the Minister is under the same misapprehension as I was. The words “at any stage before any evidence in respect of any particular charge has been led” would allow particulars to be asked after the evidence on one charge has been led and prior to the evidence on another charge in the same case has been led, but I think the hon. member who has just spoken is correct when he says that this would preclude an application for particulars after the evidence on a particular charge has commenced. One knows that circumstances can arise where, having heard a certain aspect of the evidence, the direction of the case changes and it is reasonable to ask for particulars at that stage. The court would not grant an application of that kind unless it thought that there was good ground for doing it. The wording in the Bill as it stands would preclude the court from exercising its discretion in that regard and I would suggest that the hon. the Minister considers favourably the amendment that has been moved.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment and I shall try to tell hon. members why not. In the first place, as the Bill reads at the moment, the words in question are in favour of an accused. If hon. members take a look at the legal texts on particulars, they will discover that particulars are there in order to set out in advance and with precision, the issues in a court case. The idea, therefore, is that the State is not to catch an accused unawares with what it comes up with. It therefore gives an accused the right to request details beforehand so that the accused knows exactly what case is being brought against him and which facts he has to disprove or dispute and what he has to give evidence about. Once this has been done, it would mean, if I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North, that the State would later on be able to add particulars from evidence which has been led in order to strengthen its case. If the State sees that the evidence has taken a certain turn and that the case may still be regarded as a crime, the State can give particulars in order to adjust the case slightly and it can then say that what the particulars mean is the same as what the witnesses have just said. In the first place, I do not think this is fair to an accused and the department feels that the State ought to state its case in advance with absolute clarity by means of particulars and then present it to the court. The State must stand or fall on the strength of that case. If the evidence later on turns against the State, the case fails, but if the evidence does not turn against the State, the case is continued.

Unfortunately, what is happening now, does in fact happen but it only happens in certain cases. The only time people ask for additional particulars during a trial, is not when the case has to be clarified. Under such circumstances, the defence has either forgotten to ask for particulars or has not done its work properly and has continued to ask for particulars until satisfied about what the case against the client comprised. In such a case, postponement is sought and the easiest way to obtain postponement is to ask for particulars. The prosecutor then says that particulars have already been given. In such a case one says that one wants to argue the case that the Act provides that certain particulars may be given and the court must first consider this. The whole courtcase can therefore be halted at a certain stage by a request for particulars and this can in fact give the accused and his witnesses a breathing space to enable them to think matters over again. This is an old and familiar trick. If one has often been in court and one sees a witness beginning to stammer, one simply raises an objection to the prosecutor’s question. One knows that that objection will immediately be overruled but it gives the witness a breathing space and a chance to think about the question. Those are the tricks of the trade, unfortunately. One must not allow too many tricks in this game. It is only fair to the accused that the State should state its case fully and it is fair towards the State that the process cannot be used to afford all sorts of breathing spaces. As it stands, the wording is good enough to correct both of those matters. At the very beginning of my Second Reading speech I said we should do our utmost to afford an innocent person the opportunity of proving his innocence but that at the same time, we should not give a guilty person the chance to be mistakenly found not guilty. That is what this clause does and for that reason, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the clause reads at the moment, the hon. the Minister is quite correct in that the accused may only obtain particulars before evidence has been led. The amendment seeks to allow the accused the opportunity of obtaining further particulars after evidence has been led. I cannot see why the Minister is so perturbed about the accused asking for further particulars after evidence has been led, as the best safeguard of all is surely the judicial officer. If the judicial officer feels that the accused, his attorney or legal adviser is abusing the right to ask for further particulars, he will not grant the request for further particulars. There is that built-in safeguard as far as the hon. the Minister’s fear is concerned. Whatever happens, the judicial officer will ensure that this right to ask for further particulars during the trial is not abused by the accused or his attorney. They may well make the application, but if the judicial officer considers that the application is frivolous, he will not allow the application. In the light of that, I feel that this is a very reasonable amendment and I think that the hon. the Minister should accept it. We on this side of the House support it.

I wish to bring two quotes to the hon. the Minister’s attention. The one, which I think is basic and fundamental, is: “The accused should not be hampered in the presentation of a properly prepared defence”. It may well be that during the course of a trial new issues arise. The accused must then be able to properly present his defence. This is one of the reasons why we believe that this is a good measure. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, the court itself should be appraised of the issues. I believe that the court itself can be appraised of the issues if the accused makes application for further particulars. Above all, I think that the procedures that we are introducing now in this Bill mean that we will be less and less inclined to use the preparatory examinations. The summary trial will be used more and more. I see that the hon. the Minister nods his head; so it must be correct. Because of the fact that there will be more and more summary trials, I believe that it is all the more important that the accused should at all stages be entitled to further particulars. I believe that the argument which the hon. the Minister submitted just now as regards his objections to this amendment, does not really hold water. In point of fact it is the accused who must, in writing, request the prosecution to furnish particulars and it is the court that can order the prosecution to furnish particulars. It is not a question of the prosecution meru motu supplying further particulars; it is only after the request by the accused, in writing, and after a request by the court itself, that particulars which clarify the issue, are supplied. I believe that the hon. the Minister should give this a little more thought. I do not believe that there will be any real objection to this if he looks at it in the light of the fact that we will have more summary trial procedures in our courts in future.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the fallacy in the argument of the hon. member for East London City lies in the fact that new issues can be raised in the course of a trial. New issues do not come up in a trial. The issue is there when the trial starts and that issue must be clearly stated in particulars at the beginning of the trial by the prosecution. It is not possible for a new issue to arise in the course of the trial. The trial cannot take a turn whereby allegations into another crime are made. At the outset there is the charge which one is faced with and that charge pertains right to the end. The accused is either guilty of that or he is not guilty of that. There is no possibility whatsoever of new issues arising. Once a person has been charged, that charge against him stands and that is the issue before the court.

New issues can arise in the course of a complicated trial.

New issues do not arise as one goes along. The court does not play cat and mouse with the issues before it. Therefore it is only proper that all the issues involved should be set out clearly before the trial starts and, consequently, it is improper for there to be a request for further particulars during the course of the trial after the evidence has been led.

In a five-page indictment new issues can arise.

It is improper because the particulars are requested for the very reason that the evidence has brought out some new questions in the person’s mind as a result of which he wants further particulars from the State.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say I am not convinced by the hon. the Minister’s argument. Let us deal with the point he has just made. The hon. gentleman said that the issues are set out clearly at the beginning of a case and that it is not open to the State to alter that. I quite agree with that. We are not dealing with the point of whether or not the State is going to alter its charges or the presentation of its case. The words we are dealing with are the following: “Particulars or further particulars … of any matter alleged in the charge. ’ ’ That is to say, we are not dealing with the charge but with any matter alleged in the charge. As the hon. member for East London City has just said, there are complicated frauds and a variety of cases where the charge, far from consisting of one sentence, can run into five pages of typescript—one charge! In such a case, too, there can be three weeks of evidence dealing with that one charge because the “matter”, to use the word used in the Bill, covers such a wide field. In a case of that kind what might not appear to be of such importance that one requires particulars of it at the beginning of a case may well assume greater importance during the case so that particulars of it are required. That can only emerge and very often does only emerge when some evidence on the charge has been led. In order that the case be properly presented, those particulars are then necessary.

The answer of the hon. the Minister is twofold. Firstly, he says it can be, in a sense, abused to give the defence a “blaaskans”, as he put it. Sir, with respect, that does not hold water because these particulars have to be sought in writing and, if they are to serve any purpose, it would either be required that they be served on the prosecution at the adjournment at 4 o’clock in the afternoon and before the next day, in which case the question of a “blaaskans” does not come into it at all, or it would be required that an adjournment be asked for in the course of the proceedings in order to ask for the particulars. No court is going to grant an adjournment so that particulars can be sought unless there is a valid reason for that being done. I think that the chances of an abuse of the procedures set out in the amendment are very slim indeed.

The other point the hon. the Minister made was that the State must stand by its case as set out at the beginning of the proceedings and that it is unfair on the accused to allow the State in effect to change its grounds. However, that is not what would happen. It would be in the very presentation of the State’s case, as started with at the beginning, that this situation would arise. It would arise not as a result of the circumstances postulated by the hon. the Minister where the State changes its grounds, but as a result of the evidence which the State proposed to lead right from the beginning putting a different complexion on the charge as framed. It is to meet that situation, as I see it, that this amendment is introduced and I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider his attitude in this regard and consider adopting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the hon. the Minister correctly, at the commencement of a trial the accused is furnished with the charge and with further particulars if he asks for them. That is as far as the hon. the Minister went. However, if the hon. the Minister will refer to clause 86, he will see that at any time after evidence is led the charge may be changed. If the charge is changed, obviously the accused may want further particulars, and in the circumstances, because the charge can be changed after evidence is led and can be changed at any time during the course of the trial, it is obvious that the accused by the same token, conversely must be entitled to further particulars. It is our feeling in these benches that the court must be entitled to change the charge if it feels there is an omission, and it is stipulated in clause 86 that the court can do that. But by the same token the accused is vitally affected by the change in charge to the extent that he may require certain further particulars for his defence. This is a very reasonable amendment, and I would therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should accept it in the form in which it has been proposed.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member for Walmer’s reference to clause 86 is not a good example. It does not prove his statement. I shall tell him why not. The charge sheet can only be amended after certain evidence has been led. In other words, after the State has led certain evidence, a prosecutor may alter the charge sheet. That alteration is based on that evidence, however. In other words, these are particulars which have already been furnished in the evidence. It is therefore unnecessary to furnish any further particulars. The alteration of the charge sheet is based on evidence which has already been given. No particulars of this are necessary because it is based on evidence. The evidence itself constitutes the particulars. I am afraid therefore, that that argument does not hold water. My statement is basically correct if I say that the issues are to be formulated before the court case; the parties must know exactly where they stand and which charge they are to face before the evidence is led. This is basic and the accused is not supposed to be able to obtain a host of particulars throughout the trial.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is with me when I say that what one is trying to do is to eliminate unnecessarily long procedures during trials. I have seen more accused being convicted because they asked for further particulars and got them, than otherwise. The point is that the truth of the matter is going to be arrived at. Often one goes to the prosecutor or Attorney-General and asks beforehand how strong his case is. He replies that he does not know, but that he has certain statements and that he wants to try it out. He does not know how strong his case is. He says that to one quite honestly. Then the defence counsel tries to nail the issues. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the object of requiring further particulars is not only to enable the accused to know what the case of the State is, but also to peg the issues, like in a civil matter, so that the court knows what the State is going to rely upon. That pegs the issues and that is one of the reasons that one obtains further particulars, to tell the accused and, secondly, to peg the issues so that the court knows that it has to find on that issue and no other issue and that that issue is what the State has to prove.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, one has cases where one asks the State for further particulars and after this has been done the State withdraws the charge. They look at the matter and find upon close examination that they in fact do not have a case. By that means one has saved a great deal of time. However, the point I am trying to make is that further particulars do not enlarge trials, they make them smaller. The whole object of particulars is not to enlarge the issues, but to restrict them.

It is a fishing expedition.

Really, Mr. Chairman, I hear comments on my left about fishing expeditions, but these hon. members have so little knowledge of what a trial is really about. One cannot have a fishing expedition with an application for further particulars. As the hon. member for Walmer so correctly says it is in the hands of the judge or magistrate to say whether he is or is not prepared to give further particulars in a case. One is therefore not creating anything extra by allowing people to ask for further particulars during a trial. One is in fact giving a right which helps to restrict the ambit of the trial and make it a shorter trial. I therefore very earnestly ask the hon. the Minister to consider this amendment, which, as I pointed out to him, is in terms of the law as it stands at the moment, in exactly the same words. I have yet to come across one decision, anywhere in the law courts, where the judge has said that that is a bad right. There is not one. Many times, in fact, the application is refused. I can refer to dozens of cases in which applicants have been refused the right. It is in the hands of the judicial officer. If he refuses it, it is refused. However, it should be there to limit the issues. I must disagree with the hon. the Minister. In a charge as it stands in the beginning, many other issues can arise, especially during the trial. There can be a culpable homicide charge, but of a complicated variety, and at some later stage in the trial it may emerge that, in fact, self-defence becomes an issue.

It should be permissible to ask for particulars from the State in regard to that defence which now emerges during the trial. I accept that that is a very simple example, but there are many more complicated charges. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke about five-page indictments. Today there are many indictments running upwards of 150 pages, and in those cases we should be able to limit the issues from the point of view of both sides in order to shorten the trial.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear the hon. member for Durban North being so concerned about the interest of the State. I agree with him that in actual fact his amendment will probably go against the accused. In spite of that, I would like to refer him to Mr. Justice Hiemstra’s book.

*In his book this learned judge says the following about particulars—

If we take note of that statement, it is very clear that these particulars must be furnished before evidence is led so that the points of difference may be formulated very clearly. All the disadvantages of evidence during the trial are exactly as I have explained them. What it amounts to is that people are given the opportunity to obtain postponement in order to be able to reconsider and even discuss matters, etc. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Waterkloof, as follows—

The amendment proposes the deletion of the words “and negligently”, so that the charge in a case of culpable homicide will once again read the way it does at the moment—

The words “and negligently” were introduced into the Bill in an attempt to give an indication in the Criminal Procedure Act of the form of guilt which must be involved in culpable homicide. This refers to culpable homicide in terms of our common law, uninfluenced by English law.

However, it is now believed that the words “and negligently” should be deleted from the clause, firstly, because the Criminal Procedure Act does not lend itself to the creation of a material right or to giving an indication of what the material right is to be, and, secondly, because the retention of the words could cause confusion on the part of the courts, which are bound by the rulings according to which intention as a form of guilt may also exist in relation to culpable homicide.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the hon. the Minister would also accept our amendments with such alacrity. I want to discuss this amendment before the Committee agrees to it in spite of what the hon. the Minister says. On a reading to find out exactly what is intended in the previous section 323, it appears that there is some considerable objection to the existing requirements contained in it, particularly in regard to the offence of culpable homicide. Although the charge in relation to murder has also now been changed and brought more into line with common practice, on reading up what Hunt has to say on South African criminal law procedure, it appears that the whole emphasis in regard to possible homicide is not only on the negligent act of a person, but also on “the intentional act but in circumstances of partial excuse”. I can understand the reason why, if one puts in only the word “negligently” in the requirement in clause 98, one is going to exclude the opportunity of charging a party who has killed a person intentionally but in circumstances of partial excuse. When one, however, reads page 389 of Hunt’s book, one finds that he himself refers to certain aspects of the charge. I quote—

Then it goes on to say—

If one reads this carefully it appears to mean that the use of the words “wrongfully and unlawfully” does not impute fault. I do not know whether that is so or not. I believe that the use of the word “unlawfully” does in fact impute fault. This is what Hunt says. He goes on to say—

I quite agree with that and I am very pleased to see that the word “wrongfully” has been done away with in this clause. It does, however, worry me that the learned authors of this book were not satisfied that the use of the words “wrongfully” and “unlawfully” imputed fault. I rather feel that they do, but it appears here that they do not. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for his opinion as to whether the use of the word “unlawfully” without the use of the word “negligently” is correct. I may say that I agree with that. I agree that the word “negligently” should be scrapped because of the fact that there has been a change in the concept of culpable homicide, but I am still not quite satisfied that the use of the word “unlawfully” imputes fault.

Mr. Chairman, the word “unlawfully” does include the intention and if we were to add “and negligently”, we would be excluding those things that have already been found in our law. We would then find ourselves in a position where we would most probably have to charge a person with murder where we would normally have charged him with culpable homicide. The word “unlawfully” definitely includes the intention. If the word “negligently” were to be included, this would mean that people could not be charged with culpable homicide under circumstances which have already been found by our courts to constitute culpable homicide.

I notice that in 1973 there was an amendment on the Order Paper which was moved by this side of the House and which asked for the deletion of the words “and negligently”. The amendment was moved at the time by the late Mr. Thompson, who then represented the constituency of Pinelands.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London City expressed the hope a short while ago that I would accept their amendments just as readily as I had accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Potgietersrus. I am now so willing to accept amendments that I am even accepting an amendment which was moved at a time when the hon. member for East London City had not even come to this House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 105:

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the Bill which is before the House, it will happen far more often that an accused person, once he has been arrested, will be taken to court within 48 hours and will be required to plead forthwith. That will be the position because of the provisions of clauses 50, 75 and 105. It means that it will happen far more often that the accused will have to plead right away. The reason why I mention that, is that some of the words in clause 105 are the same as the existing words in the Criminal Procedure Act, but the position in regard to the Criminal Procedure Act is that an accused is required to plead only at the time his matter comes up for trial. The situation at present is that an accused is brought to court within 48 hours, but that he is then usually remanded once, twice, three or four times until the date of trial. In those circumstances he has the opportunity to get legal representation and an opportunity to consider the charge sheet, etc. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister of Justice that the accused should be required to plead only after it has been explained to him that he is entitled to ask for an adjournment to consider his position or to take legal advice and that he has an opportunity to consider his legal rights under the Legal Aid Act. It is not a very stringent requirement and I do not think that it is going to upset any court that such a warning should be given. It is going to be to the benefit of the State and the accused if both parties are represented. Our courts have always been in favour of that. I have heard magistrates say many times over the years that they would rather have a represented accused before them than an unrepresented one. The position is that the prosecution is not obliged to put the charge at the first appearance of the accused if it is not yet ready. The accused, however, if required to, must plead right away. Why should there be an advantage to the State which is denied the accused?

It may seem to lay people that to plead incorrectly is a very odd thing and that it would never happen. However, it certainly is not the case and it is often very difficult to know how to plead to technical statutory charges. This even applies to simple matters such as where an African man is charged with a contravention of the curfew regulations. If he does not have a watch, he does not know how to plead because he does not know what the time was. In such an instance he may have to consider his position. It may be a question that the regulations were statutorily promulgated and may be ultra vires and these are all matters which could be raised at the trial. The accused will often find at his first appearance that the investigating officer is not present. This often happens. The facts of the case may be very broadly stated in the charge sheet and I submit that it is desirable that an accused person should be told what his rights are in regard to an adjournment and in regard to legal representation.

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

1. (a) that he is entitled to ask for an adjournment of the proceedings to consider his position and/or to take legal advice; and
2. (b) his rights under and the facilities provided by the Legal Aid Act, 1969 (Act No. 22 of 1969).
3. (3) The presiding officer shall record the explanation given in terms of subsection (2).

I may add that I will have no objection to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. In fact, that amendment has very much the same effect …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that amendment because it has not yet been moved.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is unfortunately not here, but I would like to say a few words in respect of what he had proposed to move. I am not going to move the amendment, so the position is that the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will not be moved. I hope, Sir, that you will allow me to say simply that it covers virtually the same ground as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North, save that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North covers one other aspect and that is the reference to the facilities provided in terms of the Legal Aid Act. Apart from that the amendments are identical and we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North for the reasons he has already given.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments raised in support of this amendment are exactly the same as those which were raised during the discussion of clause 75. There are so many rules and rights in the case of our criminal law, and, more specifically, in the case of this Bill, to which an accused has to be wide awake, that I should like to know why the hon. member for Durban North is selecting these two aspects in particular. I want to accept that the reason he wants an accused to be informed of his right to obtain legal representation may be attributed, inter alia, to the fact that he wants an accused to be properly represented so that an accused may receive assistance in the form of the necessary advice in his defence. Surely the hon. member knows, however, that there are many, many accused who are aware of their rights in this regard and who nevertheless appear in court without any representation. In a case like this I have not yet come across any court, no matter what the status of such a court may be where the judicial officer has not gone out of his way to assist an accused in a case in which he has no representation. This is so. We find this even after the State’s case has been closed. This is the practice and it happens every day in our courts, when the State’s case has been closed and the accused is not represented, that the presiding officer tells him that he has a choice of one of three things. He explains to him that he may go into the witness-box and what the consequences of that will be. He also explains to him that he may make a statement from the dock and what the consequences of that will be. He also explains to the accused that he may remain silent and what the consequences of that will be.

However, this is not defined in the legislation. This is not defined in the present Criminal Procedure Act, but it is part of the practice and it is done. I should therefore like to ask why the hon. member for Durban North stops here and why he does not insert a further provision into the legislation to the effect that the presiding officer is to explain to the accused before he pleads—because the issue here is what happens before he pleads—how he may plead, for instance, in terms of clause 106. Why does the hon. member not ask for clause 106 to be brought to his attention? One can go on in this way, because an accused may possibly be tried on a charge of rape, just to mention an example. Why does the hon. member not also want the presiding officer to be obliged—before the accused pleads—to tell him what the possible permissible verdicts may be in terms of clause 261? In that case he may tell the accused that if he is not prepared to plead guilty to the charge of rape, he may still plead guilty to the charge of indecent assault or ordinary assault or the other offences as set out in clause 261.

Eventually one arrives at the absurd position of reading a point where one says that the presiding officer’s to explain the entire Criminal Procedure Act to the accused. Surely this cannot be the intention. I want to identify myself with what the hon. the Minister said in reply to the same argument which was raised in regard to clause 75. It is an inelegant manner of drafting an Act because these are such obvious things that in extreme cases where the accused is not aware of them, a presiding officer will in any event explain to him what his rights are, what he may do and what he may not do. I think we may safely leave this type of thing in the hands of the courts. The other side of the coin, as the hon. the Minister pointed out earlier on, is that if, in a given case, a presiding officer were to fail to warn the accused or to inform him as suggested by the hon. member, the entire criminal case might be set aside on revision or on appeal. This, after all, is surely not what we want. That is why I think we ought not to accept this type of argument.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the 1973 Bill contained a provision which gave the prosecutor the right to put the charge later than the first appearance of the accused. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister why he did not include that provision in the present Bill. I cannot understand why it is not being retained in the present Bill. It reads—

It may well be that, from a practical point of view, the prosecutor is not able to put the charge at the first appearance of the accused. We appreciate the fact that these rights of the accused are already entrenched in the Act, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort rightly said. But we believe that this information should be conveyed to the accused. That is all we are really asking for. Quite frankly, Sir, I have heard of many occasions in court where a magistrate of his own volition informed the accused of his rights before he pleaded. This took him only a few minutes. I believe that in our society as it is today, this small safeguard, armed at enlightening a community of which all members may not be fully educated up to the standard where they can understand legal proceedings, would not really militate against the speedy process of justice. As the hon. member for Durban North rightly said, an accused may well be ignorant of his legal position. He may not fully understand it. He may think that the fact that he pleads guilty may help him although he is in fact not guilty of the crime for which he is charged. In regard to legal aid I believe that if the accused’s attention is simply drawn to the fact that there is such a thing as legal aid and that it is possible for him to get legal aid under the Legal Aid Act, then I believe that this is also in the interest of justice. Therefore we support this amendment of the hon. member for Durban North.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why the hon. member now wants to impose a statutory obligation on a magistrate to inform the accused while the hon. member himself admits that the magistrates do in fact do this. The magistrates do so, and if this were to be made a statutory obligation and a magistrate were to forget to do this, it would be a point of appeal. Surely we do not want this. We know that the magistrates do it, so why should we write this into an Act if we know that they do in fact do this?

The hon. member put a question to me on the matter of the first appearance. The matter of the first appearance has not disappeared now; we have simply omitted it from the legislation. It still means that a person may appear and that a postponement may be granted until the next appearance. Just before the commencement of the trial of the accused, the charge is put to him by the prosecutor. This is when the case is in progress. I see that the hon. member is satisfied with my explanation.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to what the hon. member for Koedoespoort had to say, I just want to point out to him that in the first place the existing Act makes provision that in certain cases the magistrate shall give certain warnings to the accused. That provision is made, for example, in section 66. It is not such an inelegant and extraordinary request I am making. The important thing is that the Bill which is before the House at present changes the procedure very substantially. Clause 119, for example, states—

Then it goes on to say that, in the case where permission has been given to the prosecutor, he can require the accused to plead forthwith. That is to say, in respect of any offence which carries the death sentence the accused can be required to plead forthwith.

Where an offence carries the death sentence, the plea is always “not guilty”, as you well know.

Only in the case of murder; not in the case of all the other offences carrying the death sentence, such as house-breaking with aggravating circumstances, robbery with violence, and so on. There are many other offences which carry the death sentence in South Africa. Sir, with respect, it is unthinkable that an accused person should have to plead to one of those charges without being given the opportunity of legal representation. If one accepts that, what is wrong with requiring the judicial officer to tell him that in terms of the legislation? It is not a difficult thing to do. It does not take time. I find the argument very spurious that, if one makes provision for this, the accused can use it for appeal and thus go free. With respect, I want to say that if in our law we do not expect a man charged with a capital offence to have been told he can have representation and if we do not even expect that to be placed on record because it is too much trouble, I think we will have gone a very long way in the degeneration of our legal principles. I very earnestly suggest that, in view of the new circumstances that come about as a result of this Bill, circumstances which have the effect that things can happen very quickly—that is the whole tenor of the Bill—the need to warn the accused that he is entitled to legal representation and to place that on record is a very important need. I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this Amendment.