Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the current financial year, particularly because of the sharp increase in the price of fuel, the Administration was subjected to greater cost pressure than had initially been expected. Although provision was made in the 1979-’80 financial year for a moderate increase in fuel prices, the price adjustments in February and June 1979 meant that the price of fuel for the Administration more than doubled. As a result the estimated expenditure on fuel for the service as a whole increased by R190 million to R415 million. In addition the relatively larger volume of traffic conveyed, brought with it an increase in expected expenditure—goods traffic showed an increase of 5,5% on the original expectations.

Nevertheless, owing to purposeful action, the Administration succeeded in counteracting the pressure on expenditure in an efficient manner. Supported by a progressive marketing campaign and the fact that the fuel situation placed greater emphasis on the productive utilization of liquid fuel, a substantial flowback of traffic to the railways was experienced. These factors, together with the compensation received from the State in respect of losses sustained on uneconomic socio-economic train passenger services, are causing the additional expenditure to be counteracted to a large extent so that the financial year is now expected to close with a smaller deficit than was originally envisaged.

From the documents already tabled, hon. members will note that provision is being made for additional expenditure amounting to R208,9 million, which is to be defrayed from revenue funds during the 1979-’80 financial year. This amount represents an excess of 5.8% on the main estimates, and if the increased expenditure brought about by the increase in the fuel price—an expected R190 million for the current financial year—is deducted from it, the additional appropriation required is only R18,9 million which is an excess of only 0,5% over the original estimate, something which I believe is an achievement by any standard.

For Railways an additional amount of approximately R95,4 million is required, of which R79,3 million is to be appropriated for transportation services, mainly in respect of head No. 4—motive power operating expenses—and head No. 5—traffic, and vehicle running expenses. The additional amount of R71,6 million required under head No. 4, is attributable solely to the increase in the fuel price whereas the increase of R7 million in respect of head No. 5 is largely attributable to an increase in labour costs as well as the higher prices of consumable stores and materials.

The additional amount of R16 million which is to be appropriated for subsidiary services is in respect of head No. 11—catering and bedding services (R2,381 million); head No. 14—pre-cooling services (R1,340 million); head No. 15—road transport service (R9,374 million) and head No. 17—tourist service (R2,954 million). Apart from higher fuel and labour costs, the increase in expenditure may also, inter alia, be attributed to larger purchases of provisions and liquor at higher prices than were initially expected, extraordinary repairs to buildings and machinery, the acquisition of additional pallets, as well as increased expenditure as a result of the increase in air bookings and inclusive tours.

Under Harbours an additional amount of approximately R2,8 million is being requested in respect of head No. 21—working and maintenance—primarily as a result of an increase in operating expenditure due to higher traffic demands as well as increased costs in respect of the five-yearly overhaul of the floating dock at Durban.

Under Airways provision is being made for an additional appropriation of almost R110,8 million in respect of head No. 31—working and maintenance. Of this amount approximately R19 million has to be employed to defray the higher fuel prices, while the balance is required, inter alia, for increased expenditure in connection with the hire of aircraft from other airlines, an increase in commission payments as a result of a growth in passenger traffic, and higher international airfares as from September 1979, greater expenditure because of an increase in the number of passenger meals and an increase in the cost of meals. Higher tarriffs for hotel accommodation and meals abroad also contributed to the increase in expenses.

The revised revenue for the current financial year will be dealt with when the main estimates are presented to the House on 5 March 1980 and therefore I shall make no further comment on that now.

†I shall now deal with the Brown Book items. Hon. members will observe that an additional amount of R110,99 million requires to be voted to cover expenditure in respect of the capital programme. However, no additional funds are required as this expenditure will be financed from savings on existing appropriations.

Under head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—an additional cash provision of some R2,5 million is required primarily to defray belated debits for which provision has to be made in terms of Select Committee on Railway Accounts Resolution No. 2 of the Second Report, 1978. For the information of hon. members I wish to explain that globular sums are provided under various heads in the annual capital budget to meet delayed charges in respect of works which were authorized in previous years, but for which no specific provision has been made in the year in which delayed charges are brought to account. In terms of the resolution of the Select Committee the provision thus made is available only to meet belated debits not exceeding R30 000 in respect of any one work, and where this limit is exceeded specific provision is required to be made in the next additional estimates.

The additional appropriation under head No. 6—Airways—amounts to approximately R9,5 million. Hon. members will note that provision is made for the acquisition of one Airbus A300 aircraft—item No. 39—and 12 Boeing 737 aircraft—item No. 40—at an estimated cost of R28,47 million and R125,7 million, respectively. Delivery of the Airbus A300 aircraft, which is required to meet the increased passenger demand on internal routes, is scheduled for July 1981. This aircraft will be the fifth in the S.A. Airways’ Airbus stable. Delivery of the Boeing 737 aircraft, which will replace the Boeing 727 aircraft on SAA’s domestic and regional routes, will commence towards the end of 1981. Provision has also been made for the expected growth of traffic on the routes in question. The cash provision which is required to be voted for these two items amounts to R3,3 million and R3 million, respectively.

In the main capital budget for 1979-’80 provision is made, under head No. 2: New Works on Open Lines—item No. 558—for the purchase of computers and data communication equipment. However, as a portion of the equipment purchased has now been allocated to the S.A. Airways, it is necessary for an amount of R3,l million to be transferred from head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—to head No. 6—Airways. Cash provision for the entire amount is required during the current financial year.

An additional cash provision to the tune of approximately R20,6 million must be made under head No. 8—Working Capital. Of this amount, R10,2 million is required to cover additional expenditure resulting from increased fuel prices and a general increase in the cost of stores stock, while approximately R10,4 million is needed for aircraft spares and petroleum products pipes acquired free of charge and for which provision has now to be made in terms of resolution No. 2 of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts, 1979.

Under head No. 10—Railways and Harbours House Ownership Fund—an additional amount of R30 million is required to meet the higher demand for housing loans for Railway employees. This additional provision entails increasing the total appropriation for the house ownership scheme for the current financial year to R88 million.

An amount of approximately R46,6 million is provided for under head No. 12—Repayment of Loans—to cover expenditure in connection with the earlier redemption, or part redemption, of certain loans, the conditions of which were relatively unfavourable to the Administration.

To summarize, the position is that appropriations from revenue funds require to be increased by R208,9 million and those in respect of the capital programme by R110,99 million.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his first Appropriation Bill for Railways and Harbours. It is only a part appropriation, it is true, but it is his very first one, so I can perhaps say at the outset that he has not done too badly. He has not done all that well either, but he has not done too badly. Perhaps I could make one wish for him for the future, however, and that is that when it comes to main appropriations, all his tariff increases should be little ones. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has come to Parliament with a request for an additional R319 894 000. To an extent, when we are discussing additional estimates of this nature we are working in the dark because until the hon. the Minister submits his revenue figures, his working figures, for the year to us, when he presents his main Railway budget, we are in the dark as to whether the level of business carried out by the Railways has been satisfactory and whether or not the Railways is operating profitably. A certain amount of praise is, however, always forthcoming for a Minister who can end up a year by spending an amount of money which is very near to the amount estimated in his budget. In this sense, I must say, the hon. the Minister has not done quite as well as his predecessor in the last couple of years because his predecessor was able to keep his request for additional moneys to be made available to just over R100 million in 1978, whilst I think it was just over R66 million last year. On the other hand, in this hon. Minister’s defence one can admit that he has had an unusual year in that the escalation in fuel prices has been completely unpredictable.

I can only say that unless additional expenditure is related to turnover and profitability on each item, it is very difficult to criticize. There are always, however, some items, new items, which one has to look at and scrutinize very carefully.

Budgeting by the Railways Administration has tended to be along the lines of a philosophy—I think this is inescapable; I do not think there is any other way in which it can be done—to the effect that what one does not spend on the swings, one can spend on the roundabouts. In the final analysis one then ends up with something like the number one first thought of. Invariably there are large savings under certain heads of expenditure which can be used to finance overspending on other heads. Particularly as far as the capital budget is concerned, the building of various projects is sometimes accelerated or delayed, because it is very rare for construction operations to go exactly as planned. Coming from the construction industry myself, I think I know this as well as anybody else.

As far as additional working expenditure is concerned, an increase in turnover can have a tremendous effect on the necessary outlay. Take for example money spent on provisions for dining cars. Until one knows what sort of business the dining cars have done, how can one possibly criticize an additional amount made available for foodstuffs and drink? I think we have to accept that, within limits, budgeting by the Administration has a certain hit or miss flavour about it in the eyes of those who look at it from the outside, as I do, until we are brought fully into the picture at the time of the main budget.

In passing, Sir, I could perhaps refer to a speech made by my benchmate, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, last year on the same additional estimates. Because a relatively small amount was asked for last year, he was full of praise for Railway budgeting, which he claimed was phenomenal last year. He claimed some of the credit for this because of his constant nagging for the improvement of budgeting techniques. Perhaps, in view of this, he will accept some of the blame this year, because this hon. Minister’s budgeting techniques have not been quite so successful.

He hasn’t started nagging them yet.

I was too soft on them last year.

In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister has given us his explanations for the major deviations from the original figures. Fairly predictably, the major reason overall has been the increase in fuel costs which, as I said earlier, has been completely unpredictable. I may say that the hon. the Minister is reaping what he himself has sown, because it was his responsibility in his earlier capacity to raise fuel costs as he did.

Surely you are not suggesting that I am the Ayatollah?

The chickens are coming home to roost. I do not think the Administration can be faulted for asking for additional amounts as far as fuel is concerned. I am also very pleased indeed to hear from the hon. the Minister that not all the increased outlay on fuel is because of increased prices, but that some of it is because more fuel is being used for increased traffic. A 5,5% increase in expected goods traffic is encouraging and perhaps holds out some hope for increased profitability, so that the fuel costs will have less of an effect on tariffs. The hon. the Minister also mentioned—and this is quite encouraging too—that he had a bonanza because of the fact that he had been paid out by the State for his losses on uneconomic socio-economic passenger services.

Only partly.

Well, we hope it is enough to make the picture look very much better than it would have looked otherwise. It should help to improve the hon. the Minister’s trading picture.

Anything would help his picture.

Sir, I want to raise one item I also raised last year. There is a saving in the original estimates under the head “Railways; Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”. This year we have a saving of R17 million. It always worries me a little when a budgeted maintenance programme is not carried out in full. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for an assurance that we are not falling behind in our maintenance operations.

When we come to working expenditure on Railways, the additional amount of over R100 million is again largely for fuel. However, I note that an additional amount of R6,75 million for interest on capital is being defrayed from savings. Now, R6% million for interest on capital is a considerable amount of money. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us more about this amount. It is an increase of approximately 20% in the anticipated payments of interest on capital, and this certainly appears to be excessive. Coming to the Brown Book, the departures from the original budget figure appear to be much more alarming and much more sizeable. For example, under head No. 2—New works on open lines—an enormous figure of more than R147 million is not being spent. I hope the hon. the Minister can give us some explanation as to what has happened and why the budgeting in this respect appears to have been wildly inaccurate. He does not have to take the blame himself as he can always blame it on his predecessor. Another saving that needs explanation is the saving of more than R25 million which was going to be spent on rolling stock. I find it very difficult to understand how this came about, unless the Administration requested deliveries to be delayed, either because they did not need the stock at the same rate as they did before or, perhaps, they did not have the money to pay for it.

When we come to additional provisions for the S.A. Airways, it is noted with interest that just over R6 million comes onto the estimates as the first provision for the new Airbus and 12 Boeing 737s. As someone who is a fairly frequent traveller on S.A. Airways, I find that they appear to be operating pretty close to capacity in that one has to book a long time in advance to be absolutely sure of obtaining a seat. At times S.A. Airways appears to be under considerable pressure.

Recently the service has not always been of the best. Even at times when there have been no hailstorms delays on internal flights have been frequent. I must say that I was actually horrified to discover just how vulnerable S.A. Airways appears to be to hail. Flights were disrupted for a very long time after the storm. Technicians, in some numbers, had to be flown in from the USA, and it is quite apparent that S.A. Airways are just not able to handle this sort of situation. This is certainly disquieting, to say the very least. It is obvious that we need more aircraft for the internal services, so much so that I am even a little worried that we will not be able to cope adequately with the demand for seats up to the time when we start taking delivery of these new Boeing 737s and the new Airbus in the middle of 1981. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us how he sees this situation developing. The hon. the Minister will know that there has been criticism of the choice of Boeing 737s, which I believe have been chosen for reasons of fuel economy. It has been said, and in this regard I refer to an article in a magazine, that the twin-engined Boeing 737 does not have enough thrust for all-day operation at high altitude airports, as well as being too limited as far as freight capacity is concerned at a time when air freight is getting more and more popular. Presumably the Administration has confidence in the new Pratt and Whitney engines and are also happy about freight capacities, but I would appreciate a few words of reassurance from the hon. the Minister on this issue.

While I am on the subject of aircraft and the high cost of fuel, I should perhaps say that I believe that there is possibly a serious situation arising because our aircraft fuel is so very costly—perhaps the most costly in the world. I am not very sure of this, but the cost of our aircraft fuel must certainly rank amongst the costliest in the world. There is no doubt that other airlines are discouraged by this when considering the establishment of services to this country. In this regard I am thinking of Japan Airlines as an example. Possibly great opportunities have been lost for the tourist industry because our fuel is more costly than anybody else’s. I understand that Aerolinas Argentinas are unhappy and are not finding their service particularly profitable, although they are operating pretty close to capacity. We could well lose some of our very profitable Argentinian tourist trade. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister of Industries and of Commerce to see whether they can accommodate the airlines in some way in this respect.

On the question of Brown Book spending, there are two further items which I believe require further explanation and certainly some comments from me. The first is the provision for an additional amount of R30 million for the Railways and Harbours House Ownership Fund, which brings the revised estimate up to R88 million. Of course, an amount like this is very welcome indeed in that I believe it will stimulate the building industry and will certainly have a stimulating effect on the economy as a whole. However, one wonders where the hon. the Minister obtains this money, why this very large increase has been announced and what percentage of any of this is going into housing for those Black personnel who would like to take advantage of the 99-year leasehold scheme.

The other item is quite an unusual one, the one under which R46 million is required for the earlier redemption of certain loans. This is a somewhat unusual request. It seems to indicate that the hon. the Minister is very flush with money at the present time. He seems to be very rich indeed. I would have thought that in a situation of world inflation, the longer one could stave off the repayment of a loan, the better it would be, in the sense that as money devalues, paying back does not become quite so painful. It seems, however, that the hon. the Minister has so much money that he does not know what to do with it.

If this is so, it certainly augurs well for any tariff increases the hon. the Minister may have in mind and may be considering announcing on 5 March, when he presents his Railway budget to this House. If he can afford to lend an additional amount of R30 million for house ownership and repay another R46 million which he does not actually have to repay at the present time, perhaps operations have been so profitable that no increases will be necessary. On this matter of increases, perhaps I should conclude by saying that I hope that it is so. I hope that he is so flush with money that he is not going to ask for enormous tariff increases. There must be restraint.

[Inaudible.]

Well, Sir, the hon. the Minister asks me for an indication. I shall give him an indication. I do not believe there should be any tariff increases at all. I am sure that under the able administration of the hon. the Minister, the Railways will operate so efficiently that we will just not need any tariff increases at all. The increased traffic that is coming his way is going to indicate that we do not need that. I just hope that this is so, because I can only say to the hon. the Minister that I am sure that he is very well aware of the fact that inflation in many ways starts with tariff increases on transport as transport basically encompasses everything. If we have major tariff increases next month, it will have a very serious effect indeed on our present high inflation rate.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Orange Grove said about the new Minister who is now dealing with this portfolio, with one small difference: I not only want to congratulate him, but also want to admit at once that he has given us good reason to be confident. Secondly, we want to congratulate him on alluding to the possibility that in the current financial year we are going to experience less of a deficit than was originally envisaged, and on having made provision for an amount of R208 million to be obtained from the revenue account. This is a very welcome prediction and it indicates that we may possibly expect even greater generosity on his part in regard to the possibility of tariff increases when he presents his main budget. We know him to be a person who always has an original, enthusiastic approach to his task, and this is the way we want him to be. We saw the evidence of this soon after he took office.

I have nothing but praise for this additional appropriation. In this regard I want to refer to the unfair comparison by the hon. member for Orange Grove. This hon. member said that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor did a little better because he requested an additional amount which was only in the region of R100 million. But he is conveniently omitted to mention the fact that the fuel account of the Railways amounted to R190 million, almost double what it usually is, and the fuel account of the Airways amounted to R90 million more than usual. Therefore, I think it was rather a spiteful reference, one which was a little below the belt. I did not expect it from him.

When we come to the additional appropriation, under the various Votes, firstly as far as the Capital Account is concerned, I must say I was very pleasantly surprised to see that there is a difference of between 1% and 2% in comparison with the original appropriation. I agree with the hon. the Minister that this is not just good, but perfect. If we consider that a capital expenditure of more than R1 400 million was originally budgeted and that we are now asking for only R110 million, I think it is an achievement to be praised. Particularly if we take into account the uncertain conditions on the economic front over the past year—not only here, but throughout the world—I think that our planners and our officials deserve to be given credit and praised.

Furthermore, if one takes into account the fact that more than R2 million was spent on new works and R810 800 on rolling stock, that the working capital for unforeseen works exceeded R20 million and that the Railways and Harbours Home-ownership Fund exceeded R30 million, to say nothing of the repayment of loans of more than R46 million, I feel that, as regards the capital items and the appropriation in this regard, it is excellent when we bear in mind the commendably large items for which provision was made in this budget. We cannot but speak of it with praise and appreciation.

As regards the estimates for Railways as such, we find that there was a deviation from the original budget of just under 3%. The original amount that was requested, totalled R2 717 million and the additional amount R95 million. Once again it was spot on. If one takes into account the expenditure on salaries—I am thinking here of the increase of salaries for Railway Police in particular, amounting to R630 000, which we were pleased to take cognizance of—as well as the higher prices of consumable stores and materials, the purchase of pallets, repairs to buildings and machinery, the five-yearly overhaul of the floating dock at Durban, one realizes that we are dealing here with a policy that shows insight, rational adaptation and a development plan which is not merely geared to a period of a month or two. There is much more to be said in this regard.

I want to make just one more comment on what the hon. member for Orange Grove said about the repayment of loans. I cannot understand his logic very clearly, especially not after the hon. the Minister had specifically referred to the fact that it was not made under very favourable circumstances. In other words, would the hon. member rather allow expensive, unfavourable loans to continue for the sake of phantom inflation? From a financial point of view, it is uncomprehensible that when one has the opportunity, for more than one reason, to redeem a loan, one would not do so if one could obtain that capital at a cheaper rate elsewhere and put it to better use.

They are always complaining about the burden of interest.

I do not know where that argument comes from nor do I know what it is really being aimed at. The hon. member often reminds me of a pumpkin plant on a rubbish heap. When there is a great deal of rain, it presents a fine picture of progress and improvement, but once the first ray of sunshine breaks through, it is the most pathetic picture of pessimism, misery and dejection that you can imagine. In addition, the outward appearance of the hubbard squash is not exactly smooth. I hope and trust that this is not going to be the picture that we are going to have of that party during the rest of the session, when it comes to their approach to matters such as the one we are discussing here this afternoon.

I should like to refer to an item to which the hon. member for Orange Grove also referred to, viz. the savings that have been effected in the implementation of an efficient policy, viz. R150 000 on the tourist service, over R11 million on motive power operating expenses and over R4 million on administrative and general costs. Under these circumstances it contradicts the suggestion of the hon. member for Orange Grove who said that he hoped the hon. the Minister was not going to be inclined to be too generous in his handling of funds. If, with such a very favourable additional appropriation as this one, we can see savings like those we are seeing here—not small amounts, but amounts running into millions: R11 million and R4 million—then we must take cognizance of them with appreciation and we must convey our satisfaction to the hon. the Minister and his officials.

The Airways experienced a few problems, fuel prices for example, which rose to an additional amount of more than R90 million, as well as increasing airfares, additional costs for accommodation and hotel costs abroad, factors for which provision cannot always be made and which only arose at the end of last year and are now being reflected in this additional appropriation.

It therefore gives me great pleasure to pledge my support for the appropriation, to repeat my good wishes and express the confidence that our hon. Minister will not only make a success of this portfolio, but will also see to it that we have a very pleasant surprise in his main budget.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I welcomed the hon. the Minister as Minister of Transport Affairs and now I welcome him to his first Railway debate. Being a new Minister, I was wondering what line he would take to try to establish his own image in his new role and I find that he has started off by changing the title of the additional estimates. Previously the Brown Book was titled “Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works”. This year the title is very brief, viz. “Additional Capital Budget”. As far as the working budget is concerned, it used to be called “Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be Defrayed from Revenue Funds”. This year it is titled “Estimates of the Additional Working Expenditure”. I hope that this is an indication that this hon. Minister is a man of few words and much action and I sincerely hope that we are going to see this additional efficiency carried on right through the Railways Administration during his term of office. These additional estimates are, I believe, a measure of the accuracy of the original budget. I think we come here at this time of the financial year just to see how close the planners and the budgetary accountants were in their original estimates. I know the hon. the Minister is aware of it, but last year’s budget was called by the hon. member for Witwatersberg as being an “unbelievable” budget. The previous hon. Minister did, I believe, set a record in that his additional estimates showed that he had balanced his working budget right down to the last rand. It was for that reason that I too sang the praises of the previous Minister and the Administration, even if from an Opposition bench. His performance was a remarkable achievement. As the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned, it was something for which I took some credit because this was something which I had fought for in previous years. I called for more accurate budgeting in the first instance, so that coming to this assessment or the measurement of the accuracy of the budget, we could say the Minister did a good job.

Unfortunately, this year it is not quite as good. I appreciate that it is not entirely this hon. the Minister’s fault, because he has only recently been appointed to his position. However, I should like to say to the hon. member for Witwatersberg that this year’s figures are the worst in about six years, as far as they deviate from the total budget. One could say that last year’s effort was a flash in the pan. We could say that all the praise we heaped on the hon. the Minister at the time was unjustified, that his achievement was just a fluke.

When we look at this budget, we see that the main factor which has bedevilled this budget has been the price of oil. I think we must concede this at this stage. If we look at these revised estimates in the working account, we find that the fuel bill has increased by R190 million which is a large proportion of the total increased expenditure of R209 million which the hon. the Minister is asking for. So, if we exclude the additional fuel bill, this is a pretty good budget as well.

I am prepared to concede that.

As I said earlier, the hon. the Minister cannot take credit for this because he has recently been appointed. One thing he can take credit for is the problem which has been bedevilling the Railways Administration during the last year, because it was he who at the time when he was still wearing his other ministerial hat, that of Economic Affairs, put up the price of fuel. At that time I was my party’s chief spokesman on economic and industrial affairs and I was prepared to accept that the main problem was Opec and their continual raising of oil prices. One thing we were most concerned about was that a large part of the increases put on fuel last year by the hon. the Minister was due to the heavy levies which went to the SFF and the Equalization Fund. When this hon. the Minister placed these levies on fuel we mentioned to him at that time that we thought they were rather too high. I believe we were correct, in that his successor since he has taken office has been able to finance increased payments to the oil companies and to retailers without increasing the price of fuel to the public. So, I think we were justified last year when we objected to the amount of the levies imposed. At that time the hon. the Minister showed no sympathy, although we were talking not only on behalf of the public and the private sector, but also on behalf of the Railways Administration. As the hon. member for Orange Grove said, “the chickens have come home to roost”. Now this hon. the Minister is on the receiving end of his own dictates to the public and to the rest of South Africa last year.

We are going to be extremely interested to see just how well he will cope on the “operational side”, if I may use that term. We are going to compare his performance with that of the private sector in balancing their books during this period of high rates of inflation.

Speaking of inflation and again looking at the White Book, one notices that this year’s revised working expenditure has increased by a figure of 21,2% over the previous year, that of 1978-’79. Last year the increase was 14,5% over the 1977-’78 book year. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is able to tell us just how much of this increased expenditure of 21,2% is due to growth in traffic—the hon. the Minister has mentioned this—and how much is due to inflation. We on these benches would be very interested to know just how much of this increased expenditure is due to these two factors. Speaking for myself, I would say a large proportion of it is due to inflation and the inflated oil price, as the hon. the Minister has already stated. If this is so, it raises a question which I would like to put to the hon. the Minister. I hope that he will reply to this question in depth, even if it is during the main Railway budget debate. Just how much effort is the Railways Administration putting into research and development to reduce their consumption and their dependence upon petroleum-based liquid fuel? Is any work being done on finding ways and means of perhaps switching to other fuels? I am aware that, last year I think it was, the hon. the Minister himself told us that there was some research going on into using another type of liquid fuel, and we know that there are possibilities with methanol, ethanol and hydrogen fuels, and …

I shall deal fully with this matter in the main budget.

I am very pleased to hear that, because I believe it is a very important matter.

As has already been said, these additional estimates show clearly the effect the rise of petroleum prices has had on operating costs. Diesel fuel alone cost the Railways an additional amount of R71,6 million. Aircraft fuel cost an additional R87,7 million, while the additional expenditure on fuel for road transport services amounted to R6,2 million. Calculated as percentages, some of these increases amount to nearly 100%. Because of this fact, I believe that the S.A. Railways, with the number and quality of its engineers and technologists who have the know-how, and with its muscle, if I may use that term, by virtue of its large organization and budget, are ideally suited to launch such an investigation. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell me that my hopes have been met in this respect.

Turning to the Brown Book, one notices that for two years running the revised estimates have resulted in an overall reduction on the original estimates. Last year’s final estimate was 7,3% less than the original estimate of R1 137 million. This year it is 6,6% less than the original budget of R1 407 million. Yet in both cases these estimates added vast sums to the total capital expenditure program of the Railways. Last year it added R62,5 million and this year it is adding R110,9 million. The hon. the Minister says that the additional expenditure now before the House for approval will be covered by so-called savings. I say “so-called” because they are not real savings. It is just that the work which this Parliament has already approved will not be carried out in the current financial year. In other words, this work has been deferred. This means that the amounts approved in last year’s budget and in this budget which have been deferred will remain listed in the Brown Book and that more and more amounts are simply being added to the Brown Book’s total capital expenditure program. The total estimated saving under, for example, head No. 2—“New Works on Open Lines”—is R147,9 million, which is 25,5% of the original estimate of R579 million for the current year. I would like to ask what has happened. Why has this work not been completed? The Brown Book will show that there are 1 104 items under this particular head with a total estimated expenditure of R3 784 million of which R579 million was earmarked in the original estimates as expenditure on various items during this year. This, however, has now been reduced by R148 million. The Additional Estimates add a further R2,456 million to the current year. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether his Administration is falling behind in its capital expenditure programme. I repeat that during the past two financial years he and his predecessor have come with additional estimates purporting to save a total of R349,5 million, meaning that they actually deferred that amount of expenditure while at the same time they added a further total of R173,5 million for new items to be approved during this debate.

I believe this is a serious matter: Either the Railways is falling behind with its capital programme or there are many items in the Brown Book which could be superfluous and should be removed. The other alternative is that the planning department of the Railways is not doing its job correctly. I say this because of the large deviation this year on new works, a deviation of something like 25,5% in this budget. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he ask his accounts and planning departments to scrutinize every one of the 1 456 items in the Brown Book with the view to re-assessing the priority and the urgency of each one and to establishing whether or not they should be there at all.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the items of R30 million for the home-ownership scheme and also the repayment of loans. I agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove that this is indicative of the fact that there is surplus money floating around in the hon. the Minister’s coffers. I sincerely hope that as a result of this, there is not going to be a tariff increase when he presents his main budget. As far as the home-ownership scheme is concerned, we in the NRP are very pleased that an additional amount has been provided for it because we believe that all South Africans of all races should be given the opportunity to own their own homes.

On balance the total working budget is up by nearly R209 million, while the capital budget is down by R93,5 million. This leaves a net overall increase in expenditure of R115,5 million which on the total budget of R5 098 million is 2,3%. This is not bad, but when compared with last year’s zero deviation, I believe it is not as good as last year’s and I hope that next year the hon. the Minister will bring to us additional budgets as good as last year’s.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches have considerable difficulty in debating in a constructive manner the additional estimates which come before us. We experience that difficulty by virtue of the fact that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who has now resumed his seat, and the official Opposition’s spokesman on Railway matters, the hon. member for Orange Grove, have taken a line completely contradictory to that which they adopted last year. They have taken that contradictory line despite the improved situation in the additional estimates before the House.

I should like to remind the House that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who has now extended himself at length on the capital expenditures which are before us in the Brown Book, complained last year of the savings which were effected.

Are they savings?

If the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, in spite of his being a member of the Select Committee, does not understand the figures which are reflected in the Brown Book, then far be it from me to conduct across the floor of the House a lesson for him on the basic Railway finance and economics.

But why do you not reply to the question?

The hon. member ought to understand it by this time. [Interjections.] However, I should like to remind the House of what he said last year, when on the capital expenditure programme there was a saving of something like R82,5 million. Then the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said (Hansard, Vol. 79, col. 925)—

He then continued and, with reference to the saving of R82,5 million, he said—

In saying this the hon. member was referring to the savings effected on the capital expenditure programme of the Railways. [Interjections.]

I was talking about capital expenditure, not savings.

Today we have another argument, a sort of hang-dog criticizing attitude. The hon. member spoke at length about the expenditures on higher fuel costs. Surely, he must realize that the Government fixes the price that we pay for oil overseas or to the Opec countries or wherever we can obtain it. We do not fix it. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite should know that that is completely beyond our control. Therefore,

I submit that it is silly of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti …

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

No. I listened patiently to the hon. member when he spoke. I am not going to answer any questions he wants to put now. It is purely a waste of time.

George, do not be stupid.

It does sound stupid. I believe it must also sound stupid to the public of South Africa that, instead of putting forward constructive suggestions and considerations about how to improve the performance of the S.A. Railways, the hon. member displays this hang-dog, nagging attitude when he talks about the higher costs of fuel. [Interjections.]

Now I want to turn to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I must say that I was puzzled about why the hon. member for Orange Grove adopted the attitude he displayed in this debate, a highly critical attitude. If one takes away the excess expenditure of R290 million, then the additional estimates only ask for a 0,5% additional increase on the operating expenditure of the Railways. In discussing the additional estimates last year the hon. member for Orange Grove waxed lyrical. He could not give sufficient praise to the then hon. Minister for his effecting a saving of 1,5% on the 1978-’79 budget of estimated total expenditure. Taking away now the additional fuel cost we have to meet it is actually a saving of 0,5%. I wonder why the hon. member this year took up a different attitude to that of last year. Was he perhaps hauled over the coals by his party for giving too much praise to an NP Government Minister? Is that why he had to change his attitude this year? [Interjections.]

Now let us take the other point made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. Hansard reflects this so very, very clearly. Let us see what the hon. member had to say in connection with the capital expenditure last year, while bearing in mind the criticism he uttered here today in regard to the Brown Book. I am going to quote his exact words to him now, (Hansard, Vol. 79, col. 913)—

Now, the figure has increased above the previous R145 million. Why does the hon. member not give the same praise to the hon. the Minister and to the Government for the savings effected on capital expenditure? [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite have so little understanding of the actual situation in the Railways that we see an hon. member in the person of the hon. member for Orange Grove being selected as his party’s chief spokesman on Railway matters. He criticizes the entire airways and transportation system on the following basis, and I am quoting his own words now—

He was talking about himself and his party—

You see, Sir, when the hon. member climbs aboard a South African Airways aircraft, he possibly determines the efficiency of the services of the airways by how many additional nuts he can put in his pocket to munch from the airport to the Houses of Parliament. [Interjections.] Whilst he was speaking, I had a clear vision in my mind of the hon. member climbing off an aircraft at D. F. Malan Airport, getting into his motor-car, putting his hand in his pocket and pulling out lovely nuts and raisins to chew, nuts and raisins supplied by the Airways. [Interjections.]

Do not judge other people by yourself.

He cannot assess the efficiency, he says, because he does not know what the income is. If the hon. member knows anything about this matter of additional estimates, he must surely know that we are restricted, in this debate, to discussing the reasons for the additional estimates.

I think you are putting up a bit of a nut case.

There is one more aspect about the hon. member for Orange Grove that rather disturbs me. There is a new item in the Brown Book, under head No. 6, for which we are asked to vote R6,6 million for new aircraft, 12 aircraft for the internal services and an addition to the airbus stable.

Is that not for an internal service?

I was distressed when I listened to the hon. member. This is a new item and we can discuss the principles involved. One would have imagined that in a country such as South Africa, with its limited size, situated at the southern tip of the African continent, with an airways system plying the world routes, the hon. gentleman would have used this opportunity to indicate our ability to increase our fleets, to cover the world and to supply better services to the air-travelling public.

What, however, does the hon. member do? He raises queries about the engines that have been put into the aircraft. He queries, too, the capacity and the cost of the aircraft. Does the hon. member think that the General Manager, after having been invited to the Boeing factory, arrives there, is wined and dined and then just puts in an order for 12 of this and one of that? [Interjections.] Does the hon. gentleman not think that adequate research is done by some of the finest technicians in the world and that the cost structures are not investigated on a computerized system? No, that clever gentleman from Orange Grove, that member of the PFP, raises queries in the public mind about Pratt and Whitney engines, about the capability of the aircraft and aspects such as whether they can carry out their proper functions in the future, etc. This is typical of the attitude of the hon. member for Orange Grove who can never think in terms of a constructive approach. He can never think in terms of praising something that is good and great for his own country, South Africa.

He is a “bitterbek” as well.

I do not want to use those words. That hon. gentleman is, I think, aware now of what we think on this side of the House. The plain fact of the matter is that those two hon. gentlemen belong to a party whose numbers are so restricted in this House that they had to put the hon. member for Orange Grove’s name into a hat and pull it out and declare him their speaker on transport matters. [Interjections.] One would, however, at least have thought that that hon. member would have then gone and done his homework. Let me put a final spoke in the wheel. They sit in the Select Committee. Without anticipating our further discussions in that Select Committee, let me say that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has raised the question of the new terminology that appears in the Brown Book and the additional estimates. If he was even aware of what had happened in the Select Committee, he must surely be aware of the new terminology appearing in these estimates. It is part of the programme of efficient management.

Mr. Speaker, having dealt with those two hon. gentlemen, I should like to turn to other matters. In the first instance, I think these additional estimates indicate very clearly the high degree of discipline that has been applied by the Administration and the General Manager in the financial affairs of the Railways. I think that in this regard the Administration should be most highly complimented. The fact that no additional financing is required as a result of the savings effected on the existing appropriation, clearly indicates the strict control that has been applied. I think it is also a tribute to the modern management techniques which have been applied by the Administration over the past year and which, in last year’s budget debate, were so lavishly praised by the Opposition. It is also a fact that as a result of the higher transport costs of transport companies in the private sector and the fuel shortages they have experienced, the Railways traffic has increased, which in turn has resulted in an increased income represented, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, by an increase of 5% in the volume of goods traffic.

Sir, in my constituency we probably have the largest number of business interests and for that reason I have cause to say that tributes are continually being paid to the Railways Administration by the private sector for their efficiency. It is openly admitted that there are very few companies or big corporations in this country which can compare with the S.A. Railways when it comes to the favourable management techniques the Railways apply.

Sir, we have faced the problem that the fuel costs of diesel traction have increased by 65%, in road transportation by 90% and in the Airways by 80%, involving a total of something like R190 million in excess expenditure. I know that in the discussion of the additional estimates the subject of debate is very limited. I am aware, too, that if I take what I am now going to say too far, you will rule me out of order.

Order! Why does the hon. member then want to say it?

With a little bit of patience, Sir, you will understand the point I am going to make. From year to year we are meeting increased fuel costs based primarily on fuel oil. The point I should like to put to the hon. the Minister—and I do not know whether we can take it very much further or whether it should wait for the main budget—a point I have raised before, is whether, in the light of the problems the country faces, the question of steam traction should not at this point in time receive further consideration by the Administration.

What about oxen? Would that not be a thought?

It is clear that we still have a considerable amount of steam traction available in the country. In the light of the situation we face and the fact that the position might possibly get worse in the future, unknown to us at this point in time, is it not advisable that further intensive consideration be given by the Administration and, as a matter of policy, by the hon. the Minister to the possibility of using steam traction? I just wanted to pose that question to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, in the criticism the temporary hon. member for Von Brandis directed at the Opposition speakers, he made the point that it was a pity that they did not stand up and attempt to improve the performance of the Railways instead of levelling criticism at it. Sir, I listened very carefully to hear whether the hon. member would say something constructive about improving the performance of the Railways, but I listened in vain, because nothing was said by the hon. member in this respect. I can only express my disappointment at his negative criticism in defending this budget.

I, too, enter a field which is a little strange to me. The hon. the Minister, in presenting these additional estimates, is faced with certain difficulties in asking the House to approve the additional amount that is required. This required amount needs to be appropriated specifically because there was such a big increase in the price of fuel in February and June of last year. There are, however, many other items in respect of which additional expenditure is required. I cannot help but for purposes of comparison to refer at this stage to the introduction of last year’s Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation Bill by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, who, in his Second Reading speech, said, inter alia (Hansard, 1979, col. 910)—

Additional estimates were then presented to the House whereby an additional amount of, I think, only R66 million was required. This drew large praise from both the Opposition and Government members. We now find ourselves in a position where the hon. the Minister is asking the House to approve an additional amount of R319 million.

We all concede immediately that what could perhaps not have been foreseen were the two large fuel price increases in February and June which now force the hon. the Minister to obtain another R190 million to meet the additional fuel costs. One now wonders how the whole economy can be balanced and how private enterprise can balance itself when they are dependent on fuel and are now subjected to increases of this nature, increases which are so unpredictable? Nevertheless, with the large funds available to the S.A. Railways and the Government, it is easy for them to meet these increased costs. It is pleasing to note that the expenditure will be met out of revenue.

There are certain items in the estimates of: additional working expenditure to which I want to refer. In the first place, I want to make the point that, in comparing the estimates of the additional working expenditure of last year with those for this year, we find that only R4,l million was required last year and that in respect of nearly all the items listed, such as administrative and general charges, motive power operating expenses, road transport services and pre-cooling services, additional expenditure is now required whereas last year they did not require additional expenditure at all. Only under miscellaneous expenditure an amount of R4,1 million was required. One then has to ask oneself the question why, if additional expenditure on these items was not required last year, it is necessary to make provision for additional expenditure this year? I ask this particularly with reference to the motive power operating expenses where the large additional amount of R71,5 million is required over and above the original estimates of R393 894 000. Did the coal price give rise to this additional amount? We also have the saving of R18 million which has been referred to and which I think also requires an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to how this came about. I also want to refer to the sub-head, “Diesel traction” under head No. 4. Here we find an excess on the original estimates of R11 212 000 on fuel oil. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain how this very large amount came to be required.

I now want to turn my attention to head No. 11 which deals with catering services. If the turn-over in refreshments has increased to such an extent because more business is being done, I can only assume that greater profits are being made. With greater profits being made on an increased turn-over, we trust that we can look forward to no tariff increases when the main budget is introduced. I also want to refer to head No. 16, Tourist Service, where an additional amount of R235 000 is required for superintendence. I should like to support the hon. member for Orange Grove in this respect too. I want to ask whether additional facilities can be made available to improve the tourist trade generally. As far as head No. 21 is concerned, an additional amount of R517 000 …

Surely we can deal with that sort of thing in the Committee Stage?

Yes, I could, but I am just referring to it for a moment.

You can deal with it in detail in the Committee Stage.

Well, I am just raising the items and asking the hon. the Minister to deal with them.

I now want to turn to head No. 31.1 want to ask how the additional amount of R1,4 million in respect of the hire of aircraft came about I also want more detail about the profit made by these means.

I now want to come to the Brown Book itself. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister questions concerning a few items in the Brown Book. I want to ask why there was such a large saving of R7 774 500 under head No. 4—“Road Transport Service”.

We are dealing with additional estimates and not with savings.

But we are dealing with them. Under head No. 8—“Working Capital”—the hon. the Minister is asking for an additional amount of R20 576 300. One wonders why this amount of R20 576 300 is so much in excess of the original amount of R11 618 500 that was budgeted for. When one compares it with the previous budget, one finds that an amount of R432 million was required at that stage.

Head No. 6 is probably one of the most important items in the additional estimates. It concerns the purchase of one Airbus A300 aircraft and 12 Boeing 737 aircraft. I think the hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that last year we bought two Boeing 747 aircraft. We are therefore increasing the fleet. However, I should like to ascertain whether the price of a Boeing is a fixed price, whether it is subject to any increase at any stage and whether the contract has been finalized so that, when delivery is made later on, as has been mentioned by the hon. the Minister in his speech, we shall not be faced with any additional increases.

I recollect the severe damage that has been caused by hail to aircraft at Jan Smuts airport recently. I am not sure whether they have all been completely repaired. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us what the final cost was and whether we can make provision for some hail guard to protect these Boeings which have been purchased for such a very large amount. [Interjections.] When virtually our whole aircraft system in South Africa can grind to a halt as a result of a hailstorm, I think that in view of the large expense incurred in purchasing these aircraft, we should at least think of means of safeguarding them so that we are not again faced with a situation where a large number of aircraft are grounded and all the passengers are stranded.

As far as housing is concerned, hon. members have welcomed, as I do, the amount of R30 million that has been made available. The hope has been expressed that this will provide accommodation for all the races. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this will also apply to those who can acquire property under the 99-year lease system. In other words, will Black employees be assisted in obtaining 99-year leases and will this money be available to them? I also want to add the support of the Opposition in respect of the repayment of loans for which the substantial amount of R46 million is to be voted. We are happy that they are being repaid. However, are the S.A. Railways so flush with money, as the whole country is and the institutions of South Africa are, that we can afford to repay this large amount, or is it the case that we are committed to repaying a loan which has been previously negotiated and agreed to and which has now fallen due?

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their kind remarks about my takeover of this particular department.

†Let me first of all come to the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member started off by comparing this year’s additional estimates with those of last year. I do not want to treat the hon. member unkindly, but he will understand that this type of comparison is odious. Let us first of all deal with the facts and see whether the facts justify handling the estimates the way the hon. member did. The fact of the matter is that because of the oil crisis which struck the world, and not only South Africa, certain problems have arisen. The most obvious one is the additional cost of the acquisition of petroleum products. This did not only affect South Africa; it also affected other countries in the world. It also affected the total availability of crude oil to the importing countries. The hon. member should also know that quite apart from the general effect which it had on importing countries in general, it had a specific effect on South Africa for a very particular reason, and that is that South Africa was still on an official boycott list by the Opec countries. Up to December 1978 the only direct supply by way of contract to South Africa was Iran. I need not tell the hon. member what happened to Iran in 1978, but the results to South Africa have been immense and enormous. The fact is that after December 1978 there were no regular supplies of oil to South Africa. Instead of hon. members being prepared—and I say this in all sincerity and with all modesty—to be appreciative of the fact that we have since that time been able to obtain sufficient resources of oil for South Africa to make the economy go on, one has to face this sort of criticism, and I wish the hon. member for Orange Grove would just take the trouble to go and speak to those officials in the Department of Industries who have been responsible and are still responsible for obtaining adequate supplies to South Africa, about the effort that has been put into that. Now, when there is one single item amounting to R190 million in the additional estimates of one particular year, surely that alone does not justify the comparison the hon. member is making. This also applies to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

I said so; you did not listen to my speech.

I am not fighting with hon. members. The point is that hon. members are still making a comparison of last year’s and this year’s figures. I say the comparison is most unfair and is, I submit, being made with malicious intent. [Interjections.]

*I want to say in all fairness that the Railways, like other bodies that are large consumers of liquid fuel, approaches the problem from two angles: Firstly, in respect of the additional cost of liquid fuel, and secondly, the movement of transport from the private sector to the public sector, and in this specific case that means the South African Railways as well, including the Airways. In this way, additional goods traffic was obtained, amounting to 5,5%, as I indicated in respect of the volume. Moreover, there was additional passenger traffic as well, in respect of the Airways as well as the train services. Of course this led to increased revenue. I do not have to tell the hon. member that great losses are suffered on passenger services. After all, the hon. member knows that our anticipated losses on passenger services for the 1980-’81 financial year are estimated at R484 million.

Are you saying that the more passengers you take, the greater the loss?

I am not saying that. The hon. member must please listen to what I am saying.

*The hon. member says he cannot evaluate the expenditure. I concede that. He cannot do so until he can evaluate the sources of revenue as well. I concede that to him as well. The fact is that what is at issue today is the additional expenditure. Naturally, we shall discuss the revenue of the Railways when we discuss the main budget on 5 March. In fact, I have told hon. members so, but I want to add that I think the Administration—from Management down to every railway worker in the service—should be commended for having been able, in spite of the fact that there was an increase of R190 million on one single consumer item, still to introduce an additional appropriation which exceeds the operating estimates by no more than 5,8%, and if one were to deduct R190 million, it would exceed those estimates by R18,9 million, which would amount to only 0,5%. This is a commendable effort on the part of the Administration, for which they deserve our thanks, and not our criticism. Let us see what happened with regard to the increase in the number of passengers, because this has a significant effect on costs as well. From April to November 1979, the number of passengers carried on main line trains increased from 23 million to 26 million, an increase of 3 million or 12,7%. The number of passengers carried by our domestic air transportation service between 1 April and December 1979 rose from 1,8 million in April to 2,2 million in December, i.e. 0,4 million more. As far as the foreign service is concerned, 581 000 were transported in April and 615 000 in December of the same year. In other words, there has been a significant movement towards the transport media falling under the S.A. Railways. This has meant that additional expenditure obviously had to be incurred in respect of many facets of the operating expenditure of the services. This applied more specifically to the meals, to which the hon. member referred.

I just want to give some more information in this particular connection, because it is relevant. The number of meals served in refreshment rooms from April to December 1978, compared with those served in the corresponding period in 1979, increased from 11 516 to 14 651. This is an increase of approximately 27% in the restaurants. With the regard to the meals served in the dining-cars of trains, these increased, from the period between April and December 1978 to the corresponding period in 1979, from 52 875 to 70 354, an increase of 33,1%. All I am trying to tell the hon. member by this is that one particular item—over which no one had any control—i.e. the energy problem in the world, not only had an effect on the cost of the fuel, but also had a significant effect on the traffic patterns which prevailed in the country, and that caused these enormous increases in percentages with regard to the number of persons conveyed by the transport media of the S.A. Railways. Is it really being suggested now that the Railways should have foreseen this? I think the reply to that would be “No”. [Interjections.] I am not quarrelling with that hon. member, I am talking now to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who said that we had made the price too high.

We speak of savings if amounts appropriated have not been spent.

†I think the hon. member made the point …

Not according to this document.

We must decide now whether I have the floor or the hon. member, because we cannot speak together.

*What we are indicating as savings is the R204,49 million. This was caused by certain factors.

†The first one is important. We obtained more favourable contracts because of the slackness in the economy. Secondly, some of the contractors completed the work at a slower pace than was originally anticipated. I concede immediately that this is not a saving in the sense that you have the money, but a question rather of transferring some of the money to the ensuing year. Thirdly, certain contract material had been delivered later than was originally anticipated. Fourthly, certain schemes had been delayed because of changed circumstances. Plans had therefore to be changed to make provision for the changed circumstances.

*This is the whole story in this particular connection. It also explains the fact that R147,9 million less was spent in respect of head No. 2 in the Brown Book than had been estimated.

†The hon. member says that we have not spent R25,6 million on rolling stock and poses, quite correctly I submit, the question as to whether we are now falling behind. The answer is “No,” and in this answer lies a compliment to the Railway Administration. To a large extent this is due to increased productivity. We also have longer trains, block loads, greater capacity per truck and better control over the use of trains.

Does this mean that you are not going to buy it now?

No, not at this stage.

Why do you then leave it on the book?

With great respect to the hon. member, I do not want to change the book now. After all, this book contains nothing but the additional appropriation in respect of expenditure for the present year.

†We shall deal with all these matters in the main budget. It may well be that in the main budget we shall have to provide for the acquisition of additional rolling stock. The point is that because of certain factors, for which I believe we should receive credit, it was not necessary to spend the money during the current financial year. I hope the hon. member understands this.

The hon. member also referred to the question of the interest on capital in respect of the Airways, interest amounting to R6,7 million. Let me explain that this debit arises because of the new formula for the calculation of interest. I shall explain the position carefully so that we need not discuss it again at a later stage. The increase is attributable to higher interest rates on foreign loans than anticipated and the revised basis for the distribution of interest on capital between main and subsidiary services. The hon. member should know what main services are. Previously interest on capital in respect of the various main and subsidiary services, except Railways, was calculated at a predetermined interest rate and distributed on a pro rata basis of the interest bearing capital invested in each service. The difference between this calculated interest and the actual interest charges was debited to the Railways. In other words, if the interest had been more than had been predetermined, that difference would have been debited to the Railways only. This basis has been revised and a new procedure is now followed in that the actual interest charges are distributed amongst all the main and subsidiary services on a pro rata basis of the total value of the assets of each service, notwithstanding the source of finance. I think hon. members will agree that this is an equitable way of spreading the interest over the various services of the Administration.

The next point that was raised is the question of the purchase of 737 Boeings. Let me say immediately that I am not a technical man and therefore not qualified to judge the efficiency of planes, the one against the other. That is not my job. Let me say in all fairness—and the hon. member for Von Brandis has referred to it—that these planes will naturally not be acquired by the Airways unless all the necessary studies have been made. Let me refer briefly to the 737s. These planes have been installed with the most modern Pratt and Whitney engines which, I am informed, can meet the problems of temperature, increased freight and longer distances. I think the hon. member would concede that once that is submitted to me for approval, it would be unwise for me not to accept the advice of experts.

The hon. members have referred to the question of capacity of the SAA to handle the domestic flights. Let me say that we have no problem in this regard, but we have anticipated the acquisition of the 737s because of the already evident movement to air traffic. In this regard it must be obvious to all the hon. members that in view of the fact that we have to budget approximately R90 million additional in respect of fuel costs for the SAA, there has been all the justification to do on domestic flights what has been done on foreign flights. That is to increase the tariffs. We have decided not to do so—notwithstanding the fact that it was justified—so as not to distort the use of the various transport media There again, I believe the hon. members should agree with me that that has been a wise decision.

The hon. member has referred to the additional R30 million for the house ownership scheme.

*Let me explain to hon. members what has happened in this particular connection. In the past, only up to 50% of those who applied for assistance under the house ownership scheme—which is a 100% loan scheme, as hon. members know—made use of their loans. This meant that some of our employees who were low in priority could be assisted. This situation has changed significantly. Where in the past, 50% did not make use of the loans for which they had applied, the figure has now dropped to 30%. In the light of this, the appropriation of the additional amount of R30 million is being requested. I think this is one of the finest things we can do, because I think that housing assistance for our employees is probably one of the greatest social responsibilities that employers have towards their employees. I think the hon. members will agree with me that it is a step in the right direction.

†Hon. members have referred to the question of the increase in repayment of loans, the R46,6 million. Let me explain. Let me give the information regarding the total repayment of foreign and other loans: Railways: (a) foreign loans, R124 million; (b) suppliers, financing, R37,9 million; Sishen-Saldanha—which was taken over from Iscor under the old Department of Industries—(a) foreign loans, R105,5 million; and (b) local loans, R41,6 million. The total is R309 million. The additional amount of approximately R46 million is, as I have indicated, required for the earlier redemption or part redemption of certain loans, the conditions of which are relatively unfavourable. This is the actual position. Firstly there is the earlier redemption of roll-over loans of R2,3 million and, secondly, the earlier redemption of a Security Pacific Loan of R25,3 million at an interest rate of 11%. Now the rates are lower. So it was in the interests of the S.A. Railways that that specific loan be repaid earlier. Thirdly there was the Iscor bridging loan in respect of anticipated cash flow losses for 1978-’79, an amount of R19 million. The reason for this is simple. It is because the loss on that line has been lower than we thought it was going to be, and the reason for this was the increased traffic carried on that line. There again I think this improves the position, something which is very important.

Amongst other things hon. members also referred to the question of the cost of fuel in relation to international services. Now, this is true. It is true that the cost of fuel varies, in the various centres, at international airports. It is also true that the South African prices are probably among the highest of all the routes over which we travel. However, I believe hon. members will know what the reason for this is. After all, we are an importing country, flying our imports over very long distances, whilst other countries either have oil at their disposal from own production sources or from sources much nearer to the transporter.

Let us, however, look at some of the prices as at the end of September 1979. The price paid in Johannesburg for a US gallon of fuel is 164 US cents. In Cape Town the price is 150 cents. In Buenos Aires it is 64 cents. Hon. members will understand why. It is because the source of oil is so much nearer to them. In Lisbon the price is 129 cents. I think hon. members will agree Lisbon is also much nearer to sources of supply than we are. The price in Athens is 127 cents, in Frankfort, West Germany, it is 95 cents, in London 81 cents, and so it varies. However, let us look at the effect this has on international services, and more particular on the service between South Africa and Argentina. I think the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to this. During 1978-’79 the S.A. Airways carried 10 787 passengers, which represented at that stage 40% of the total number of passengers carried between the two countries. The national airline of Argentina carried 16 340 passengers between the two countries over the same period. That represented 60% of the total number of passengers carried. During the period 1979-’80 S.A. Airways carried 16 671 passengers, representing 58% of the total number of passengers, whilst the national airline of Argentina carried 12 044 passengers, that is 42% of the total number. This again is evidence of the efficiency of the S.A. Airways.

Are we doing better?

Of course we are doing better! However, what I am trying to suggest to hon. members—and I am being very fair now—is that I do not mind hon. members criticizing us when they think we have made mistakes. Let us concede that we all make mistakes. However, I should like to suggest that there is so much room for giving credit to this institution which, I submit, is a national institution because it has to serve the country. That aspect is one we should not forget.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti says I have, in fact, been responsible for the increase in the fuel price. The hon. member is wrong there, of course. I have not been responsible for that increase because I do not try to either flatter myself or defame myself by suggesting that I am the Ayatollah. However, I should like to suggest to the hon. member that there are major industrial countries in Europe that are most perturbed about, firstly, the effect of the cost of fuel on their economies and, secondly—and about this they are even more perturbed—about the obvious intent of the Russians to cut off their supplies of energy resources and raw materials. I submit in all fairness, firstly, that the public of South Africa had reasonable supplies made available to them with the least amount of inconvenience.

Secondly, I submit that we have stabilized the price of these products to the public and have, at the same time, over a period of five or six years, been able to obtain a figure of over R6 500 million to make South Africa less dependent on foreign supplies. I therefore believe, in all fairness, that the Government should again be lauded for these attempts and not criticized, and I also believe that, in all fairness, we should all make a contribution to the cost of making South Africa more self-sufficient in this particular field.

The hon. member referred amongst other things to certain details that I suggest could be much better handled when we come to the Committee Stage, because these comprise individual items.

*I thank the hon. member for Witwatersberg for his kind remarks as well as for his analysis of the budget. The fact remains, in all fairness, that the success story of the S.A. Railways, including the Airways, is the success story of the approximately 265 000 people who work for it. I want to give the hon. House an undertaking. As long as I am the Minister responsible for the S.A. Railways, that success will be shared with the 265 000 people who work for it. I say this because I believe that the system can never be more efficient and more effective than the people who serve it, and this applies to all ranks, from the General Manager down to the humblest employer who sweeps the platforms. I therefore want to ask hon. members to view this institution in the light that I do, as a national instrument that should serve the national interest of this country. I think this is being done in a splendid way.

†The hon. member for Von Brandis dealt largely with matters put forward by hon. members on the other side and did so very effectively. I thank him for that. The whole question of steam has naturally been considered, but the hon. member will understand that we have, over the years, turned to diesel and also to electrification. To a large extent many of these lines cannot be used by steam locomotives anymore, for the simple reason that the facilities to serve them on these lines are not there anymore. Secondly, steam locomotives are not being manufactured anymore. I am sure he will understand me when I say that I believe that we should rather do something else, and that is to electrify our lines as far as possible. Hon. members know that we have a programme for this. We are spending something like R410 million over a period of five years, if I remember correctly, to do just that, and once that particular scheme has been completed we shall be carrying about 80 of total freight with engines powered by electricity.

I now come to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti’s question about alternative fuels and their application. Let me say immediately that much research is being done, by the S.A. Railways in conjunction with other institutions, to do the very thing the hon. member has suggested. I undertake, however, to give much more details to the hon. member when we discuss the main budget. I believe that this is one of the major issues that we should discuss with one another.

Are you using any of Hendrik’s sunflower seed?

No, we have not come to that yet, but we do carry his goods for him at very low tariffs. He will admit that himself.

I think I have now replied to all the questions. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked certain specific questions relating to certain specific items under the various heads. I shall be very glad to answer those questions when we come to the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules:

Mr. Chairman …

Will you specify the items you want to deal with?

Sir, I shall specify them, but if I may right at the start just reply to some of the hon. the Minister’s reactions to my Second Reading speech, I want to say to him that when he suggests that I approach something with “malicious intent”, I am not sure he really understands how unpleasant he is being. I think I approached this matter in a highly constructive spirit. I asked questions to which we in the House are entitled to know the answers. I believe I would be failing in my duty if I did not ask those questions. I thought that in fact I let the hon. the Minister off very lightly on some major items of budgeting.

I shall specifically come back to a couple of items. Firstly, as regards the question of savings, the hon. the Minister must realize that when we discuss the Schedules, as we are doing at the moment, we do so in the context of the Brown Book he tabled. If I may just illustrate my point…

Are you going to deal with the Brown Book now?

Yes, I am going to deal with the Brown Book. I want to refer to the purchase of aircraft again. The hon. the Minister must understand that, when we talk about the purchase of aircraft, all we are being asked for in this additional appropriation is R3 million in one case, namely for the Boeing 737 aircraft, and R3 316 000 in the other case. It would, however, be very naïve to suggest that we are just talking about an amount of R6,3 million. We are in fact talking about an amount a little over R150 million.

I said so.

The point I am making is that, once we accept this preliminary amount, we are in effect giving the go-ahead for the order for the major amount I just wanted to make absolutely certain that we understood each other on this.

Sir, I want to come back to a question raised both by myself and by the hon. member for Hillbrow. This has to do with the savings on road transport services. I refer to the White Book. If the hon. the Minister will look at the Estimates of the Additional Working Expenditure, Summary of Heads, he will see that it falls under head No. 5, I think it is—I am just trying to find out on which page it is.

What savings are you referring to?

The savings on road transport services. I have found it. I see it is actually in the Brown Book. It is a capital saving.

I helped you. Say “thank you”.

Thank you very much. I refer to head No. 4 on page 2 of the Brown Book. There it is indicated that there is the considerable saving of R7 774 500 on capital expenditure on the road transport service. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can tell us how that saving came about. On this whole question of savings, I want to say that I am very gratified to see that, for instance, under head No. 2 there was a saving of more than R147 million. I am very gratified to hear that we are undertaking contracts very much more cheaply because of the state of the market I am interested, too, to hear that contracts are possibly delayed. I am again talking about the whole principle of saving. I accept all those arguments. In my initial argument I suggested that, being a contractor, I know perfectly well how this sort of thing comes about One must, however, also accept that contracts sometimes get finished a little sooner, and I suggested that R147 million was excessive in terms of budgeting procedures. What one should try and do is to see that one budgets a little more accurately. From years of experience we know that contracts are going to be delayed.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member does not know anything, so it does not surprise me that…

You are contradicting what you said last year.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has been in this House long enough to know that if he wants to put a question he must stand up and ask it through you, Sir, instead of mumbling away from his seat. My specific question to the hon. the Minister is why the saving of R7 774 million in respect of road transport services is in the Brown Book.

Mr. Chairman, I have not charged the hon. member with putting questions. I charged him with comparing me to my predecessor. I hope we understand each other in this regard. I should like the hon. member to put all the questions he likes.

I want to make a few general remarks about contracts. The hon. member knows that we have a budget for capital works amounting to almost R1 400 million, which was initially budgeted for the current financial year. He also knows that under such circumstances it is impossible, especially when contracts run over periods of longer than a year or two, to establish the specific expenditure during a specific year.

†After all, the hon. member is in the building industry himself and he would therefore know that the capacity of the building industry varies depending on the demand for its services. In many cases people have been caught on the wrong foot because of a slackness in the building industry and contractors had completed the work before the time. They then had to seek additional money to pay for that.

*I have tried explaining that there are four main considerations which applied in respect of the saving of almost R204 million on capital works. In the first place, because there was a low level of economic activity in certain circumstances, we obtained favourable contracts. This gave us a direct and real saving. In the second place there was late delivery of orders in some cases, which was not a de facto saving, but a delay. However, I had to show this as a saving in terms of the budgetary procedure. In the third place, there were contracts which progressed more slowly, as a result of which the expenditure was spread over a longer period of time, which also did not represent an actual saving, but a distribution over a longer period of time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether some of these delays were because of the Administration or whether they were just…

I now come to the fourth consideration. This was due to the fact that progress on the schemes was delayed because the circumstances had changed and it had become necessary to adapt the planning to the new circumstances. The hon. member can look at the Brown Book. Many of the schemes date from many years ago and in many cases are appearing in the budget for the first time. This is not an exact estimate, but only an estimate to have it approved. The hon. member knows that this is how matters are handled. At the outset I said that the issue here is the question of additional expenditure. The hon. member will understand that almost 1 500 items appear in the budget, it is impossible for me to give him the information about the savings which he would like to have, for the simple reason that it may be discussed in the main budget. Then I have to explain the savings. The only relevant issue at this stage is the question of the additional amounts I require. I hope the hon. member will accept this.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the reply the hon. the Minister has given and I hope that in the main budget debate we shall hear a clearer explanation of the things which are bothering me.

I should like to refer to head No. 2: New Works on Open Lines. I referred to this at Second Reading. Under the column headed “Savings Available” we see that an amount of R147 884 000 on an originally estimated expenditure of R579 071 100. This means that there has been a saving of 25,5%. The hon. the Minister has explained some of the reasons for this, but I should like to know exactly what proportion of that R147 million is actually for deferred projects. My fear is that the Railways Administration may be falling behind in its capital replacement programme. As the hon. member for Von Brandis has said, in past debates I have always questioned the total amount as to whether it was necessary. The point I am trying to make now is that if one studies the savings, one sees that the grand total of savings available, i.e. R204 490 800, represents 14,5% of the original estimates. All I want the hon. the Minister to do is on the one hand to give me some assurance that the equipment is not running down, and on the other hand to give the assurance that these are not items in the Brown Book which have been budgeted for and approved, but which really are not necessary and need not be in the Brown Book. That is my concern.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make matters too difficult for the hon. member. However, if the hon. member examines the votes under head No. 2, he will see that what we now have to deal with are the amounts in bold print in the last column, as these are the additional amounts that have to be granted. This is all that must receive the attention of hon. members at present. The hon. member must understand this. This goes for revenue too—when we consider the year’s activities in the debate on the Principal Budget on 5 March, the Revenue and Expenditure Accounts also fall under the spotlight and then the hon. member will be quite entitled to ask questions about them. Quite apart from the four general reasons I gave the hon. member for the reduced expenditure on the capital programme he referred to, I just want to give him the assurance that we are keeping the railway lines and rolling stock in good condition and that we shall be in a position to meet the anticipated increased demand for the transportation of goods and passengers. I want to say that we have sufficient capacity to meet those requirements. Consequently I gladly give him the assurance for which he is asking. We can discuss individual savings with each other at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, in the additional capital budget in the Brown Book under head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines, Orange Free State System, Bloemfontein—reference is made to a training centre for non-White police. Its total estimated cost is R186 900 and up to 31 March 1979, R15 219 had been spent. In the revised budget an amount of R171 600 is requested. Could the hon. the Minister give us an indication of the progress being made here and also, perhaps, an indication of the nature of the training being envisaged here? The same question applies to item No. 18, concerning the Bayhead Apprentice School in the Natal Section. It is an apprentice school providing telecommunications training. Could we have the same information here too?

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member will see, there has been a considerable increase in the work being done there. An investigation has brought to light that the non-White strength of the S.A. Railway Police must be considerably increased so that they can serve their own people as well. In order to provide for the staff turnover of plus/minus 10% in respect of these employees, more than 300 of the members of this population group must be trained. Owing to limited accommodation at the Railway College, only 144 constables and approximately 40 non-White non-commissioned officers could be trained per annum. With regard to training there is already a backlog of 346 Black constables and 170 Coloured and Asian non-commissioned officers in the Force. In order to deal with this situation it has been recommended, and eventually accepted, that that part of the existing hostel for Blacks in Bloemfontein no longer being used, be converted into a training centre for Black members of the Force. The estimated cost of the changes—of the conversion work—amounts to approximately R186 000, which includes furniture worth R40 000.

Last year I attended the passing-out parade of these Black policemen, and I want to advise hon. members to go and attend it too. These people have a fine and proud record. Some of the members of Parliament for Bloemfontein, inter alia, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, were also there that day, and he could probably confirm that it was an impressive occasion. I trust that hon. members opposite will also go along from time to time. I shall invite them along.

I saw you on television that day.

Did you? I was not wearing a uniform, was I?

*The accommodation for the training of artisans at Bayhead consisted of two prefabricated buildings that have been in use for two years. Apart from the training of telecommunications and radio apprentices, lectures in electronics are also being given to power and signal technicians. A large variety of communications apparatus has to be installed there for the purposes of training and the practical instruction of the apprentices. This old building that was in use, became exceptionally hot. As hon. members know, it can often get very hot in Natal. Those temporary buildings could be used as temporary office accommodation in order to alleviate the congestion existing there. At the time of the approval of the work, 66 apprentices had to be trained. It was therefore necessary for us to provide proper training facilities for apprentices there and provision was made for this in the Brown Book.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer you to the Brown Book, head No. 3: “Rolling Stock: Additions and Improvements”, items No. 32, 33 and 34, where an additional amount of R810 800 is being requested as an additional amount. It concerns modifications of 15 diesel locomotives, the conversion of 110 DZ type trucks and the conversion of 50 type GZ trucks. According to the footnote these were urgent works to be commenced during the financial year 1979-’80. May I request the hon. the Minister to give us some more information in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, during May last year, for the first time shots were fired at the vehicles of the Road Transport Service of the Administration in South West Africa, and although there were no serious casualties as a result of this, it should be expected that terrorist attacks of this nature may take place from time to time in the northern parts of South West Africa. Consequently it was essential for the staff on the trains and the motor vehicles to be protected against injuries or against loss of life. As a result we have decided to modify the locomotives in question in order to protect the train staff in this way.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister please explain to this House with regard to the expenditure under “Transport Services”, account 108 “Railway Police”, page 5, how the amount of R110 million in the revised budget was constituted?

Mr. Chairman, I take it the hon. member is referring to the additional amount of R693 000. In actual fact the amount is more than this, because an amount is also being made available for this out of savings. In this particular case the explanation for this is, firstly, that there is an additional amount of R45 000 in respect of Superannuation Fund contributions. In addition the Sick Fund contribution has increased by R15 000, and then, too, provision of R633 000 was made for a service bonus. In this particular regard I must point out that up to and including last year a holiday bonus was paid to the officials of the Railways, similar to that paid to the civil servants. As a result of representations by the staff, however, it has been decided to change that holiday bonus to a service bonus which will be the equivalent of one month’s basic salary—in other words, officials will receive 13 months’ salary for 12 months actual service. In my opinion this is a considerable improvement in the conditions of service of the staff, and entailed additional expenditure for this last quarter of the financial year amounting to approximately R26 million. In respect of the Railways Superannuation Fund, I just want to explain that it was decided to increase the White members’ contributions as from 1 December 1979, in other words their percentage contribution to the Fund, from 6% to 6,75%, while the Administration’s contribution has been decreased from R3,20 to R2,95 per rand of the member’s contribution. In actual fact this means that the Administration’s contribution to the fund now rises from 19,2% to 19,9%, a total additional expenditure of approximately R1,6 million in respect of the period in question. As a matter of interest, the Administration’s total contribution in respect of the Superannuation Fund is estimated at R140 million for the present financial year. As far-as the Sick Fund is concerned—this is the third item to which I referred—I want to say that owing to the rising cost of medicine and the increase in salaries of the Railway doctors and specialists, the Administration was compelled to increase its contribution from R1,70 to R1,93 per rand of the members’ contribution for the period 1 December 1979 to 31 March of this year, in order to keep the Sick Fund solvent. The total additional expenditure for this period is estimated at R1,4 million. The Administration’s total contribution for the existing financial year is estimated at R35 million.

Mr. Chairman, under head No. 6—Airways—on page 11 of the Brown Book, items 39 and 40 deal with the purchase of one Airbus and 12 Boeing 737 aircraft My first question is whether the revised total estimated cost is based on a firm contract price or whether it is subject to escalation. In view of the estimated total cost of R154 million, can the aircraft be fitted with any kind of hail protection device in view of the damage that has occurred to certain aircraft recently which led to the grounding of these aircraft? Is it possible to have a hail guard at Jan Smuts airport itself to protect our present aircraft?

Mr. Chairman, the position in regard to the purchase of the one Airbus and the 12 Boeing 737 is that they were purchased on a fixed contract, which included an escalation clause. As I have already indicated, the delivery date for these aircraft commences in 1981. It is therefore normal procedure that escalation clauses should apply in respect of these contracts.

As regards the recent hail damage, I think the S.A. Airways did a marvellous job of work to keep the services running. May I just mention that the direct cost of this incident at the moment is in the vicinity of R24 million. Be that as it may, the S.A. Airways was insured against such an eventuality, so that it suffered no direct losses. However, there have been some consequential losses.

Are they all airworthy now?

No. Work is still being carried out on some of the aircraft used on overseas services. We are trying as far as we can and according to our means to build the necessary facilities where these aircraft can be stored. However, let me say immediately that an event of this nature can occur at any point in time. It has already happened in the past that our aircraft were subjected to hailstorms while in service, so that it is impossible to obviate the problem.

Mr. Chairman, in the additional working expenditure under head No. 5: “Traffic, and Vehicle Running Expenses” on account No. 521: “Shunters”, an additional amount of R1 967 000 is being requested. Why is this such a relatively large amount, and what exactly does the increase entail?

Mr. Chairman, this amount is composed of several items. The first is an amount of R1,354 million in respect of the service bonus which I referred to a moment ago. The second item is Sunday time and overtime payments to the amount of R418 000. This was caused by the increased traffic which the Railways had to cope with, coupled with a decrease in personnel. There was a 5,5% increase in goods traffic and a 4% decrease in the approximate number of staff in this category with the result that we had to effect more overtime and Sunday-time payments to those officers who were in the service. The third item constitutes contributions to the Superannuation Fund (R145 000), while the fourth item represents contributions to the Sick Fund (R50 000).

Mr. Chairman, under head No. 31: “Working and Maintenance” under “Transportation Services: Airways,” an additional amount of R1 502 000 has to be appropriated on account No. 3117: “Other Flying Expenses.” Could the hon. the Minister give us more details of this additional amount that has to be appropriated?

Mr. Chairman, this additional expenditure involves four items. The first is flight information, R892 000. These are mainly costs we had to incur in order to obtain flight information, for services in other countries as well. The second is hotel accommodation, mainly for our flight personnel, R360 000. The hon. member will remember that I indicated that those costs had risen considerably. In the third place there are meals, R160 000. The same reason applies here as for the previous item. In the fourth place, there are transport costs, R90 000. That gives a total of R1,502 million.

Mr. Chairman, on page 13 of the Estimates of Additional Working Expenditure, head No. 31, there are two small items which I want to refer to. The first one is account No. 3115, which refers to hire of aircraft and for which R1,4 million is being asked. Could the hon. the Minister please tell us what that is for? Secondly I refer to account No. 3164 where R2,2 million is required for “other passenger expenses”. This seems a little general. Would the hon. the Minister please explain that. Then with regard to the R30 million available for housing loans, is it possible for the Black staff to obtain 99-year leases thereunder?

Let me first of all say that the insurance cover of R24,5 million … [Interjections.] This is just to add to what I said a moment ago. This R24,5 million is covered by insurance …

That is for damage.

It was not for damage. It was cover for the aircraft to restore them to their previous condition. There are still three aircraft out of order.

In reply to the first question of the hon. member for Hillbrow the answer is as follows: From time to time the SAA has entered into contracts with other airways to move some of the freight, for instance. Contracts have been drawn up with, among others, Luxair, Luxavia, Safair and Air Cape. This is natural, because they too have additional expenditure, for instance in respect of fuel costs.

In reply to the hon. member’s second question, this additional amount is due to the higher cost of accommodation and meals for cabin crews, to which I have already referred.

Coming back to the hail damage, the estimated actual damage to the ’planes was R24,5 million and covers full restoration to their previous condition. This is covered by insurance. We have no cover for consequential damages.

I also wanted to know whether the R30 million covered the 99-year lease.

Can I reply to that later?

Third Reading

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

I should just like to point out briefly that it is also possible for Black people, in terms of the 99-year-leasehold system, to make use of loan funds from the housing scheme of the Railways.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment to clause 1—

During Second Reading both the hon. member for East London North and I clearly indicated to the hon. the Minister that we were not happy with this legislation because it was empowering the Minister to impose a tax on the public at his choosing, and that this clause, if passed as it stands, would not allow Parliament to vote the imposition of such a tax. The hon. the Minister, in his reply, said that this was not a tax; it was a levy. I took the liberty of looking it up in the Pocket Oxford Dictionary. There a levy is defined as “collecting of tax or compulsory payment”. Now I thought I should also look up what a tax was. A tax is defined as “legally levied contribution to State revenue”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I stand by what I said before. This is a form of tax. It is a tax which is contributing towards the National Road Safety Council, which is a body set up to promote road safety. The hon. the Minister says this is a levy on insurance premiums. I agree that this is the way it has been arranged through this particular legislation. However, I still maintain that there are two different and separate functions which are covered by the existing legislation. The one is an insurance cover for motorists. The other one is an educational council, the activities of which are directed at educating the public in road safety.

To carry my argument further, one could say that it is in the interests of the insurance companies to have such a council. Then again, it would also be in the interests of an insurance company to have ambulance services provided on the roads so as to ensure that the extent of injuries suffered by persons involved in motor accidents is lessened by virtue of having prompt ambulance services. A levy could therefore be imposed on the insurance fund to finance an ambulance service. I know I am now carrying the matter to extremes, but it is a form of tax, and this is a point I want to make to the hon. the Minister.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister said that the National Road Safety Council produces an annual report which is submitted to Parliament annually and that during the Transport Vote we would have an opportunity to debate that report. With respect, however, what time do we have in the Transport Vote to debate such important matters as the taxation of the public? The hon. the Minister is new to this portfolio, but wait until the Transport Vote comes up. In that Vote there are matters to be discussed such as national roads, airports, commercial aviation and all kinds of other things that fall under that particular Vote. I therefore submit that in the case of an important matter such as the levying of taxes on the public, this Parliament should have the opportunity of debating additional taxation. As I have said in the Second Reading debate, this is a principle on which this Parliament is founded. That is the reason for my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me say immediately that if I had reason not to accept that, since having listened to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti I have more reason not to do so. In his argument yesterday he said that this is a tax on the people, but I argued against that. [Interjections.] Just give me a chance. Let me now use his own authority to quote the definition of a tax, but I should like to go a little further than he did when he quoted it. I quote the definition of “tax” as a noun—

With all due respect, what is there in this Bill that justifies the description of this levy as a tax accruing to the State coffers? It is just the reverse. This is a levy on a motor vehicle, an amount which at present is 50c per vehicle as described in the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, an amount not to be paid to the State Revenue Fund or fiscus, but to be paid to the National Road Safety Council.

By the taxpayers.

No, it is not paid by the taxpayers, it is paid by a motor-car.

A motor-car?

Of course! With respect, I am quoting from the authority used by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. Let me again quote the definition which he used, from his own dictionary. A tax is—

Now in all fairness, is the levy, in terms of this provision, to go to the State revenue?

It is going to a statutory body.

No, that is not what the definition says. That was not my question either. The operative element in this definition is that it must go to State revenue. Once the hon. member has accepted that according to his own authority this is not a tax …

What is a levy?

… then his argument falls away.

Read the definition of “levy”.

I shall read it—

In terms of this authority a tax is a levy which is imposed to go to State revenue. I do not think it can mean something different.

Is that a handbook?

It is his handbook, Sir. He has the wrong handbook. I could have given him much better authorities than the one he quoted from. Let me continue, because he wants me to read it.

†It says that a levy could be a tax when it goes to State revenue.

Then this is a tax.

No, of course not. The hon. member should read the definition of the word “tax”. Surely I should not have to train the hon. member in the use of his own language. He also says that a levy is a compulsory payment. Of course it is a compulsory payment, but it is not a tax.

In all fairness, the principle that levies exist in many forms and are imposed for many purposes, has been approved of in this House. It has also been approved of that such levies can be dealt with on an administrative basis. The hon. member should take a look at the levies which obtain in the agricultural sector. We all approve of them. I therefore submit, with due respect, that this is not a new principle which is now being incorporated. In fact, I submit that we have on many occasions, and with the active support of hon. members opposite, approved of the principle of the use of levies in the way I suggest we should do it now.

In the final analysis the hon. member need not in the debate on the Transport Vote discuss the accounts of the council; he can merely pull me up if he thinks that I have increased the levy and not the tax to the fund.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary to reiterate merely for the sake of the record the attitude of the hon. members in these benches. We cannot go along with the amendment. The hon. the Minister is quite right when he says that there is no question at all of this being a new principle. There are many examples in our law of Ministers being given the right to impose a levy. I must say that I find it quite unbelievable that Parliament should spend so much time on such a very trivial item.

We are protecting the rights of the citizens.

One can advance dogmatic arguments of this kind—everybody can argue about words—but the fact of the matter is that we are wasting more money discussing this than the actual amount involved.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that I should react to what the hon. member for Orange Grove has said, except in so far as to say that the amount of time spent in debate in this House on a variety of subjects on which hon. members have gone way back into history, and when hon. members discuss things which are not totally relevant to the question, does not mean that we in these benches should not have our opportunity to discuss a piece of legislation with which we do not agree. This is basically what the situation is: We do not agree with a situation whereby a Minister is given unlimited power to impose additional levies.

I think we have been very reasonable in the amendment we have put before the Committee. We have not attempted to peg the levy at the amount of 75c which the hon. the Minister himself has said he wishes to impose. I believe that the amendment we have moved should be able to cover the situation for many years to come. I cannot see that the hon. the Minister should want to increase the levy to a figure in excess of R1 for, one would hope, at least five years. It has, after all, been the same figure for the last eight years. It is now going another 25 cents or 50% higher, which is fair enough. I therefore do not believe that we, in these benches, are in any shape or form being unreasonable in wanting to grant the hon. the Minister the right to increase it up to R1. I believe, however, that we in these benches cannot see our way clear to giving him the right to increase it to any figure that he may see fit. It is all very well to argue semantics and to say that this is not a tax because it is not accruing to State revenue.

What would you call it then?

Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the hon. the Minister’s own argument, which is purely an argument in semantics. What is basically happening is that money is being taken from a portion of the public and is being given directly by the hon. the Minister to a statutory body which has been set up by the Government. This body is doing something which the Government wishes to have done. If the statutory body did not do it, the Government itself would have to be doing it. All that is happening is that the Government is taking money out of one pocket and putting it into a body for their own purposes. I therefore submit that however one would like to argue the point, this is a tax. So I would seriously suggest that the hon. the Minister reconsiders his decision and does not impose this particular clause on the South African public. We must then also ask why he is so keen to have this particular right. Why is he not prepared to be reasonable? What is in the back of his mind? Why does he want a complete open-ended situation to be created whereby he can increase this levy to any amount that he sees fit without having to come back to Parliament? We, in these benches, will always be prepared to listen to a reasonable argument in the future. I do not believe that it would take up a lot of the time of the House if the hon. the Minister came back, when he wanted to increase this levy above R1, and put his case. That is all we are attempting to do in proposing this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out the practical difficulties we have with the proposed amendment to the Act As the matter stands at the moment, with the Act unamended, provision is made for an amount of 50 cents, which amount was approved by Parliament. The hon. the Minister has, quite rightly, come to the House to seek an amendment whereby that amount will fall away and he will be able to fix the amount to be paid. We have proposed that the 50 cents should be increased to R1. The hon. the Minister, however, feels that is not necessary because what he requires is the right to fix an as yet undetermined and unspecified amount, which will be an increase on 50 cents. The hon. the Minister says that if we are dissatisfied with the amount he decides on, we can discuss it under the Transport Vote, raise the matter with him, make a noise about it, etc. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister, however, that under the procedure we have proposed, should there be a change whereby more than R1 is levied, Parliament would still be involved in determining what the amount would be. If hon. members on this side of the House are dissatisfied with the amount the hon. the Minister has fixed, I want to ask whether we could, under the Transport Vote, move for a reduction of that amount.

Of course we cannot.

I believe it is beyond the competence and the authority of Parliament to set a figure, to argue with the hon. the Minister about what the amount should be or to move an amendment to indicate what we, on this side of the House, feel the amount should be under the Transport Vote. That is what I think is wrong with the legislation the hon. the Minister seeks to have adopted. Under the Transport Vote the issue can be debated, but I think that actually to move an amendment under that vote, to reduce the amount the hon. the Minister has fixed, is beyond the competence of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the triumvirate on their less successful attempts to put a poor case. [Interjections.] Let us just go back to what was said yesterday. The fundamental argument raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti was that the House should approve the levying of a tax. That, in all fairness, was his argument. He has changed his amendment, for the amendment which he wanted to move yesterday, is not the same amendment which he has now given me. He will also concede that. Yesterday the hon. member had a different amendment to the one which has moved today. I am grateful that he gave it to me yesterday. I do not differ with him on that. We need only look at the course of the debate. He referred to an authority and said that this particular … [Interjections.]

†It is not semantics. I did not start with it. He started with semantics. Tell him that, not me.

Now you are being anti-semantic.

If they want to make a joke of their own arguments, it is all right with me. I do not care. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti put forward the argument that taxes should be approved of by Parliament. Secondly, he argued that this levy is a tax and, thirdly, the evidence or authority he produced to prove that it is a tax, is this pocket dictionary. In terms of this pocket dictionary, Sir, it is not a tax.

What is a levy then?

I submit quite seriously that we are busy with a frivolous argument about nothing.

I should also like to say—and I dare hon. members to dispute it—that there are many forms of levies, imposed by different departments, concerning which it has been approved that those levies could be determined and imposed by way of a notice in the Government Gazette. We are therefore playing with words. Sir, Parliament has the right to debate under the Votes, the whole question of the level of levies it has empowered the administrations of departments to publish by notice. Hon. members have the right to discuss these matters in detail, and any responsible Minister will in all fairness be prepared to listen to arguments. However, to suggest that all levies imposed for the administration of the various responsibilities of 43 or more departments should be the subject matter of a debate in this House on this Bill, is I submit utter nonsense and therefore, with due respect, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. the Minister has adopted this attitude. If this discussion has become frivolous, I think it is because he yesterday started with semantics. I said it was a tax and he said it was a levy. I think that, if one analyses the definitions of both a tax and a levy, one will see that we are playing with semantics right now, but the issue here is that we believe that, when the Government chooses to take money from the public, the public should have a say in a place such as Parliament as to whether they approve of, agree or disagree with such levies or taxes, whatever they may be. Sir, we are dealing with an amendment to the National Road Safety Act. The raising of funds for the National Road Safety Council is undertaken via the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. It could have been done by some other means. The funds could have come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. However, the principle that was established when this Act was first passed, was that funds would be derived from some source to finance a statutory body and it was agreed that it should come from the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund. Now the hon. the Minister has gone against the spirit of the original Act and has chosen to take upon himself the powers to impose a levy, or whatever he likes to call it, at his discretion. We disagree with that principle. In conclusion I would just like to say that, if there are other levies which the State imposes without coming to the people, does it necessarily mean that that is the correct way in which things should be done? In fact we disagree with the principle. I certainly disagree with it. Maybe the Acts themselves are wrong in that regard. Therefore I am afraid we cannot support this clause and shall vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis may I just say that I do my best to understand the hon. member. He says that any financial imposition on people should be debated in Parliament. Yesterday I asked the hon. member why he does not argue that the determination of third party insurance premiums, which in fact are being imposed in terms of an Act of Parliament…

But not this one.

Oh, please, man! I asked him why he does not argue that those premiums which are determined by the Minister, and in respect of which a notice is published in the Government Gazette, should also not be approved by Parliament.

We dealt with that argument yesterday.

Will that hon. member not just keep quiet for a moment? I did not interrupt him when he was talking. Yesterday the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that the reason why he thought it was correct that it should be done that way was because the MVA Fund is a commercial undertaking. That was his argument. I then explained to him that that fund was a statutory fund, as the National Road Safety Fund is a statutory fund, conceived for different purposes, it is true, but principally with nothing more involved than is involved here. Therefore I submit again that the hon. member is prepared to argue on a small item that represents that levy for a statutory fund whereas the premium, which is much higher, he accepts should be collected in that form. In all sincerity it is not possible for me to argue against such illogicality.

Mr. Chairman, there are two Acts involved here. One is the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act and the other is the National Road Safety Act. The Insurance Act was passed to set up cover for motorists and for third parties travelling in vehicles. I am quite sure that when that Act was debated the spirit of the debate would have been to ensure that people had adequate coverage. In order to do this it would be appreciated that from time to time the premiums which are levied on the motorist would have to vary.

One could change the Act.

Will the hon. the Minister just allow me to finish what I have to say? The premiums would have to be varied from time to time in order to ensure that the insurance cover would be viable. The National Road Safety Council is something completely different. It is a statutory body which is there to educate the public, the same way the Department of Education educates the public. I should like to submit—I cannot carry it further because the rules of this House will not allow me to do so—that two different bodies or organizations are involved here. One is an insurance company and the other is an educational organization. Regrettably, when the National Road Safety Act was first passed, it was seen fit to obtain the funds for that council via the premium paid for third party insurance cover. At that time it was decided that the hon. the Minister would come to this House to alter the levy, or whatever he wants to call it, to finance this educational body from time to time. The hon. the Minister has now changed this, and therefore we are unable to support it.

Amendment negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

1. (1) On page 9, in line 8, to omit “may” and to substitute “shall”;
2. (2) on page 9, after line 36, to insert:

1. (8) The designated officer shall be present at any inquiry instituted under this section.

1. (3) on page 9, in line 38, to omit “submit” and to substitute “consider”;
2. (4) on page 9, in line 40, to omit the second “to” and to substitute “in the presence of";
3. (5) on page 9, in lines 42 to 51, to omit subsection (2) and to substitute:

1. (2) The Association may, after having considered such minutes—

1. (a) dispose of the matter further in terms of subsection (3); or
2. (b) institute further inquiries as it may deem fit

1. (6) on page 9, to omit lines 52 to 59 and to substitute:

1. (3) The Association may, after having come to a final decision on the matter,

1. (7) on page 11, in line 24, to omit “designated officer” and to substitute “Association”;
2. (8) on page 11, in line 29, to omit “he may by order” and to substitute:

1. (9) on page 11, in line 33, to omit “he” and to substitute “the Association”;
2. (10) on page 11, in lines 38 to 41, to omit subsection (6) and to substitute:
3. (6) The Association may extend for any period the period of operation of, or withdraw, or in any other manner amend, any order made under subsection (5).
4. (11) on page 11, in lines 46 and 47, to omit “the designated officer has taken any action under subsection (3), he” and to substitute:

1. (12) on page 11, in lines 51 and 52, to omit “by the designated officer”.

My amendments should be looked at as being in two separate parts. The first amendment makes provision for the fact that an officer with judicial experience “shall”, instead of “may”, be appointed. The reason for that, which I have already clearly stated, is that attorneys and advocates are allowed to appear before the association to advance legal arguments and raise legal points of procedure and that homeopaths, osteopaths, etc., may not be well versed in that. Therefore, I think that, for the proper administration of justice, it would be right and proper for a person of such legal experience to be a member of the association in order to hear the inquiry.

The second amendment serves to make provision for the fact that, when an inquiry is ordered, the designated officer shall be present at such inquiry. Thereafter, we intend that the decision made by the association in the presence of the designated officer should be the decision of the association.

Although there are a number of amendments, many are simply of a consequential nature. In order to make the amendment meaningful, it is necessary to amend many other provisions concerning the procedure to be followed here. My amendments are not really as formidable as they look. They merely make provision for the fact that, whereas the designated officer was going to make the decision, the association together with the designated officer will now make the decision. That is what all the amendments are about.

At the Second Reading the hon. the Minister advanced three arguments which I think I must deal with because they have a bearing on the amendments I am proposing. Firstly, the hon. the Minister said that the association had asked for these provisions and that they were satisfied with them. That may be so, but I do not know whether the amendments which I have proposed have been put to them. I suggest that they would accept my amendments. What we are dealing with here is a matter of procedure. We are laying down certain principles. In dealing with legislation, it is necessary for us in this House to see that correct principles and procedure are laid down. We should not be faced at some later stage with the fact that we have created a precedent in this regard which may well serve as an example to be followed in other legislation. I submit with great respect that that would lead to bad legislation. It is in our interests to propose the best type of legislation and I feel that my amendments would ensure that this would be the best type of legislation.

The second point the hon. the Minister made was that this association should evolve slowly from being a basic association of people who voluntarily got together and who now wish to exercise certain powers. The amendments I propose are in keeping with the concept that they will progress as they go along. Ultimately, when they obtain full status as a body, they will be in a position to drop the designated officer altogether. Having dropped that designated officer altogether, they could then stand as a viable institution. The amendments do, therefore, take into consideration that they will progress as they go along.

The third argument advanced by the hon. the Minister was based on a point they put to him, if I understood him correctly, viz. that they felt that they did not want to be the judge over their own peers; they did not want to play the role of bad boy if a decision had to be made that a certain person should be disciplined by removing him temporarily from the register or suspending him from practice. In other words, they want to duck the issue when it comes to the actual decision being made in this regard. With great respect, I do not think that that is an argument which we on this side of the House can accept. They are prepared to advance, to be an association, to receive statutory recognition; they want to hear their peers and to hear the evidence; and we feel they must be in a position to make the decisions. They will in that process have the guidance of the designated officer.

We have had a good debate on this Bill and we have heard many arguments for and against provisions it contains. We did not disagree on the principle of the Bill, but merely on a matter of procedure. All we are asking the hon. the Minister is that the procedure to be laid down by this House should be one we could follow at a later stage in respect of other measures as well.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. member’s motivation for his amendments and I tried to indicate during the second reading debate yesterday, after I had received his amendments at short notice, that it was not possible for me to accept them in their present form. The hon. member asked whether the association was aware of the amendments he was moving. I can tell him at once that it seems to me as if there is a member of the association who sent these amendments through to him. I say this because the association originally suggested the amendments that the hon. member is now moving. Long discussions were then held with the association and they accepted that the wording of the proposed new sections contained in clause 5 should remain as they read at present. The draft Bill was published in advance and every member of the association received a copy of it via the association. What did come up during the discussions was that the association asked for the right of appeal to the Minister to be included. Consequently we did so. So the association is thoroughly conversant with these matters. To begin with they suggested certain provisions, but after long discussions with the department, the Bill was accepted by them in its present form. I must honestly tell the hon. member that I do not see my way clear to accepting the amendments. Let us examine one or two of them. The hon. member moved an amendment to the proposed section 4A(4). This is on page 9, line 9. In terms of the proposed amendment, the association may be compelled at all times to appoint a person with adequate experience in the administration of justice to be present as an assessor at a disciplinary inquiry. The hon. member says very definitely that this is actually as it ought to be. This provision in the Bill is in line with section 39(4) of the Pharmacists Act of 1974, section 42(5) of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act of 1974 and section 29(5) of the Nursing Act of 1978. The hon. member therefore has this type of provision in other Acts that have already been passed by the House. To say now that we should compel these people to do this is something that we should leave to the discretion of the association. There may be less important inquiries. It may lead to unnecessary expense for an association that has only approximately 450 members and will have to find the money somewhere. Therefore, I think we should leave it as it is. The association may appoint someone if they wish to do so. They should not be compelled to appoint someone.

The hon. member also moved a new section 4A(8). In terms of this amendment a designated officer shall be present at any disciplinary inquiry. I think, in view of the other amendments, this amendment is unnecessary, and actually serves no purpose if one accepts the other amendments. In terms of the further amendments the designated officer is relieved of all powers and the association acts in his place. Why then is it necessary for the designated officer to be present at the investigation if he has no powers? The hon. member wants him to be present, but at the same time he moves other amendments that give him no powers. All the powers are being given to the association. Surely, then, the amendments are contradictory. Perhaps the hon. member moved the amendment with a view to the rest of his amendments not being accepted. In other words, the designated officer would then retain his powers. The hon. member anticipated that I would accept his first amendment and reject the others. This would have made sense, for if we had accepted all his amendments—as he had hoped, otherwise they would not have appeared on the Order Paper—it would not have made sense.

I have now dealt with all the matters that were raised, and I think I shall content myself with that. We must let the legislation be passed as it is and give it an opportunity to work in practice. We must give the association and the special officer an opportunity to hear their disciplinary cases and pass judgment. Then if there is an appeal to the Minister, I can deal with it. However, we must make a start. I think that, since there has always been total co-operation with the association on all these matters, it is impossible for me to accept the amendments which the hon. member has moved.

Mr. Chairman, while I have a certain amount of sympathy with the amendments moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, and while one can understand what he is trying to achieve, I think the hon. the Minister has given a fair indication that this clause is the same as that applying in other legislation relating to health professionals.

That is the first amendment.

Yes. That is the “shall” instead of “may”. Now, the “may” also applies in other legislation and the hon. the Minister has made that point. I believe we are here in a state of evolution, if one may call it that, with regard to this legislation. We discussed this at quite some length during Second Reading, and we are certainly not at the end of the road with legislation relating to these four bodies of health services. I believe that at this stage it is reasonable to accept that the chairman “may” appoint. I take the hon. the Minister’s point that it is not always necessary to have a person with legal training. Surely, the chairman of the association is a person who would have some knowledge of the distinction that is to be drawn between the times when it is necessary to have a legally trained person and the times when that is not really necessary. What we are talking about here are ethical rules and ethical guidelines which bind these professionals in terms of their services.

Very often it is the interpretation of the ethical principles which are of more importance in reaching a decision than points of law. I believe that as far as the NRP is concerned, while we are not altogether unsympathetic with the amendments moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, we do not feel it is vital at this stage and we are prepared to accept the status quo as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea adopts a very sensible attitude.

†I am sure that that is the correct approach. That is what I pleaded for during Second Reading. The fact is that the association already had discussions with me—I referred to that yesterday—and will also submit a memorandum to me dealing with the possibility of considering a statutory body. However, they are also prepared to let things begin in the way they have been legislated. Once things are under way we can take the next step. To ignore the association completely at this stage and merely take the next step in a half-hearted fashion, giving them more powers, which they are not really keen on having, I do not believe is the correct procedure. They do not want these very strict disciplinary powers. That is why they agreed that there should rather be an official in the department and that the final decision should not be left to an association. It would be a completely new principle in legislation if we were to give to an association all the powers, disciplinary, etc., which we usually reserve for statutory bodies like the Medical and Dental Council, and others.

I believe the hon. member has the correct approach. I should like to thank him for his support. I also repeat that this is not the end of the road as far as this particular association is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that all my training as well as my experience over more than 30 years rebel against this type of hearing, when evidence is heard by one body that does not come to any decision but refers the case to somebody else who then takes the final decision. It simply goes against all the principles of natural justice that I can think of. I really feel very strongly about this.

I merely want to explain one other point to the hon. the Minister. Arising out of his remarks I just want to remove all possible misunderstanding that could come about. The hon. the Minister said that the designated officer would then be deprived of all his powers. What we have tried to do is very simply to make the designated officer part of the association, part of the hearing of evidence and part of making the finding, in the same way as a finding is normally made by the court a quo. Thereafter the appeal lies with the Minister. There is of course also always an appeal to the Supreme Court as well, depending on certain grounds. That is what it really means. On behalf of the PFP I must stand by the amendments as they appear on the Order Paper.

Amendments (1) and (2) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) negatived and amendments (4) to (12) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, the hon. member for Sandton asked me to comment on the question of whether any legal conflict arose between this Amendment Bill and the principal act. I concede that there may be something to be said on both sides, but such a possible conflict has nothing to do with the position of minors who lost their citizenship as a result of the actions of their parents. However, it seems to me as though the hon. the Deputy Minister is not reluctant to reconsider the position of minors. That is why the question of conflict merely becomes a case of arguing for arguments sake, which does not give me, nor, I am sure the hon. member for Sandton, any pleasure. However, before we spend any sleepless nights over these wronged children I should just like to put a question to the hon. member for Sandton, who is not here at the moment, as well as to the hon. member for Durban Central. Are they perhaps aware of any children at all who have applied for South African Citizenship in terms of section 16 of the Act?

Here comes the hon. member for Sandton.

For the sake of the hon. member for Sandton I repeat my question to him: Is he aware of any children at all who have applied for citizenship in terms of section 16(4) of the South African Citizenship Act? I am not aware of a single one. The indications are that the cases in this regard are less than minimal.

There may be, and in any event: How much is less than minimal?

The fact that two hon. members are pleading on behalf of such a small group is also an effective reply to the hon. member for Sandton’s question whether we should change the legislation for the sake of a small group of people who are evading military service.

However, if there is one matter for which I want to express my appreciation, it is that there seems to be consensus in the House that citizenship of any self-respecting country cannot be cheap and to be had for the asking by the prospective citizen. If it is worthwhile becoming a citizen of a country, it is also worthwhile defending that country or serving it loyally in other ways. If the prospective citizen does not wish to accept the latter obligations, he is not entitled to the advantages afforded by citizenship or permanent residence either.

The legislation before us endorses this very principle, and that is why I am very pleased to support it.

Mr. Speaker,

I think the hon. member for Namakwaland dealt quite adequately with the question of whether minors will be caught in the net of this measure. In addition, I think it is largely a question of wording and that the hon. the Minister will deal with it. Consequently, I do not envisage returning to that aspect of the debate at all.

To my mind, the important issue here is that, in regard to the central principle of the legislation, both Opposition parties agree with us that if there is a loophole in the 1978 legislation, making it possible for national servicemen to evade their national service by merely giving up their South African citizenship, it must be eliminated. I do not think that at this stage, as the hon. member for Durban Central so clearly implied, that we can simply accept that there is only a very small group of people involved here. In ten days’ time it will be a mere two years since the amending legislation of 1978 was passed, which made it possible for new South Africans who obtained their citizenship in terms of that legislation, to give it up voluntarily. I also want to point out that it does not really matter whether it is a small group or a large one. If there is a loophole in the legislation, I believe it must be eliminated.

I want to point out what the hon. member for Pinelands said about the amending legislation in 1978. He said that as far as he and his party were concerned, they believed that anyone who has permanent residence should accept the responsibility of military service. They expected everyone who says that he is going to live permanently in the country to accept the responsibility of military service as well. In fact, the hon. member said quite emphatically that if the legislation of 1978 had depended on them, they would have gone even further in order to insert this very provision. Consequently I believe that hon. members on that side of the House should be particularly pleased with the legislation.

It is true without a doubt that our people want young immigrants men to be treated in the same way as born South Africans. The constituency that I represent is predominantly English speaking. It is also a predominantly working-class constituency and it is these very parents who ask why their sons have to undergo military service and the sons of immigrants do not. It is these very South Africans who, although they are very keen for their sons to do their military service, would also like to see them being equipped for a trade, for instance. They realize that the Defence Force is not always in a position to place national servicemen in a position to practice their trade. Nevertheless they feel annoyed when employers are able to accommodate young male immigrants and point out that some employers, foreign firms in particular, give preference to male immigrants, because these firms believe that those young men will not have their apprenticeship interrupted by military service.

If this loophole is not eliminated there is a danger that there could be a reaction against immigrants, and young immigrants in particular, amongst South African born people. We simply cannot afford such a reaction against young immigrants, particularly at the present juncture when we are on the threshold of an economic boom and need immigrants in various skilled trades. If there are any deficiencies in the legislation that could give rise to such a reaction, we must ensure that they are eliminated.

However, I think the problem is far more serious than this. This is not the occasion to enlarge on this, but I think everyone in this House is aware of the fact that the West as a whole is engaged in a struggle for survival. In the lifetime of most of us here it has already happened that all able-bodied persons in the West were called up for military service and that time may very well recur.

I want to refer to what the hon. member for Brakpan said in a previous debate. He was referring to dual nationality and spoke about a host country in which an immigrant lives. In this regard he said the following (Hansard, 1 March 1978, col. 2166)—

If it is true that a significant number of young immigrant men would be in a position to evade military action in their host country, by means of an omission in our legislation, it is likely that they will not undergo any military training at all. If the immigrants’ host country has prior claim to his undergoing military training, it is unlikely that his country of origin, i.e. the country of which he is a citizen, will give him that training. Therefore, it is in fact a case of a person who evades military service in his host country, not undergoing military training anywhere else in the world, with a consequent loss to the West as a whole. Every Western country has some form or other of national service, and I think it may possibly be an important aspect of the struggle for survival by the West in future that military training should be strictly enforced throughout the West. That is why I think that from that point of view and not only from our own South African point of view, we in the House have an obligation towards the West, of which we form a part.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I can accept, in principle, both amendments of the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. member has already indicated that he is satisfied with my amendment on the Order Paper, an amendment which I intend moving in the Committee Stage to cover the principle of his second amendment. As far as his first amendment is concerned, the law adviser is in full agreement with his views, but has suggested a better way of amending the clause. I shall therefore move in the Committee Stage that on page 3, in line 13, “16” be omitted and “16(2)” be substituted. That will exclude section 16(3), which deals with minors, from this provision of the Act. I think that will satisfy the hon. member.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Sandton for having brought these aspects of the matter to my attention. Once this amendment has been accepted at the Committee Stage we will obviously have better legislation.

I also want to thank the hon. members for Virginia, Namakwaland and Umlazi on this side of the House for their positive contributions in connection with this legislation.

I shall now reply in greater detail to other minor matters raised because the aspects I have discussed with the hon. members for Sandton and Durban Central are fundamental aspects. I trust the hon. member for Sandton is satisfied with the amendment I wish to move to section 16(2).

I am not sure. I want to study it first.

The provision will now read: “If any person ceases to be a South African citizen under section 16(2) …” That excludes section 16(3), which deals with minors.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the provisions contained in section 16(3) follow upon the actions of a person who renounces his citizenship in terms of section 16(2)? In other words, if a person renounces his citizenship in terms of section 16(2), does it not automatically follow, whether it is in terms of section 16(1) or section 16(2), that a child in terms of section 16(3) automatically follows the parent, that procedure then being incorporated into the new law?

The hon. member will see that he himself wanted to suggest that I insert the words “, except a minor child referred to in section 16(3).” in line 14 of the amendment that he wishes to move. Instead of inserting all these words, I am merely excluding section 16(3). That is all I am doing.

I must admit that it escapes me at the moment.

I think the hon. member who is a lawyer ought by this time to have grasped the point. [Interjections.]

The hon. members for Sandton and Durban Central also asked how big the problem was.

That’s it!

The hon. member for Durban Central wanted to know whether we were not aiming at an “overkill” in this instance. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Umlazi said. They asked me to give some indication as to how big the problem was. I can tell hon. members that since 1978 we have had to deal with over 200 cases in terms of these sections. I do not have the figure for last year available. It is difficult to keep these figures up to date. However, the department says there are positive signs that this number is increasing. Of course, I must also point out clearly, as the hon. member for Umlazi has said, that we expect in the near future, when the provisions of section 11(a)(i) come into operation, that people will obtain citizenship automatically and that the existing trend will increase in momentum. Hon. members will concede that even the number I have just mentioned is not small. I also fully endorse what the hon. member for Umlazi has said, namely, that when it becomes known in a community that there is someone in their midst—even if it is only one person—who is circumventing the laws of the land by failing to do his duty to the country, this can cause a very unpleasant atmosphere in that community; his neighbours may turn nasty, especially when he sits at home while the sons of South Africa have to do military service.

I want to point out also that two years ago, when section 11(a)(i) of the Act was amended—I referred to this in my Second Reading speech—we overlooked something. We did not realize in amending that section that we were leaving a loophole in section 21 through which these people could escape. That is why we want to close this loophole in order to curb this trend.

I also want to point out, however, that this provision is not aimed solely at this category of persons. This legislation is not aimed solely at those who seek to evade military service; it is aimed also at those other categories of persons who can be divested of their South African citizenship in accordance with sections 19bis and 20bis. Last year we had approximately 40 such cases and 50 the year prior to that. It has become very clear to me and the department that while a person is a citizen of another country he is not greatly concerned if he is divested of his South African citizenship. He is divested of it mainly as a result of the fact, for example, that he has, without prior consent, used his other citizenship in some other country; in other words, he has disowned his South African citizenship. He has made it secondary to another citizenship. He is not lightly divested of it. It is only after he has done this repeatedly and after he has been warned not to do it, that he is divested of his citizenship. However, we have come to realize that this has little effect on these people. The fact that they have South African citizenship means very little to them. They have, in any case, shown by their actions that they disown it, that they hold it in contempt and that they are not proud of it. Merely divesting him of his South African citizenship is no punishment and he is not inconvenienced in any way. If he retains his right of permanent residence in the Republic he simply continues to live his normal life as if nothing had happened. He may even be pleased that he has been divested of his South African citizenship because it may have caused him some embarrassment at times. In effect, therefore, nothing is being taken away from him. He is not being jeopardized.

However, if he is now told in accordance with the provisions of this clause that he has no respect for or is not proud of his South African citizenship, that he is consequently to be divested of it and that, in addition, his right of permanent residence is to be withdrawn, he will, of course, react somewhat differently. Then he will think about the disadvantages of such a step and the inconvenience it will cause him, as so very clearly explained by the hon. member for Virginia. It is with a view also to that category of persons who can be divested of their citizenship in accordance with other provisions of the Act that we are anxious to have these provisions and not merely in respect of those who evade military service.

Hon. members, the hon. member for Durban Central in particular, asked what the position would be in the case of a minor child. They asked whether he would automatically be deprived of his citizenship if, for example, his parents were divested of theirs. This aspect is dealt with very clearly in section 20bis. Section 20bis provides that if the parents who are responsible for a minor child, are divested of their citizenship, that child is also deprived of his, provided such a child was not born in South Africa. However, if the child was born in South Africa and the parents are divested of their citizenship, the child cannot be deprived of his. That is the position. He also asked what would happen in the case of a wife in this connection. If a man marries a woman who is a South African citizen and he acts in such a way that he is divested of his citizenship or relinquishes it voluntarily, what is her position? He asked whether this legislation would apply to the man’s wife as well. In this respect I want to refer him to section 12 of the principal Act which provides—

Consequently that does not apply in this case either. Both members also asked me what I meant by the term “category of persons”. They comprise a class or group of persons, for example, those under section 19bis where reference is made to a specific category of persons, namely, those who abroad and without permission use the passport of another country and do so repeatedly. In such a case the Minister, after due warning, will divest that person of his citizenship. There is such a group of people. We refer to them as a category of persons. Hon. members will find similar provisions in section 17 of the principal Act. There reference is made to “persons” and “class of persons” only. This is repeated in various subsections whereas reference is made in this section to “category of persons” and “persons”. This is nothing new, therefore, in the Act.

Sir, I think I have replied adequately now to the questions raised, and hon. members on this side of the House have done so as well. I think I have solved the problems of hon. members, especially those of the hon. member for Sandton, and I trust that this legislation will have an easy passage through its remaining stages.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Deeds Registries Act of 1937 does not provide for the registration of notarial variations and renewals of prospecting contracts. To effect the registration of a variation or renewal of such a contract it is therefore necessary to cancel the existing contract and then to register a new contract which incorporates the proposed variation or renewal. In practice this method results in unnecessary costs being incurred.

Clause 1 enables the Registrar of Deeds also to register notarial variations and renewals of the relevant contracts. In order to obtain cession of mineral rights from a co-owner, should the certificate or deed of cession of mineral rights have been lost or destroyed, a certified copy of the certificate or deed of cession in terms of which those rights are held has first to be obtained. Problems are accordingly encountered by companies wanting to obtain cession of such rights from a co-owner when some of the other co-owners cannot be traced or are deceased. Obtaining an affidavit in support of an application for such a certified copy appears to be expensive and time consuming.

Clause 2 empowers a co-owner to obtain a certificate or deed of cession of mineral rights in the manner prescribed in section 34(2) without having to obtain a certified copy of the missing document.

Mr. Speaker, It gives me pleasure to say that the official Opposition welcome this Bill. It will obviously bring about a considerable saving in trouble and expense. This applies to both clauses. Clause 1 amends section 3(1)(q) of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, by inserting the words “variations” and “renewals”. Section 3(1) will therefore now read as follows—

provisions of this Act—

1. (q) register notarial prospecting contracts and notarial variations, renewals and cessions thereof and cancellations of such contracts.

It has appeared in practice that although the Registrar may register cessions and cancellations of such contracts, doubt has arisen as to whether he has the authority to register notarial variations and renewals of such contracts. The proposed new paragraph (q) will remove this uncertainty and doubt and result in a considerable saving in expense and trouble.

The amendment proposed in section 2 has, in my view, the same objective. Section 75 of the principal Act is now being amended in such a way that all the provisions of section 34 will apply in cases of undivided shares in mineral rights. Section 34 refers only to undivided shares in land and not in mineral rights. Should the House approve this clause, however, section 34 in its entirety, and not merely subsection (1) thereof, will be applicable in cases where there is an undivided share in mineral rights. It is therefore my pleasure in this case too to express the support of the official Opposition for this amendment at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon. member for Johannesburg North for the support he has promised for this proposed legislation. When one looks at the Bill it is only logical that two questions occur to one. The first is whether it is really necessary that these amendments be effected. If they are necessary, the second question is why it has taken so long for such amendments eventually to be proposed.

To answer these questions logically, I think, one must say by way of introduction that one can only evaluate the situation correctly if one takes a brief look at the whole deeds system with regard to the question of variations and renewals. Referring to legislation which covered a wide field, as is the case with our deeds legislation, one of our great legal authorities made the following remark on one occasion: “No legislation can provide for each and every contingency.” That applies to our Deeds Registries Act as well. The whole system covers a wide spectrum, and one cannot make changes simply for the sake of change.

In the second case one must look at the history of the system to be able to answer the question. It is very interesting to think that the deeds system in South Africa is as old as our history itself. Jan van Riebeeck brought it to South Africa in 1652.

We know that it was first intended for a rural system and that it was only afterwards, owing to South Africa’s development, that it was adapted to urban complexes and urban problems. One can therefore also understand why another of our great writers in the sphere of the Deeds Act, viz. R. J. M. Jones, in his book The Law and Practice of Conveyancing in South Africa, said, for instance—

One can well understand, therefore, why it is contended that our principal Act is really a codification of all our rules of law and of our common law in respect of deeds as they existed in 1937 when the principal Act was passed.

Praise has often been expressed for this Deeds Act and the deeds system, in this House as well. We must, however, never regard the codification as a total and final codification because that would result in stagnation. In this regard we might perhaps qualify it further by pointing out—and this also has reference to the possibility of codification—that our Deeds Registries Act has been amended no fewer than 21 times since 1937. That is because we have a growing system which has constantly to adapt itself to the needs of the country and its people.

When one looks further, one realizes that today, as legislators in this House, we are really moving between two poles. On the one hand we are dealing with this wonderful and unsurpassable historical deeds system of South Africa. On the other hand we have the requirements of South Africa which must be taken into account. It is obvious then that if this is the problem confronting the legislators of South Africa, we must bear three basic requirements in mind when we evaluate legislation of this nature. What are the obvious requirements?

First, the proposed legislation must be functional. If there is red tape in our legislation we must remove it. Neither must we include it in new legislation. Let us test this statement in regard to the proposed legislation. What do we find? The existing section 3 provides that the Registrar of Deeds shall be obliged to register a notarial contract—subject of course to the provisions of the Deeds Registries Act and on application—that he shall be obliged to register the cancellation thereof and that he shall also be obliged to register the cession or transfer thereof, provided it is subject to the provisions of the Act and provided it is notarial. But he is not empowered to register the notarial renewal of such a contract and he is also not empowered to register the notarial variation of such a contract.

What happens in practice when a contract has to be reviewed? The holder of the rights will go to the owner of the land and say that he wants to renew his prospecting contract. They then draw up a mutual agreement in which they state: (1) They have agreed to renew the contract; and (2) they have agreed to cancel the existing valid contract which is registered in the Deeds Office. They have then to go to a notary to draw up a new contract containing the variations and they will, in addition, have to apply to the Deeds Office to re-register it. In other words, that is a long and cumbersome procedure which really consists of four legal steps and amounts therefore to a waste of time and the incurring of unnecessary extra costs. Our basic requirement therefore is that it must be functional, that red tape must be eliminated and that unnecessary costs and problems must be avoided. But we also have a second requirement in the evaluation of legislation like this. That is that the sound procedures and the advantages resulting from our registration system must also be accessible and available to the ordinary citizen of the country. There should therefore not be too many problems for him, the costs should not be too high for him and, should he wish to ensure his rights by way of the registration of deeds, he must be in a position to do so.

As I have already explained, the procedure is now being shortened and facilitated. When tested against this criterion, the proposed amendments also comply in full with all the stated requirements. But that alone would not be sufficiently advantageous for our deeds system. A third question therefore arises, and that is why it is so tremendously important now that a legal transaction should be registered in the deeds office. Is it worth the trouble? Is it really necessary? This brings me to the third basic requirement which must be put to the legislator in connection with deeds legislation. That is that we must at all times ensure that the holder of the rights must never lose the certainty in law resulting from registration. I could qualify this as follows. In South African law, registration means publication. The impact of the relevant legal transaction, in other words, is strengthened because normally it is also binding on parties who stand outside the relevant agreement.

Registration means that notice is given to the world. Outsiders are therefore assumed to have knowledge of a contract which is registered in the deeds office. Against this, a mutual normal agreement would only mean that the parties concerned would normally have knowledge of it.

In the light of what I have just said this means then that tested against these three basic requirements the proposed amendments and the Deeds Registries Act fully answer their purpose. In conclusion, as I have already said, we have now come to the 22nd proposed amendment of the Deeds Registries Act. The important principal Act has already been amended 21 times. If the further procedure is now followed in order to have this proposed amendment placed on the Statute Book, it will be the 22nd time that the principal Act has been amended. Perhaps I could ask on this occasion that the hon. the Minister and his department should try to consolidate our deeds registries legislation. I think that everybody concerned with conveyancing would very much appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has given us a very interesting background and résumé of the whole system of the registering of deeds. I must confess, however, that over the last few days, having listened to the rather lengthy speeches by hon. members opposite dealing in great detail with various matters concerning the registering of deeds, one begins to feel that there is perhaps some reason behind the great deal of talking we have heard here. One wonders whether we are not perhaps running a bit short of legislation somewhere along the line. [Interjections.]

I do not intend to add very much to the debate on this particular Bill, because it is basically a very simple measure. Quite frankly, there has been a tremendous meal made out of what is in fact a very short Bill.

We believe that the provisions that are being altered in terms of this amending measure are very worthwhile, that they will certainly facilitate matters, particularly in regard to prospectors, mining contractors, etc. Therefore, we in the NRP will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North often makes it obvious that he is inclined to look for one or other excuse to belittle or denigrate the capabilities and good qualities of hon. members on this side of the House. This is how we have come to know him and, as such, we will just have to accept him. But I should like to join the hon. member in congratulating the hon. member for Newton Park on the very fine and clear manner in which he has described an important facet of our registration system, viz. the absolute certainty it gives us in respect of title to property.

I should also like to throw some light on another facet of this proposed amendment, and that is the fact that section 3 of the Deeds Registries Act defines the duties of the Registrar of Deeds. When one looks at section 3 of the Act, one is aware of the multiplicity of duties and responsibilities that rest on the Registrar of Deeds and his staff. The proposed amendment to section 3(1 )(q) will have the effect whereby variations and renewals of prospecting contracts and notarial cessions thereof will also now be undertaken by the Registrar of Deeds. This is yet another addition to the many other responsibilities and duties resting on the Registrar of Deeds.

I think today is obviously a good opportunity to refer briefly to the particular responsibilities and duties resting on the various Registrars of Deeds in South Africa. There are presently eight deeds registries in South Africa that are concerned with the very important task of ensuring that the registration of transfers, bonds, prospecting contracts, marriage contracts and leases, to mention only a few, is dealt with in a proper and orderly fashion. I think this is also the time, while we are speaking of the powers, duties and responsibilities of our Registrars of Deeds, to note with gratitude and appreciation the particularly fine work and services which these officials and their staff have performed for so many years in South Africa.

As hon. members have already shown, our registration system is something of which South Africa can be very proud. The registration offices in our country ensure that one of the very best registration systems in the world is to be found in South Africa. As I have already said, the certainty we have when we hold our title deeds in our hands, gives us cause for great satisfaction. This is mainly owing to the officials who fulfil this task with great dedication.

The Registrars of Deeds in South Africa have each day to see to the efficient and speedy handling of literally thousands of transactions involving millions of rands, and the officials concerned have to have an extensive and thorough knowledge of a multitude of laws, ordinances and regulations. That is why I think that the House should express its great appreciation of these officials as this legislation provides for the imposition of yet another small duty upon them. It has been said repeatedly here that the proposed amendments are aimed at introducing a shorter and cheaper procedure. We on this side of the House have therefore much pleasure in supporting the proposed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to refer to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I have learnt that he was unwell for a while and so I should like to express my pleasure at finding him in good health in his seat in the House today. He not only appears to be in good health; he is also sensible and therefore he supported this Bill. I want to thank him most warmly for that.

I want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for the interesting speech he made. This hon. member appears to be not only a good conveyancer but also a good long-distance runner. In regard to his question as to whether there will be a consolidation of the Deeds Registries Act I should like to say in my capacity as Minister in charge of the Public Service Commission that the question of rationalization goes further than the mere rationalization of departments. It also includes the rationalization of legislation. In this process consolidation of Acts will of course also come up for consideration. It is a big task, but we feel it must be undertaken. It will be undertaken dynamically. The Department of Justice will obviously co-operate with other departments in this connection.

I should also like to thank the hon. members for East London North and Marico for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.