Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, the hon Chief Whip on the Government side has not considered it fit to motivate his motion. I do think, however, that this opportunity should not be allowed to go by without us looking at the broader picture of this motion. I believe that all right-thinking hon members of this House will have witnessed with growing alarm the proceedings which, in the last year or two, have on occasions degenerated into a dog-fight. I believe that on my left-hand side there are certain hon members who are indulging in a verbal guerrilla war, and I think the time has come that this House and those hon members—and indeed all of us—should take a good, hard look at this particular House and at our responsibilities.

It has become epidemic. Hon members are reflecting upon the physical attributes or otherwise of their hon colleagues in this House. They reflect upon their honesty, upon their integrity and upon their private lives. That, Mr Speaker, is highly irregular. You have yourself, as have also your predecessors, on occasions pointed out that it is not permitted for hon members to reflect upon the personal attributes and the private lives of their hon colleagues. I do not have to quote your rulings and those of your predecessors. They are perfectly plain and perfectly clear. There is no ambiguity as far as those rulings are concerned; no room for any qualifications.

Having said that, however, I am sure, Mr Speaker, you will be aware of a recent case in the Transvaal Supreme Court in which Mr Justice Snyman said—it was a defamation case—that the people of South Africa and the courts of this country did not expect of politicians the language which was appropriate at annual general meetings of a ladies horticultural society. We are in a tough game and we should be able to take our medicine. Sometimes debates do get hot and acrimonious. That cannot be helped. Sometimes we even welcome it.

This particular motion, however, now moved by my distinguished colleague opposite, sets a dangerous precedent. We are embarking on a course—if we are not very careful—upon which, whenever something happens that offends the sensitivities and the sensibilities of an hon member, we will have a precedent for the moving of a motion of this kind. It is even worse than that, Mr Speaker. The hon Chief Whip on the Government side has considered it fit to go back a month into Hansard. There is a reference in his motion to a speech made on 3 April. Where are we going to stop?

And then there is also another important aspect. I cannot ascertain whether the conduct complained about took place in this Chamber or outside of this Chamber or partly within and partly outside this Chamber. If the allegations concern conduct outside of this Chamber another dangerous precedent will be set. Where do we draw the line? In the lobby? In the lounge? Within the precincts of Parliament? Within the boundaries of Cape Town? Within the Republic? In the Western World? Every single hon member of this House is going to have to consider whether he is going to be subjected to the discipline of this House wherever he may be and in whichever way he may be conducting himself.

If conduct complained about takes place within this Chamber, Mr Speaker, you and your fellow presiding officers have a vast arsenal of disciplinary weapons that you can use. You may require an hon member to resume his seat. You can order him out of the Chamber. You can cause him to apologize. You can prohibit any further interjections and you can summons an hon member later into your own office and give him a rap over the knuckles. That is an awesome arsenal of weapons, and they are sufficient, I believe, in order to quell these guerrilla fighters on my left. [Interjections.]

The next aspect, Mr Speaker, is the following. This House has as important work to do in the next month or two as any Parliament of the Republic and formerly of the Union of South Africa. The public of South Africa have given the Government a mandate to introduce a new constitutional dispensation. I do not have to go through the history of that. We in these benches accept that mandate, and we are going to see to it that as far as it can be made to work it will work. Look at our programme, however, Mr Speaker. Does the hon Chief Whip on the Government side not realize that apart from the new constitution on which committees are slaving at the moment to work out new rules and regulations, we are considering a new building? Ten select committees of this House are presently sitting. Two or three of them are ad hoc on Bills. Most of them will be sitting on many, many occasions in the coming month or two. In the midst of all this and on the threshold of the discussion of the Transport Vote, the Government has seen fit to move the appointment of a select committee further to distract this House from its proper business.

It is not only that the select committee is going to take up the time and use up the energy of the secretariat when they have difficulties enough as we all know; the select committee is also going to have to report to this House and then we are going to have another acrimonious debate at a stage of the session when I just do not know how the hon Chief Whip is going to be able to fit it in.

It is intolerable that personal antagonisms are now taking up the time of this House. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the three hon gentlemen involved as well as the hon Chief Whip to consider public opinion in this matter. I want to tell you, Sir, that I have had many guests in the gallery over the past two months including three sets of school-children. The vice-principal who accompanied one of the groups of pupils who have been coming to this House every year, a standard 10 history class, told me that this was the last occasion on which she would allow her school pupils to visit Parliament. I think it behoves all of us to consider why that should be.

I find the attitude of the Government in this particular case totally inconsistent. In the first place, this motion is being moved— and I think that the public of South Africa will take note of this—five days after a request by the hon the Leader of the Opposition for the appointment of a select committee in regard to a matter that goes to the heart of parliamentary control over the expenditure of public moneys in vast sums. It had nothing to do with corruption or with maladministration but it had everything to do with the control that we exercise over the expenditure of public moneys. Five days after that appeal was rejected we have a motion by this same Government for the appointment of a select committee in order to investigate a matter of personal behaviour either inside or outside this House.

However, the inconsistency is not restricted to that. Of all people to move this motion, the hon Chief Whip who was in charge of the debate last week sat still when no less a person than the hon the Prime Minister said of the hon the Leader of the Opposition—I understand that the gravamen of the present charges relates to intimidation, harassment and threats, of whatever nature: “Ek sal jou trap dat jy bars”.

Order! The hon member must come back to the subject under discussion.

Mr Speaker, I bow to your ruling. I merely want to round off this point by saying that if we were prepared to participate in a discussion for political gain and if the rules allowed it, we would have extended the scope of this motion.

Finally, if there were no other alternative to remedy a grievance by a member, if no remedy was available other than a select committee, then I could understand why the hon Chief Whip should have moved such a motion. However, Sir, there is a perfectly good remedy, expeditious and effective, that can be applied now. Mr Speaker, I call upon the three hon members involved as well as the Chief Whip to arrange a meeting in your office where they can shake hands like gentlemen and proffer any apologies that may be required so that we can put an end to this nonsense.

Mr Speaker, the CP has no fault to find with the arguments advanced by the hon Chief Whip of the Opposition. Indeed, one would have liked to agree with every word he said. We should very much have liked to support him, but in the circumstances I just wish to say that unfortunately we are not going to support the official Opposition.

Since one of the hon members of the CP is implicated in this accusation, I want to say to the hon Chief Whip of the Government that the CP has no objection to the appointment of a select committee to investigate this matter. Together with the hon Chief Whip of the Opposition I want to say to the governing party that they are hereby creating a precedent, a precedent which, if hon members level certain charges at one another in the heat of a political debate, I believe this party, as well as other parties, will make use of in the future. The Government Chief Whip is creating a precedent and we hope that when, in similar circumstances, there is a similar complaint by this side of the House, the Government will be in favour of the appointment of a select committee.

With these few words the CP wants it placed on record that we have no objection to the appointment of a select committee.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Kuruman for supporting the motion of the hon Chief Whip of the Government. I believe that in doing so the hon member for Kuruman is doing the hon member for Langlaagte a service by enabling him to utilize parliamentary procedures to state his case.

We have proposed, through the hon member for Tygervallei, that this House appoint a select committee, and in motivating this motion it is not possible to discuss the merits of the motion. When the merits and the details are discussed by the select committee it will, in my opinion, be possible to form a more accurate opinion as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations. It is not the duty of this House at this point to come to a finding on the correctness of the allegations; what we have to do now is establish a prima facie case as to whether it is worthwhile and justified to launch such an investigation.

We as members of Parliament have a duty to guard jealously the unassailability of Parliament and the unassailability of its members. The inviolability of members of Parliament is of cardinal importance. If one consults the books written on this subject, eg the second edition of the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Sturgess, one finds that an hon member is entitled to make a request in regard to privilege, and he may do so in respect of any question—

These are not matters to be dealt with lightly if it is taken into account that a member of Parliament ought in no way to be restricted from carrying out his task with dignity, and without let or hindrance. For example, this learned author even sees fit to spell out a precedent in terms of which an hon member may rise on a point of privilege and request that the windows be closed since there is a draught on his shoulders causing him discomfort.

If one takes a closer look at the details relating to this principle, viz the privilege of a member of Parliament, it is quite clear that Erskine May has already said, through Norman Wilding:

From this it is very clear that privilege is something that Parliament guards jealously. It has a long history as a tradition of Parliament.

The background to this motion that has been moved by the hon Chief Whip is that exchanges took place here among the members of the various parties. Debates take place under the supervision of Mr Speaker. He compels each hon member to abide by the rules relating to the maintenance of good order in this House. Apart from that there is also the unwritten rule that members of Parliament will regard one another as hon colleagues, and that this should also apply outside the four walls of this Chamber. When a debate on a specific subject isss being disposed of, the dispute, the feud, which prevailed between the parties, is also at an end. Journalists are permitted to report the facts on a basis of reasonableness. In terms of that right the freedom of speech of hon members is protected. There ought to be no let or hindrance preventing any hon member from stating his case unhindered, as long as it is done within the bounds of the good taste and order of Parliament. However, when an hon member is intimidated he is restricted from stating his case properly. I again quote Erskine May:

We are not dealing here with criminal law, but I should say that criminal law is relevant here if we wish to make it applicable. If we look at criminal law in isolation we find that a person need not necessarily be physically assailed in order to be intimidated. I am of the opinion that this is sufficient reason to take a closer look at the circumstances broached in the motion.

For the benefit of the hon Chief Whip of the official Opposition I wish to point out that certain remarks are made under the supervision of the Speaker, and as long as this is done within the bounds of good order of Parliament, the Speaker will not take any action. But when events occur unbeknown to the Speaker, the traditions of Parliament create an opportunity for Parliament to deal with that. The hon member pointed out that the motion concerned something that happened some time ago. If an hon member feels that there has been a breach of his privilege, he may appeal to Mr Speaker immedidately, or the matter may be dealt with by way of a substantive motion. Accordingly it is my submission that it is quite in order for the hon Chief Whip of the governing party to move this motion.

Mr Speaker, there are two things that are sacrosanct in this place. The first is the dignity of Parliament and the second the rights of each and every member, irrespective of what party he represents or where he sits in this House. I agree with much the hon Chief Whip of the official Opposition has said and I join him in expressing also my regret that there is no other way out of this impasse …

He did suggest an alternative. Did you not listen to his speech?

Yes, be patient, there is another way and that is to get the gentlemen concerned together to settle their differences in a gentlemanly way. Looking at the motion, however, I judge that the hon Chief Whip of the Government is acting on complaints he has received, complaints that there has been a breach of privilege. In that sense I can see that the hon Chief Government Whip has had to act within the framework of the rules and Standing Orders that are available to him and within the framework of precedences that have been set, not over a few years, but over centuries of parliamentary tradition. I do not think it is fair to say that the Chief Whip of the governing party has gone back to seek a case. I think it is fairer to say that he is acting because complaints have been brought to him, as I think it would be the duty of any Whip of any party to act on behalf of the members of his party. As I have said, the main thing is the dignity of Parliament and, of course, the rights of each and every member. Those rights do not rest only in the Government benches, but also rest in the benches of the Opposition parties.

Here we have complaints of a breach of privilege brought against a certain member who belongs to one of the three Opposition parties in this House. His right is that he too should be heard if he wishes to be heard. The CP has indicated that they welcome the establishment of a select committee. They are, shall we say, the accused, and the accuser sits in the Government benches. It is those two parties who must decide how they want this handled.

No, Parliament.

Their vote will decide ultimately. I agree that Parliament should decide and we are calling upon them to do otherwise. In doing so I would like to remind the House of words which came from no less than the hon the Prime Minister as the closing stages of a short address he made here last Wednesday evening. He was talking about conduct that had taken place in this House earlier that evening, and said the following:

Those words made such an impression on me that I asked for that portion of the hon the Prime Minister’s Hansard. Fortuitously I put the extract in my drawer and I have just pulled it out now. I believe the hon the Prime Minister touched on something there, namely that the dignity of this House has, I am afraid, suffered more than somewhat of late. I would like to see that dignity reinstated.

If there is to be a select committee, we in this party will have our representative on that select committee and he will address himself to the work of that committee impartially. However, if this matter can be settled more amicably we in this party would welcome that, but that is a decision only this whole House can take.

Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. If any good will come out of this motion, it will be to remind this House of the way in which we should conduct ourselves in Parliament. In this regard I wish to quote the following:

If we would just bear that in mind, we will perhaps maintain the dignity that this House should enjoy and display the decorum which the public of South Africa expect from their elected members of Parliament.

I stand by what my hon Chief Whip has said in regard to his request. He has referred to “verbal guerrillas”. They do not only sit to the left of me. They sit in all parts of the House, and I think a little more tempered language by them in future may well serve a purpose.

I think the gravamen of the argument today is that there are matters that become contentious. There are political ideologists which sometimes come into conflict and about which members feel very strongly. It is perhaps only natural that in the heat and the anger of the moment hon members say things which they regret later. This can be cured by the hon members concerned making an apology to the hon members who have been offended. This can be done when the heat has cooled down and hon members realize what they have said. Perhaps a number of apologies around this House are called for from a number of hon members for hurting other hon members.

I simply want to propose an overall settlement in this matter. I want to appeal to the hon Chief Whip of the Government to withdraw his motion and I also want to appeal to the hon member for Rissik to withdraw his motion which he proposed today and which will come up for discussion tomorrow. The parties should settle this matter privately between themselves so that we can for heaven’s sake get on with the business of the House and with the object for which we have been elected to this Parliament.

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to take up any more of the time of this House. Accordingly I wish to point out at once that it is wrong to contend that this is a Government motion. It is one that appears in my name and in my name only.

Two hon members of my party felt that there had been serious breach of their privilege outside this House. This compelled them to address strongly-worded representations to Mr Speaker. I was advised that the appointment of a select committee would be the appropriate procedure.

The analogy that the hon Chief Whip of the official Opposition tried to draw between the possible appointment of this select committee, and the request of the hon the Leader of the Opposition that a select committee on the State Oil Fund be appointed, is a false one. That matter is before the Advocate General at present and when a report is submitted to this House a select committee may be appointed. Moreover, as far as the hon the Prime Minister’s references to the hon the Leader of the Opposition are concerned, I do not think that the hon leader felt threatened for a moment. In any event, that is not how it seemed. [Interjections.]

I think that the dignity of this House, and in particular the privilege of each hon member, is jealously guarded by all hon members and all parties. This is not the preserve of the Government alone, and it is not only we who can lay claim to it. Indeed, I think our leaders are ad idem as regards the conduct of hon members. The hon member for Umhlanga referred to the appeal made by the hon the Prime Minister in the House last week concerning the conduct of hon members, and the hon Chief Whip of the official Opposition referred to this too.

The hon the leader of the Conservative Party, too, found, it necessary to caution some of his members on their conduct. If newspapers reports in this regard are correct … [Interjections.] The newspaper report reads inter alia, and I quote: “Gedra julle ordentlik op vergaderings en moenie iets doen wat kritiek kan uitlok nie.” That is what is stated in the report, and if I am wrong, I apologize. I do not think there is any newspaper that would fabricate the story that at a congress of the CP members had been cautioned on their conduct. I am not hereby reproaching the hon leader of the CP; indeed, I want to compliment him on it. He is trying to establish a degree of decency in our public life and this is something we owe one another. I am not criticizing or disparaging him in this regard.

On the basis of what has been said, I think that we have succeeded adequately in bringing to the attention of the public at large that hon members are entitled to move freely in this building without feeling that their privilege is being assailed. For that reason I am prepared to withdraw my motion that a select committee be appointed, in the light of the fact that hon members have also submitted the complaint to you, Mr Speaker. I believe that you will succeed in resolving the matter satisfactorily. With leave, therefore, I withdraw the motion.

Motion, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

I want to congratulate the hon the Chief Whip of the official Opposition on his speech earlier which I believe genuinely swayed the hon members on the other side and was instrumental in the hon the Chief Whip of the NP withdrawing his motion on the Order Paper. I very sincerely trust that the hon member for Kuruman, the Chief Whip of the Conservative Party, will see fit not to move the motion the CP gave notice of today. I sincerely hope that that will happen, because I do not believe that the type of discussion we had today or these motions do Parliament any good.

Sir, on behalf of the official Opposition I want to thank the Director-General and the staff of the Department of Transport for their efforts during the past year.

And the Minister?

I shall come to that. One has only to look at the annual report to realize how wide the range of the Department’s activities is. As far as the hon the Minister is concerned, I want to say that I value my position in the official Opposition and would hesitate to congratulate him on the performance of the department. I will, however, say that the hon the Minister does bring into the debates in the House a measure of humour which we of the official Opposition find refreshing and I personally welcome.

To debate the very wide range of activities the department has to handle, activities which range from Antarctic research to Government motor transport, motor vehicle assurance and the Weather Bureau, from national roads through urban road transport to civil aviation, we in the official Opposition have a meagre 50 minutes. I actually believe there is something wrong with a system that allows one to spend hours of this House’s time debating Bills, some of which are relatively unimportant, but that resticts time for crucial debates on Budget Votes. So, one can but superficially touch on various subjects which are of major national importance.

The first of these I wish to debate is the report of the Margo Commission and the White Paper thereon. I want to accuse the hon the Minister of having delayed his reaction to this report beyond what I believe to be a reasonable time. Grave matters have been raised in this report, matters of great economic and social importance as well as matters affecting the safety of the air space in South Africa. The report was signed on 7 December 1981 ; the White Paper was tabled only last week. I would remind the House that the process goes back to 1977 when the Margo Commission was originally appointed. Two-and-a-half years later we get the Government’s reaction to the report. Yet on 3 May 1983 the hon the Minister said (Hansard, col 6203):

That was virtually a year ago. He also told us at the same time that those recommendations would be discussed. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he will keep that promise. I am not saying that it should happen during the discussion of his Vote today, but will we be given an opportunity in this House to adequately discuss the commission’s report and the White Paper thereon? I want to ask the hon the Minister to tell us whether he will keep his promise that this will happen, and, if so, when?

In certain respects the White Paper is a great disappointment. I am sure that many people in aviation and the commissioners themselves feel the same way. Perhaps the most important and far-reaching proposal of the commission relates to the improvement of the composition, functions and independence of the Civil Aviation Advisory Council, the CAAC. The hon the Minister’s response is to dispense with the CAAC and create a subcommittee of the National Transport Commission in its place. Thus it believes effect will be given to the commission’s recommendations. That is nonsense. The commission was trying to create an independent body of people actively involved and representative of aviation interests, with a chairman who is not an official of the Department of Transport. Let me quote what the Commercial Aviation Association of South Africa has said on this subject. I quote:

The Airlines Association of South Africa said:

These are the feelings of spokesmen of the industry. The Government’s answer is to make aviation even more subservient to officialdom and political interference. The subcommittee will have to have its major proposals, and probably minor ones as well, approved by the NTC, and the new NTC will be the boss. It is an old ploy of this Government to join a number of smaller bodies that it cannot necessarily control, under the umbrella of a large body that it can control, thus ensuring complete domination. Can the hon the Minister tell us whether the recommendations of the Committee for Aviation, as he envisages, will be made public before they are considered by the NTC, or whether they will ever be publicized if they are never accepted by the NTC? Will we know what aviation is saying to the Minister or will that be kept quiet?

Let me quote some more examples from the report. The commission recommends a more positive approach to the ICAO. The Government’s negative response is that it is satisfied that relations are as positive as is possible. The commission also recommended an international section of the DCA, but the answer was “no”. Let me quote further:

Obviously the Government does not like the independent bit.

There are, however, some good features in the White Paper. For example, the commission recommends that all tax on aviation fuel be dropped. The Government agrees. I heartily support and endorse that. I hope the hon the Minister can get it through his colleague the hon the Minister of Finance, because that is an extremely important point. Can the hon the Minister tell us when that will happen? When will this tax on aviation fuel be dropped?

I cannot close this discussion on the Margo report without some reference to air safety. The commission recommends, amongst other things, as a matter of urgency the implementation in toto of the planned expansion programme of navigational aids in South Africa. Two and a half years later the Government tells us that it will give the matter sympathetic consideration. If one looks at the explanatory memorandum on the Department of Transport’s Vote, one finds the following:

When one looks at the Budget itself, one finds that for 1983-84 they budgeted for R9,989 million for capital expenditure on navigational aids while for 1984-85 that figure is dropped by almost R1,6 million, to only R8.391 million. I do not believe that that is giving navigational aids sympathetic consideration.

There are a host of other matters relating to airports and their financial controls, further safety recommendations, accident recommendations, the pilot situation, flying training and many other aspects. We need a debate on the Margo Commission and on the White Paper, and I believe the Government owes it to the commission and to civil aviation in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The next item of concern relates to the control of road transportation by the department and its boards. This is now practically a disaster area. Almost every week I get complaints about the issue, or rather the non-issue, of permits. Let me deal briefly with some of the more pressing problems. First of all, there is the bakkie situation. In this regard I should like to quote what the hon the Minister said last year (Hansard, Volume 105, col 1013):

The situation now is that a host of appeals are pending, almost no permits have been granted and the bakkies are operating on Supreme Court interdicts. SATS opposes all applications and is now, I understand, employing private advocates at enormous expense because of the volume of cases. Technicalities are used for purposes of delay. Let me give some cases that have come to my attention. As far as Ratnor and Collett and Inter-City Express are concerned, permits were refused and there is a review pending. Safcon had permits granted, but SATS appealed against the granting of those permits and a review is pending. L C Greyling’s application was in the first place refused on a technicality; secondly it was refused on merit and he is now appealing. Windmill Transport were granted permits but SATS appealed against it. The NTC suspended the permits. And so it goes on and on. Air and Road Express, Presto Parcels, Track Africa, Rennies, are all firms involved in this matter. Van on the Run was a slightly different case. They were granted four permits; they were even granted permits on vehicles which were not originally being used. SATS appealed for suspension and this was not granted. This is a company that operates in the Knysna area, and may I ask the hon the Minister whether he received any representations from the member of Parliament for the area in regard to this case? The hon the Minister shakes his head. I am glad to hear it. [Interjections.]

The second item of concern in regard to road transportation relates to SATS itself. Firstly, tariffs which are not cost related allow carriers in the private sector to increase prices and this is inflationary. Secondly, SATS road transport are competing increasingly with the private sector and with their own rail services. Perishable products are a case in point. SATS’ refrigerated motor transport fleet is vastly extended and refrigerated rail trucks are now under-utilized. They are also being given permits to carry selected goods on their return trips provided these are offered for rail transport. In practice this is not happening. Let me mention the case of Chet Chemicals which move matches and shoe polish to the Reef from Transkei via SATS’ motor transport. The return trip is contracted to General Motors to bring motor components down to Port Elizabeth. This service is used to transport urgently required motor components which would be delayed if sent by rail. I do not object to this, but private enterprise should be allowed into this action. Thirdly, road blocks stop private hauliers while SATS’ vehicles are allowed to go through and are exempted from carrying permits on the vehicles. A final example: A private carrier applied to transport some novoboard products from White River to the Reef. SATS opposed this because they were doing the job by road. It transpired that they did not have permits to do that job; yet the private carrier’s application was refused.

People in the business believe the Road Transportation Board to be nothing but a reflection and an extention of SATS. Indeed I am told that the SATS and the Department of Transport have monthly meetings about road transportation. I believe, however, that the result is chaotic. I believe that this department has established a new record in the number of times it has been taken to court to have decisions reviewed, and I believe too that they have lost some 90% of these cases. I will in due course be tabling questions in this regard and also in respect of other matters.

At the hearings themselves the people have little transport or legal experience. Yet, highly paid advocates appear on behalf of the applicants. There should be people at those hearings with legal and transport expertise, and the chairman should surely have a legal background. The costs of this whole tangle are spiralling both for the department and for the private sector, and it is time, I believe, that this came to an end. We need deregulation—not total but meaningful. There was hope after the Van Breda Commission that there would be some deregulation. In fact the opposite has happened, as has been shown in regard to bakkies.

Then there is also the Black minibus problem. An hon colleague of mine will be dealing with this to a small extent. I do wish, however, to stress that the policy of this party is that Black minibus taxis be continued and further that it should be made easier for permits to be obtained. These taxis, both legal and illegal, fulfil a real need for commuters and for expansion of private enterprise among Black city dwellers. It should be encouraged, not destroyed, and we in these benches will fight their case in this House.

There are many other areas of concern, such as the state of our national roads, the financing of these roads, etc. I regret that I do not have the time now to pursue this argument further.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will forgive me if I do not react to everything he referred to. Other hon members on this side of the House will be doing so when they speak, and they will do a thorough job.

I should also like to associate myself with the congratulations to the Department of Transport and all its staff, including the hon the Minister, on the impressive annual report we received from them. In it one can see what a tremendously wide field is in actual fact covered. To a certain extent this impresses on one what a tremendously large and important department this is.

Because this is road safety year, I therefore just want to express the hope that 1984 will be a turning point, particularly as regards our road safety and everything associated with it. However, a tremendous responsibility rests on the shoulders of each and every one of us to eliminate existing bottlenecks in this regard. Here I have in mind, for example, the thousands of drivers driving on our roads with forged drivers’ licences, as well as the thousands who do not even have drivers’ licences. I also have in mind the scourge of motor vehicle theft and the like. I am merely mentioning these few aspects. I also believe that the present speed limits should be urgently investigated. I am merely mentioning all these things to indicate what a tremendous field, how many separate fields of activity, will have to receive this department’s serious and concerted attention in future.

However, I now want to refer briefly to the three aspects I should like to focus on for a moment. The first of these is the Government’s responsibility with regard to the establishment of a national road system. The second is the urban mass transport system. If there is still time at the end of my speech I want to refer thirdly to state airports.

The transportation of people is one of the most important activities of any community which has achieved anything approaching a high standard of living. Since earliest times, man’s need for transportation has led to the building of roads and bridges to establish or facilitate the necessary communication between communities, to obtain and transport raw materials from their source to where they are processed and distributed. Roads have always been the precursors of development and also the instruments for opening up areas to civilization and stimulating trade and prosperity.

In addition to these primary aims, they also have a very important function, namely their military-strategic function. Roads play a very important role, far greater than the few important functions I have just mentioned. A road network is far more than merely a service to link people or places together. A road network is the framework that gives shape to the entire infrastructure and economy of an area or region. A country’s investment in roads reflects its confidence in its own future. It is a country’s good roads that determine its successful growth. Good roads are and will always be a good investment. For most of us a car has become an integral part of our lives, and for many people a car is far more than merely a mode of transport. It also gives people a certain degree of ego-involvement. As far as members of Parliament are concerned, we see hon members driving these racy fast cars and then realize how soothing it must be to the ego to be driving such cars.

The motor car growth rate in our country is reasonably high compared with other countries on the continent, and we do not take second place to any overseas countries either. In Johannesburg it is estimated that car ownership among the population of Soweto will have increased between 1975 and the year 2000 from 34 to approximately 200 cars per 1 000 of the population. During this period the corresponding car ownership among Whites is expected to have increased by approximately 0,25%. In larger cities rush-hour traffic is already causing considerable financial losses as a result of delays, wear and tear on vehicles and increased fuel consumption.

Our engineers and planners, for whom one has great appreciation, have, by means of ingenious measures, succeeded in coping with the flow of traffic in spite of congestion. The measures they introduce frequently obscure the seriousness of the situation, and the available leeway or tolerances built into our street systems are being utilized to an ever greater extent. We are therefore moving closer to a state of affairs where something will have to be done to prevent serious harm to our economy. Other hon members on this side of the Committee will take this matter further.

A person’s attachment to his car is an aspect that is difficult to shift into the background even when one lives in a country like South Africa with its long distances and a climate, that does not induce people to stay at home. The upward mobility of a large part of our population is escalating, and the importance of car ownership, which is becoming an attainable ideal for an increasing number of people, is making it increasingly difficult for the relevant authorities to meet the growing needs. Every year we hear that it is becoming more difficult for the Government, the provincial administrations and the local authorities to meet the road-building needs of the country. As the road system develops the annual maintenance requirements increase because the number of roads are increasing and because existing roads are becoming that much older and are having to carry more traffic. Because it is sensible, in times when money is in short supply, to take care of what one already has, it is important to specifically emphasize maintenance in the decisions regarding expenditure. Because the available funds for road works are also decreasing alarmingly in real terms, and important maintenance expenditure accounts for such a large slice of it, the funds remaining for new road works are so inadequate as to be causing concern. Measured in real terms, the revenue of the National Road Fund decreased by approximately 50% between 1976 and 1982, and at present it is still less than it was at that stage, whereas in the interim the use of heavy vehicles, in particular, has increased alarmingly. I say alarmingly, not because I do not appreciate the fact that a large lorry can transport more, and in that respect also has great value, but from the point of view of road authorities this increase in the use of heavy vehicles is causing a great deal of concern, seen against the background of the shortage of funds for the improvement or the replacement of existing roads and the building of essential road links.

The transportation of goods by road increased from 179 million tons in 1976 to 251 million tons in 1982, with a resultant increase of approximately 400% in the damage done to road surfaces. Recently the Department of Transport began an investigation with the specific purpose, in these times in which everyone has to cut his coat according to his cloth, of finding ways to make priority assessments in cases where a choice has to be made between projects, so that only the most essential work is done first.

It is a fact that we have reached a certain point with many of our roads and now find we cannot go any further because we have no more money left. Here I am thinking, for example, of the Pinetown by-pass, the Warmbaths road and others. It goes without saying that this situation gives rise to serious problems. Regional economic problems lead to regional transport problems, and regional economic imbalance has in many countries, including South Africa, led to decentralization. The effect of this policy of road network planning is very important to a specific state with a view to the optimum utilization of resources.

This sounds fine, and of course I agree with it, but the decentralization of industries in such a policy also has its headaches. In the planning stage alone, considering all these new development axes, the department calculated that providing the necessary infrastructure for all these regions would involve a total main road network of approximately 12 000 km having to be built.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Speaker, I merely rise to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Rissik for the opportunity he is giving me to pursue a few matters further.

In order to place in perspective the contribution made by the road network to the country’s economy, it could perhaps be pointed out that the transport sector contributes more than 8% to the country’s gross domestic product. This specific sector employs approximately 400 000 people, representing approximately 5% of the country’s economically active population. Since 1945 the transport sector has experienced a real growth of approximately 5,5% per annum, which completely overshadows the growth of most other sectors. At present the total road network comprises approximately 185 000 km of roads, 49 000 km of which are tarred. This represents approximately a quarter of all the roads in Africa and a total investment in excess of R20 billion. Our country has approximately 3,7 million cars on the road.

It is in view of this that I am taking the liberty of asking the hon the Minister whether anything can be done to prevent the existing national road system and the country’s other main routes from being damaged as a result of the many demands made by other important Government projects on the available funds. I should like to give the hon the Minister the assurance that we on this side will support him in getting a larger slice in order to give attention to this.

Another matter that is important is that of urban transport. Some of my colleagues will elaborate on this. I shall only refer to it briefly. As far as urban transport is concerned, we have reached the stage where the necessary funds are not available to enable the urban authorities to provide the necessary infrastructure, although they gained the impression, from an investigation carried out in 1972, that money would be available for them. Because of problems we have been faced with, however, and the need to restructure our priorities, this requirement could unfortunately not be met. What is the result? One need only travel by bus in the mornings from Acacia Park to the city to see how the traffic virtually comes to a standstill six to eight kilometres from the city, and what is happening in Cape Town is happening in all the other cities in the Republic. Traffic congestion in the cities has become a serious problem and will definitely have to receive attention. Congestion has become a matter of grave concern. In Los Angeles, for example, the situation has already been reached where children have to be taken back home again in the mornings because there is too high a concentration of fumes in the air. The creation of an urban macrotransport system is a slow process and delays in this regard can greatly harm the country’s economy. There are people who maintain that the point has already been reached where an express train system has become essential for Johannesburg. If one takes into consideration that it takes at least 10 years to put such a system into operation, I wonder whether the time has not come for us to make a start on this.

I would be glad if the Minister would give us an indication of what steps are being taken to meet the needs of the National Road Fund and the Urban Transport Fund.

In conclusion I want to thank the department for the attention which it has given to our State airports. Last year in October we were able to inaugurate expansion projects valued at R12 million at D F Malan Airport, and today Cape Town has a very modern airport. Even more important are the improvements and planned expansion projects at Jan Smuts Airport. According to the department the new runway which, I hear, will cost R33 million, is to be taken into use this month. This will greatly improve the flow of traffic so that the delays that occasionally occur can be eliminated.

I have only mentioned a few of the achievements of the department for which we are grateful. I understand that in the second half of last year there was a distinct increase in the number of domestic passengers from Jan Smuts Airport. This is probably an indication of the upswing which is to follow. I would be glad if the hon the Minister would give us an indication of what is being done, as far as airport facilities are concerned, to deal with the expected growth in passenger transport. I would appreciate information on this with regard to Jan Smuts Airport, because I have very close ties with that airport.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to associate myself with the train of thought of the hon member for Kempton Park and congratulate him on a very balanced speech.

In the Budget of 1983-84, provision was made for expenditure entailed by the formulation of a national transport policy. Unfortunately finality has not yet been reached with the Treasury concerning the manner in which this expenditure is to be funded, and accordingly no provision has been made in this year’s Budget in this regard. It is a pity that there should be a delay as far as this matter is concerned.

As far as Programme No 2: Civil Aviation, is concerned, I wish to welcome the fact that due to improved conditions of service, greater success has been achieved in the filling of vacant posts, particularly in the professional groups such as air traffic controllers, information officers and others. The increase in the appropriation for police services rendered on State airports by the SA Transport Service is welcomed, since this money is being utilized in respect of intensified safety measures and improved service conditions at these airports. However, it is a pity that at certain airports tremendous crowding out still occurs. Passengers struggle to make their way among people who are usually crowding together at the doors. Apparently it is a hobby of certain people to watch the passengers arriving. One is constantly amazed at the number of people at airports who are not working, and I think that the police at our airports will have to give more attention to this. [Interjections.] I am now referring to crowds of visitors, and not families who come to meet people there.

The provision being made to finance research in connection with the protection of aircraft in flight is greatly welcomed.

An important part of the activities of the Department of Transport Affairs which unfortunately is not given much coverage in the media is the Antarctic research that is being carried out. It is not only on the continent of Antarctica that research is being carried out; South Africans are also doing research in the sub-antarctic regions. Here I have in mind, for example, regions such as the Marion Island region and Gough Island. South Africa has three research stations, viz those at Sanae, Marion Island and Gough Island. South African antarctic research takes place under the control of the Department of Transport Affairs and, with the exception of the meteorological programme, the department itself undertakes no research in the field of natural science. It does administer the money appropriated for the research and is responsible for the logistic support to expeditions. This support includes many things, inter alia the selection and recruitment, accommodation, provisioning, clothing, transport etc of employees. The department does everything necessary to allow an expedition to run smoothly. For those who are unaware of this, it will probably be interesting to hear that the policy-making body is the Interdepartmental Antarctic Committee, the so-called IAC, comprising the Director General: Transport, who is chairman, the Director General: Foreign Affairs, the Director General: Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Director General: Community Development, as well as the president of the CSIR, or their nominees, who serve as members of the committee. The scientific programmes are considered by the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research of the CSIR, and this committee also acts as the department’s scientific adviser. It is less well-known that various authoritative publications have already been published by expedition members, some of which have given rise to academic awards such as masters’ and doctors’ degrees. In spite of all the stories about isolation that we hear, in this field South Africa is not isolated, but is regularly invited to symposia and congresses in various European countries and in the USA. This shows that there is appreciation for the work done by South Africans. Of direct importance to the economy of the country is, of course, the meteorological information received from these three bases at specific times of the day which, together with satellite observations and meteorological information obtained from ships and floating buoys, is used to compile weather forecasts. On page 39 of the department’s latest annual report, there is an interesting photograph of the automatic weather station at Bouvet Island. There is an atuomatic weather station on Tristan da Cunha as well, and data is retransmitted from there via the Argos satellite system to Pretoria.

The former departmental supply ship, the RSA, has been transferred to the Department of Internal Affairs for the training of Coloured seamen. The present ship, the SA Agulhas, will when completed, cost more than R21 million. There is still about R2 million outstanding on this ship, which was built in Japan. The members of the expedition are transported to the various bases on the SA Agulhas. The ship is not an icebreaker, but is so strongly built that it is able to navigate in polar waters. It also has a helicopter on board in order to reconnoitre the interior of Antarctica. The members of the expedition are selected on the basis of their academic achievements. They also have to undergo stringent medical and psychological tests. Before departing for their various bases, they also undergo training in cooking, firefighting, etc.

In the course of the team training that all the expeditions have to undergo, consideration is also given to the mental welfare of these people. There is another mental need that is taken care of, for example re-assimilation in society when they return. After they have worked on the bases for 14 months they have to be provided with psychological assistance to readjust to the societies from which they came. In addition there is a service for the crew of the SA Agulhas during the voyage to the bases. A chaplain of the Defence Force is delegated to visit the bases on a relay basis. Exceptionally good work is done in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have no problems with what the hon member for De Aar had to say. I want to thank him for his praise of the department, particularly as regards meteorological research in the southern oceans.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to refer to the problems surrounding the National Transport Commission. I want to request the Minister, when next he reconstitutes, or makes fresh appointments to, this board, to bear two things in mind. The first is to extend the NTC and to establish co-ordination in such a way that people from all interest groups are appointed to a greater extent; interest groups such as industry, commerce, agriculture, mining and all population groups. Appointments must not only be made from the White population group, but from the other population groups as well so that they, too, can have a say in problems that affect them directly. This will become more and more essential in future because much of the transport sector covers a wider field than before.

The hon the Minister must invite the hon the Minister of Finance to nominate a member to the NTC so that he may be kept abreast of the problems being faced in the provision of an infrastructure in South Africa to meet the needs of the future.

A fresh look must also be taken at the national transport policy study. This is a study which is apparently, according to several people, going to open the road to the Mecca of transport in South Africa. We in South Africa have no integrated transport policy. The criticism expressed to the effect that South Africa has no transport policy is also wrong. Our transport policy consists of a large number of Acts, and I want to congratulate the hon the Minister, the Department of Transport and the NTC on the fact that they have seen their way clear to initiate such a major study which is to guide us into the future. Speaking of the NTC I should like to say that I have certain problems as regards this study, the object of which is to draw up an integrated and co-ordinated transport policy for all forms of transport in South Africa, both public and private transport, and for the provision of infrastructure and the regulation of moving units. In this regard I want to ask the hon the Minister how long it will take for that study to be completed? That is my first question. After the study has been completed, there must be time to study it. The Cabinet has to take a decision on it because it must become policy. My second question, then, concerns how long it will take before the hon the Minister will approach Parliament with an integrated and co-ordinated policy for all forms of transport in South Africa. My experience of research is that such a study will take a long time. It will only be very close to the end of this decade, or even early in the next decade, that the hon the Minister will be able to approach Parliament with such a document.

What I find disturbing at this stage is that the South African transport community and the economic community of South Africa suffer from a twofold split personality. On the one hand, we have the people who say that it is necessary to deregulate and that all forms of transport must be freed from control. Then we have people who say that transport must be a market-oriented economy with certain minimum control in the transport market. This is the first aspect of the split. Then, too, we have the people and organizations that want the Government to do nothing until the time comes when the Minister comes back to this House with his co-ordinated transport policy for the future. On the other hand, there are people who say: “Let us wait; let us see what the serious deficiencies are and solve them now as best we can, bearing in mind that a study is being undertaken.”

Let us face the facts. Several members have already spoken today and outlined problem areas in transport. I should not like to repeat them. I should like to cite one or two more to make the list longer. One that I wish to cite and which all of us have mentioned is the shortage of funds. Then there is the permit problem, the misuse of permits. According to statistics I have seen, approximately 20% of all road transportation of goods between the Witwatersrand complex and the Greater Durban complex contravenes the law as far as permits are concerned. I should like to point out another problem to the hon the Minister. It is that as regards the total subsidization of passenger transport, subsidized on a direct and indirect basis, approximately R1 000 million will be required for the financial year 1984-85.

There are several other matters, too, that one could refer to. One of these is the politicization of transport. In this regard there is the approach that this is largely initiated by the non-White population, to put it euphemistically. It is not only they who have introduced politics into transport. There are several people from the White population group who, for their own purposes or for political purposes, are politicizing transport. We must not always say that it is the other race groups. As far as this is concerned, we should consider ourselves for a change.

Name them.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout, [Interjections.] Moreover, there are a great many prophets of doom who say that transport in this country has become so chaotic that we no longer can or will solve the problems. I differ with those people. There are problems; we admit it. However, on the basis of the approach to which I have already referred and which the hon the Minister will, I hope, elaborate on at a later stage, these problems can be solved. I also wish to ask the hon the Minister to tell us, if possible, what his personal attitude and that of his department is with regard to the concept of control. Should transport be free or should there be a degree of control? Then, too, I wish to ask the hon the Minister to elaborate on how, as he sees it, bottlenecks and problems will be resolved between today, 1 May 1984, and the day on which the integrated overall transport policy, as approved by the Cabinet, is tabled here.

In conclusion, I wish to ask a question and request the hon the Minister to elaborate on this. Major transport organizations, such as the SATS—in certain instances—and Tollgate, Putco and United Transport have established funds to assist people in the community in which they operate. They claim that those funds do not come from subsidies or from passengers but that they are often obtained from advertisements. I should like the hon the Minister to tell us more about this.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member Dr Welgemoed for the speech he has made because he has asked a number of questions which I would have liked to ask the hon the Minister. I am afraid my time is very limited, but I sincerely hope the hon the Minister will reply to them. I will be listening very carefully.

The hon member referred to a number of very important points, among others the report on co-ordinated transport which we are awaiting. He also raised the matter of problems as far as road transport is concerned. Today I want to speak about road transport problems which are resulting from the hon the Minister’s policy regarding rail transport. Sir, I sincerely hope you will be tolerant with me because at times I may have to refer to the SATS which does not fall under this vote. I do believe that one of the main objectives that we should have in South Africa is the development of a transportation system or systems which are going to provide the most efficient and most economic forms of transportation for our people, as well as for our industry, commerce and agriculture. It is because of this that the hon the Minister in reviewing his rail policy has decided that there are certain uneconomic railway lines which should be closed down. It is this aspect that I should like to discuss today.

Let me say to the hon the Minister at the outset—I also said it to him during the Transport Services Vote—that where he can justify the need to close down a railway service for economic reasons I personally would support him. I believe this is essential because, as I have already said, I do not believe that South Africa can afford to operate totally uneconomic transportation systems. However, before the hon the Minister decides to close down a rail service, I believe there are certain considerations which he has to exercise his mind on. The first one is whether in fact that particular railway line is uneconomic, and also whether it could be made economic by some form of development or improvement of that line. Secondly, I want to put it to the hon the Minister that before he closes down a railway line he should have done an investigation into whether or not there will be adequate road services available at economic prices to the users of that railway line. Thirdly, I believe he also has to consider the effect that the closure of a railway line is going to have on the road system. I believe therefore that an investigation should take place in every case where the Minister is considering closing down a railway line. This should be part of his long-term planning, not only the Department of Transport Affairs but also of the SATS. Has the hon the Minister’s department conducted long-term planning exercises into the fall-off of rail traffic? Have they investigated whether or not there is a possibility of obtaining new traffic for these railway lines, especially if the railway lines were upgraded so that they could become more efficient or more economic? In this investigation, has the hon the Minister liaised with local communities, the people who use railway lines, on the effect that the closure of a particular line would have on them, especially as far as the industrial and agricultural sectors are concerned?

As far as the road transportation side is concerned, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether his planning department has looked into the cost of the road transport which will be replacing rail transport, both on a short-term basis and a long-term basis, and what effect any additional cost will have on the economy of a particular enterprise that at present is using rail transport? I also want to ask the hon the Minister whether, when he closes down a railway line, he plans to replace it by the road transport services of the SATS, or whether he is going to allow the local users of the railway to put out to tender their transport jobs so that the private sector will be able to tender on the transportation of those goods. Furthermore, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether his department, especially the National Transport Commission, will guarantee that where a tenderer does get a job, he will be granted the necessary permit so that he can operate his vehicles over those roads. I also want to ask the hon the Minister whether, when he is conducting this planning, he has taken into consideration the effects which the closure of a railway line will have on the existing roads in the area; whether, in fact, the roads there are going to be able to carry the increased traffic. Not only that, but what effect is this additional traffic going to have on the traffic congestion which already exists on those roads? I want to put it to the hon the Minister that whenever any consideration is being given to the closure of a railway line, this should be preceded by extensive studies into these matters and there must be extensive negotiations with national bodies concerned with road transportation and with the industries concerned. There must be negotiations with provincial authorities, with local authorities and certainly with the people in the area.

Having said that, I want to quote an example of what I am getting at. In the Natal Mercury of 13 April there was a headline concerning the closure of a rail link, the rail link between Umlaas Road and Mid Illovo in Natal, an area with which I am closely acquainted, and I am therefore very concerned about what was stated in this report. Mr Dering Stainbank, who is the MEC in charge of roads in Natal, had this to say:

Mr Stainbank says further:

The question I want to put to the hon the Minister is: What are the facts regarding the economics of operating that railway line at the present time? Secondly, has he discussed with the Natal Provincial Administration the effects which this closure will have on the roads?

A very prominent farmer, Mr Mike Burn of the Eston Farmers’ Association, had this to say:

This is a meeting which was called by the SATS regarding the closure of the line. He says further:

Then he says:

I will send the hon the Minister a copy of this report. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether in the case of this railway line, the planning to which I have referred has been conducted by his department over the past few years. I know that there has been talk of closing this railway line for many years now. I do believe in my own heart, however, that it would be unfair to ask the SATS to carry this kind of loss. If the figures are correct it has cost them R630 000 to operate the line, while the income has been only R24 000 per year. The point I want to make, however, is that the closure of that line is going to have a tremendous effect on the local communities, especially taking into account the inadequacy of the roads in that area and the congestion on those roads. I believe that at the present time there are thousands of tons of timber, which are presently transported by rail, but which in future will have to travel along the road link between Umlaas road and the coast …

With an income of R24 000, what is the volume of goods to be transported over that road?

Mr Chairman, I am asking for the facts. The hon the Minister has sufficient time to reply to this. What I want him to do is to reply here in this House to the question I have put to him. That is why I am using my turn in this debate today to speak on this matter.

A wheelbarrow will be sufficient to transport the volume of timber that you are talking about. [Interjections.]

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, for years now we have been pleading to no avail for a third entrance, namely the Western Avenue interchange, to take motorists straight into the heart of East London from the top end of Oxford Street. On approaching East London along the through road from the west one finds a sign stating that the next two exits lead to East London. If one takes the first one one finds that one has to take a tortuous route through the suburbs in order to get into East London proper. If one takes the second exit one might not get into East London at all because one is bound to end up on the northern side of East London, beyond the Nahoon River, well on one’s way to the East Coast resorts, Transkei and Natal. From there, of course, one will need a map and a navigator if one wants to get back into East London. [Interjections.]

This state of affairs, this lack of a direct entrance into East London, has been detrimental to the economy of East London as well as to tourism in that region. It has also done the Government’s policy of decentralization a good deal of harm.

All of a sudden, however, we have found that a drastic change is taking place. Last Friday, 27 April, the contract for the construction of the Western Avenue interchange at an estimated cost of R2 650 000 was advertised. Work on that interchange should commence early August this year. On behalf of all the people of East London I want to thank the hon the Minister, the department and all others concerned for finally having found and made the finance available for the construction of this very urgent project, which is so vitally necessary for the further growth of East London.

Mr Chairman, I will not follow the hon member for East London North. He has spoken about purely local matters. I firstly want to deal with one or two matters relating to our airports and to the conditions and amenities which are available at those airports. The remarks I am going to make now arise out of my own observations, but they also follow upon numerous complaints which I have received and am still receiving from members of the travelling public.

Perhaps the best way of approaching this matter is by quoting one such letter which I have received from a businessman who happens to travel a lot. This letter sums up effectively most of the matters which I want to raise. This letter I received from a businessman a few months ago. It contains a number of complaints relating not only to this hon Minister’s department, but to other departments too. Referring to the SATS he said:

He goes on to say:

Private enterprise.

Yes, that may well be. [Interjections.] This gentleman goes on to say:

There is one complaint but it happens to agree with a number of complaints that I have received from certain members of the travelling public.

Which airport is that?

I think he was referring specifically to Jan Smuts Airport and also the Durban departure lounge from Jan Smuts Airport. Certainly, from my own observations, I feel that his criticisms are valid. I think the departure lounge is untidy and totally cheerless. It has no character whatsoever and I do not think it is a good advertisement for our airport. When next he travels from Johannesburg to Durban—I hope he does so frequently because I know that he is an ambitious man and he would like to get to the best part of South Africa as soon as possible—I want to urge the hon the Minister not to use the VIP lounge but to make use of the public lounge so that he can find out these things for himself.

You will never find me in the VIP lounge.

I am very pleased to hear that, Sir. I want to ask the hon the Minister particularly to give attention to that departure lounge as well as the tearoom above it because I think that they both need a great deal of attention. Nothing could be more bleak or unattractive and I think that a great deal needs to be done to improve conditions and facilities in this regard.

I should also like to discuss the complaint the gentleman makes in his letter to me about the prices charged in the overseas departure lounge. I believe that this matter also needs investigation because there would appear to be no reason why the travelling public should be fleeced in paying for their refreshments while they are in fact captives in the departure area. I think that matter needs investigating because I believe that the prices are most excessive.

This brings me to the next complaint relating to the question of the duty-free shops at Jan Smuts Airport. Once again, my own observations confrim what the gentleman has said in his letter to me in relation to the prices charges by these duty-free shops. In relation to duty-free shops the public are at that stage of their travel plans also captive. They are there and they cannot get out. Surely the concept of duty-free shops implies that they ought to be able to make last minute purchases whether in the form of liquor or other gifts and that they should be able to make such purchases at least at competitive rates. However, I believe that the reverse is the case. Very often the prices at these dutyfree shops are higher than they are at ordinary stores around the country. I visited one of these shops last November and questioned the proprietor about the question of these high prices. He told me that the rentals payable to the airport authorities are so excessive that it is necessary and inevitable for the prices paid by the public for goods purchased at those shops to be high if the shop is to be a viable proposition.

It is put out to tender.

That may be so, and I want to discuss that point. A few weeks ago I put a question to the hon the Minister on this issue, Question No 495, which was replied to by the hon the Minister on 9 March. I asked the hon the Minister:

1. (1)(a) How many duty-free shops are there in the international section of Jan Smuts Airport and (b) what is the (i) rental charged by his Department and (ii) length of tenancy in respect of each shop;
2. (2) whether his Department has laid down any conditions in regard to the (a) manner in which business is to be conducted and (b) prices to be charged by the lessees; if so, what is the purport of these conditions?

The reply I received was that there was one liquor concession consisting of three shops and one goods concession of three shops. As far as the goods shop concession is concerned, the rental payable is R105 000 per month plus 5% of the gross monthly income above R80 000. [Interjections.] As far as the liquor shop concession is concerned, the rental is 33,05% of the gross daily income. That is what is payable in rent. As far as the tenancy agreement in respect of the goods shop concession is concerned, the tenancy is for five years with an inalienable option to extend the lease for a further period of four years and 11 months. As far as the liquor shop concession is concerned it is a fixed period of five years.

As far as the conditions laid down are concerned, the hon the Minister replied that conditions had been laid down, and he went on to say:

Those are the appropriate portions of the hon the Minister’s reply to me which I wanted to mention.

From these figures it appears to me that these rentals are excessive, and I think that that is the reason why these high prices are being passed on to the travelling public. It would also appear from observation that the control of prices seems to be inadequate and ineffective. I want to ask the hon the Minister how often checks are undertaken as to what prices are being charged. I want to ask how often price lists are called for. I want the hon the Minister to investigate the entire rental structure in regard to these duty-free shops.

The Margo Commission raised the whole question of duty-free shops too. It also raised the question of concessions at airports. They said those concessions should be determined by expert investigation of sales, sales potential, management and other relevant aspects of profitability. They also said that rentals for airport premises should be determined by reference to local real estate expertise and market conditions. They said there should be up to date terms of leasing and they went on to say that the maximum prices of duty-free shops should be kept below retail prices in the city. Those are the recommendations of the Margo Commission.

In the White Paper which was issued the other day, the Government indicated that they agreed with the recommendations but they wanted to make the following remarks. They said that rentals for concessions are determined by the system of inviting public tenders, which is what the hon the Minister interjected to me a little while ago. They said that rental for the premises are in accordance with local market conditions and are adjusted annually or as stipulated in the agreements of lease. They then went on to say—remember this is the Government’s view—that prices in the duty-free liquor shops at Jan Smuts and D F Malan Airports have since the introduction of new contracts been controlled by means of a system of permissible profit margins. That does not exactly square with the recommendations of the Margo Commission which asked that the prices should be kept below retail prices in the city. The Government is therefore somewhat at variance with the Margo Commission in its response to that. However, this is an item which affects the travelling public, people who travel overseas, and it is an item which is attracting a great deal of adverse comment from passengers who believe that they are in more than one way taken for a ride by the department of the hon the Minister. So much for my comments on the airports.

I now want to deal with an unrelated matter, but a matter which is the concern of the department of the hon the Minister, and that is in respect of regulations relating to transport on our roads of hazardous substances. I want to refer particularly to an incident which is quoted in the Natal Daily News of Monday, 2 April. It has the headline “Firemen act to prevent road disaster”. It reads:

My time has almost expired, but the point I want to make is that it is necessary, I believe, that there be regulations in order to identify the type of hazardous liquids which are being conveyed by large tankers along South Africa’s roads if we want to avert disasters to people’s health or to their lives because the experts say that when there is such a disaster, it is impossible to identify those substances because there is no uniform sign which enables people whom come on that scene to identify what particular liquids are being carried and therefore to take the correct measures to minimize the disaster. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Berea will understand if I do not respond to the issues raised by him since I should like to confine myself to matters relating to civil aviation and the report of the Margo Commission.

*In the first place, on behalf of hon members on this side I should like to thank the hon the Minister and the Government most sincerely for the White Paper and the positive attitude evidenced in it. I should also like to take this opportunity of thanking Mr Justice Margo and the members of his commission most sincerely indeed for the report they submitted. As a result of his knowledge of aviation—he was himself a pilot—Mr Justice Margo has of course been intimately acquainted with aviation for many years now. He was the right person to lead the commission. I believe that in future years the report of the Margo Commission will leave its mark on civil aviation in South Africa and that civil aviation will be very grateful to the commission for the wonderful, positive recommendations it made. The final proof of this commission’s outstanding work lies in the fact that the Government has accepted virtually all the recommendations of the commission in principle and that only their implementation was amended in certain cases. I do not have enough time to go into all these matters, but there are three things I hope to touch on briefly in the short time at my disposal.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the abolition of the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee in terms of a recommendation of the Margo Commission. In its report the Margo Commission recommended, as the hon member quite rightly pointed out, that the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee be restructured, but I feel that if the commission had been aware, at that stage in its investigation, of the Government’s intention to enlarge the National Transport Commission, it may have felt differently about the matter. What is happening now? Because of the enlargement of the National Transport Commission, or its envisaged enlargement, this committee can still function under the auspices of the National Transport Commission. For the first time 50% of the members of the National Transport Commission will be from the private sector, with two members from civil aviation also serving on the National Transport Commission. I understand that in proposed legislation in connection with the National Transport Commission provision will be made for the introduction of regional transport advisory councils. Members of the National Transport Commission who will be dealing with the interests of civil aviation, can therefore make their inputs at both the regional and the national level. I feel that the advisory committee, or the committee which will be under the chairmanship of the Director of Civil Aviation, would be able to function far better through the organization and secretariat of the National Transport Commission than the old advisory committee did, and I feel that civil aviation in general will benefit greatly by this in future.

The second important aspect resulting from the report of the Margo Commission involves the status of the Directorate of Civil Aviation. The commission requests that this body’s status be increased and that the staff and the budget of the directorate be enlarged. Today I should like to record our appreciation for the excellent work down by the Directorate of Civil Aviation over the years. The directorate, however, lacks staff and funds. Many of the recommendations of the Margo Commission have already been implemented by the Directorate of Civil Aviation during the past few years. If we could increase the status of the directorate, supplement its staff and increase its budget, I feel it would be possible for many of the recommendations of the commission to be accommodated and for excellent work to be done. This matter has, of course, been referred to the Commission for Administration and I want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that there are no delays in ensuring that the status, the budget and the staff of the Directorate for Civil Aviation is enlarged to such an extent that it does, once and for all, have the necessary muscle to do its work.

In the third place—and this is the last matter I want to raise—there are the commission’s recommendations on flight training and licensing. During the past few years the public has begun to feel concerned about the number of aircraft accidents taking place. During 1983 there were 130 accidents, of which 11 were fatal, with 31 people being killed. This is an improvement, however, on the previous year when there were 145 accidents and 47 people lost their lives in 15 fatal accidents. I am not suggesting that the standard of training of pilots, whether they be private or commercial pilots, is not good enough. As we have progressed, we felt that there was room for improvement. If the recommendations made by the commission could be implemented fully, I believe that this would contribute to greater safety.

One recommendation I want to refer to concerns the fact that the training of private pilots should be improved by the standardization and the training of instructors. This is very important, and for the first time a textbook for instructors has been made available which will promote standardization in this regard.

It has also been advocated that commercial pilots should have a greater degree of expertise in instrument flying. There are six pages of recommendations with which the Government is in full agreement. If these recommendations could be fully implemented, this would contribute towards greater safety in civil aviation. I would have liked to have said more, but I do not have the time to do so.

Mr Chairman, I would in the first place like to thank the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central for his thanks expressed to the Director-General, Mr Adriaan Eksteen, and his very competent staff. The have furnished me with a number of replies to hon member’s questions. The extent of the replies is considerable. So I cannot refer to them all as my time is limited and as I want more members on both sides of the House to take part in this debate. I will only talk for 20 minutes and reply further tomorrow afternoon if time permits.

The report of the Margo Commission was delayed because a study of the whole issue had first to be made. I regret that it took such a long time. A number of questions have been asked about this report and I have promised hon members that we will have a special debate on this. I still think that would be the correct way to go about it.

If time permits, we can have a special debate on this report after the debate on the various votes, if we can come to terms with the whips.

You must talk to the Leader of the House.

Yes, I will make an appointment with him. In any event, I think this is a good idea because this is such an important report and as such justifies a special debate in this House.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central asked when the tax on civil aviation fuel is going to be dropped. We are looking into this problem in conjunction with the hon the Ministers of Mineral and Energy Affairs and of Finance and I will reply in due course.

The hon member also referred to the use of one-ton bakkies. We have nothing against one-ton bakkies, but the bakkies he referred to are not one-ton bakkies. They are bakkies with a weight of up to 7 tons. We are against illegal bakkies. We will investigate the names mentioned by the hon member and I will reply to him in writing.

*The people who do transport work are the slyest of the sly.

†If it is a one-ton bakkie, it is a different matter. These one-ton bakkies are used for quick deliveries. One finds that three or four-ton trailers are hooked onto these bakkies. I can show the hon member photos of what is being done.

The hon member also referred to refrigerated road trucks which have been taken over by the South African Transport Services. We are making one mistake in this country, and I am now also referring to questions asked by other hon members. I am compelled to prepare a railway budget and to disclose what we will charge for transporting each and every item. That is published in a tariff book. Each station master has a tariff book. The person in private enterprise has his own tariff book and offers customers a tariff lower than that of the SATS.

*The days are past when I had to put my cards on the table here and say what the prices were that we were going to charge so that the private entrepreneurs could simply undercut this by 1% or 2%. That is not fair competition.

It is private enterprise.

Make me a private entrepreneur too; then the sparks will fly in this country.

You should get out of it altogether.

Please!

†The refrigerated road trucks operated by the Transport Services are on a tender basis in this country. If we can do the job cheaper than the private person, why criticize us?

Do private individuals get a chance?

Definitely. They get a chance. It is on a tender basis.

They do not get the permits.

All right!

I have mentioned that five years ago the Transport Services transported 52% of all cargo in South Africa. Now the figure is actually 32,5%. The other night I came from Touws River together with “Poggie” and between Touws River and Paarl we passed 116 trucks, not 10-ton trucks but huge trucks, 18-wheelers.

How many belonged to the Transport Services?

Only four. We counted them. They are the red ones. What is actually happening at the moment is that the SA Transport Services are being killed. We must fight to get back the business we lost in the past. We must do so on a competitive basis.

On the road?

On the road and by rail—it does not matter.

The hon member also said that Black taxis, legal or illegal, should be encouraged to do transport work. I have said I want to protect the legal Black kombis. We have, however, decided to introduce legislation to this effect later on. If we do not do it this year, we will do it next year. There will in any event be enough time to discuss the whole subject of legal taxis operating in South Africa. That applies to kombis and ordinary taxis, but not to illegal ones, because we are killing the legal ones.

Increase the number of…

Helen, do you have a share in a kombi, or why are you interjecting?

I know that the Blacks have a lot of trouble getting to work every day.

I know that that is the case. However, the hon member was not here when I explained the whole problem concerning the taxis. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Kempton Park referred to the urban road systems. He is chairman of our committee and makes a study of all these things. He put a series of questions to me. We are being crowded off our roads by heavy vehicles. Hon members who say there should be more heavy vehicles, do not help me to find the extra money to maintain our roads. If we can obtain an additional 2 cents per litre, plus the 2,3 cents we are already receiving—actually we should be getting 5 cents per litre—we can develop the road system in South Africa and construct the freeways in such a way that they can carry more traffic. Our problem today, however, is that people are being killed in road accidents as a result of the huge trucks blocking the roads. They drive two abreast and force one, as it were, to cross the white line in order to pass them. This is what causes a large proportion of our accidents.

The hon member for Kempton Park also discussed the Jan Smuts Airport. A new runway has been built. A further R11,2 million is being spent on a building complex. I shall give the hon member all the particulars in this connection. A further R28 million is being spent on a building situated between the other two. The hon member for Berea stated quite justifiably that many of the facilities were inadequate. Last year our traffic increased by 2% and our overseas traffic by 4,3%. Within the next five years one will not be able to move on Jan Smuts Airport. We are handling more and more passengers, and it is an international airport. That is why we simply have to spend this money.

The hon member for Kempton Park himself made a mistake today when he referred to the “Jan Smuts Airport”. He keeps on asking me why the name cannot be changed to Kempton Park Airport. Now even he is prepared …

I spoke about the airport near Johannesburg.

Well, that is not yet Kempton Park.

I shall reply to the hon member’s question. The hon member also asked for more money for the Road Fund and the Urban Transport Fund. I have already replied to that.

The hon member for De Aar referred to congestion at airports. Three weeks ago we issued a statement in which we made it clear that we were calling in the assistance of the Railway Police and others to help us to curtail vagrancy—there are quite a number of vagrants—which causes congestion. I discussed the matter with the Director-General, Mr Eksteen, and asked whether we should not again consider the possibility of charging an entrance fee. We are investigating the matter because it frequently happens, particularly on Sundays, that large numbers of people visit the airport to watch the aircraft arriving and departing. This practice is becoming a popular pastime and the number of thefts and irregularities is increasing.

The hon member also referred to metereological research. I want to thank him for his interest in the research work being carried out in the Antarctic and in the activities of those people who go to the polar regions for periods of up to three months and longer to do research. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member Dr Welgemoed referred to the National Transport Commission, and to the enlargement of this commission. He also referred to interest groups, the shortage of funds and to permit contraventions. He said that by next year an amount of R1 000 million will have to be found to finance the conveyance of commuters. In this connection I want to tell the hon member that one of the problems being experienced by the Railways, because we have to cross-subsidize, is unfair competition in that we are expected to increase goods tariffs—and as a result goods traffic is becoming increasingly expensive—to compensate for the loss on passenger traffic. Other means will have to be found to make good those losses.

The hon member also referred to the National Transport Policy study. Earlier today I released a Press statement, which hon members can read at their convenience tomorrow in Die Burger and The Cape Times. In it many of the matters to which the hon member Dr Welgemoed referred are dealt with. The Press statement will be made freely available, and I shall also distribute it among hon members who are interested in it. Many of the facets raised here are covered in that statement.

Read it out so that we can debate it.

It comprises three folio sheets. I shall let the hon member have an Afrikaans and an English copy, and then he can read it if he so wishes. [Interjections.]

After the final recommendations of the transport policy study have been submitted to me they will of course, because transport is a general affair, be considered by the various Houses of Parliament, and after that they will be put forward for implementation. I am saying this with reference to the statement by the hon member that such a study could take four years. This process could even take a further two years. In other words, it will not be possible in practice to produce the final results before 5 or 6 years have elapsed. The hon member said it might take even longer. I want to say at once that the recommendations may also be that regulation will continue to exist. The hon member said that some people were in favour of regulation being abolished while others were in favour of its retention. Time will have to show whether it is qualitative or quantitative.

The hon member Dr Welgemoed also asked a question about the procedure according to which the study was carried out. The study is being carried out by private consultants under the guidance of the Department of Transport and a steering committee consisting of bodies involved in transport in South Africa. The committee meets under the chairmanship of the Department of Transport. The study is being undertaken according to a programme approved by the NTC and reports accepted by the steering committee. The Department of Transport appointed two firms of consulting engineers to do the work, ie Messrs Van Wyk Louw and Scott and De Waal. These firms have a multi-disciplinary transport research team consisting of engineers, economists, lawyers, ecologists and so on at their disposal. I think I have now replied suficiently to the hon member’s questions.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti referred to the closing down of certain railway lines and asked whether we liaise with local communities. At the moment we are busy liaising with the community of Hofmeyr. The hon member for Queenstown knows that we had discussions with people there. Dr Coetzee and the member for Parliament went there to meet the farmers association and the town council. We are also now busy closing down the railway line to Jamestown. We are losing R143 million on uneconomic railway lines. Must we continue operating them? There is an alternative. We can operate a bus service at the same price as a rail service for the first few years.

The hon member also referred to the revenue of R24 000 compared to the expenditure of R600 000. What actually can one transport for R24 000 annually? For that one can use a wheelbarrow. I can, however, give the hon member the assurance that we do not want to disrupt any community; we do not want to disrupt the rail services and force the local people to make use of the road. We will have discussions with the people concerned and I invite the hon member to go with our officials to address the people there. Should we find that they are not satisfied, we will consider alternatives and we may introduce a bus service. Let us however look at the whole matter first.

The hon member for East London North said one might get into East London or you might not; one does not know whether one is going into or out of East London. [Interjections.] However, the hon member also thanked the National Transport Commission for the faith they have shown in that area.

*The hon member put me in mind of a person who arrived in Sannieshof and came across a Black man there. He asked him: “What road must I take from there to get to the chemist?” Whereupon the Black man told him: “Sir, from here you drive on until you get to the church, and then you turn right.” Then he said: “No, wait, from here you drive on until you get to the co-operative, and then you turn left. Wait a minute, you want to go to the chemist, you say? From here you drive on to the hotel—no, Master, from here there is no road that will take you to the chemist”! The hon member said it was difficult to enter or leave East London, but he nevertheless thanked the National Transportation Commission for having confidence in East London and for their intention to construct that road now.

†I must tell the hon member for Berea that I too am not happy with the situation at certain airports and with the departure halls. The Director-General and his staff realize that we should be renovating a number of these facilities and we are at the moment trying to raise the necessary funds. There is a daily increase in the number of passengers, and we must provide the necessary facilities. Refreshments are very expensive. We approach private enterprise and ask them to tender for the duty-free shop or for the cafeteria. Should a man tender and be prepared to give us 33% of his turnover—should he be prepared to give us R100 000 a month on a tender basis—what should we do? Must we say that we are not prepared to accept his tender, but that we will rather take the tender of R40 000? He will then go to the opposition and say: “You took the chap who tendered R40 000 but you did not accept my tender of R100 000.” However, he is adding the additional cost of his tender to what the consumer will have to pay. What must we do? The hon member asked for free enterprise. The alternative is that the department should be allowed to run those shops. I fully agree with the hon member that the dutyfree shop is a farce.

All over the world.

Yes, it is the position all over the world; they bluff the people. The hon member correctly called these people “captive buyers” because they cannot go to a rival’s shop.

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister tell me whether it is possible to have two or three competitive dutyfree shops in that area?

It is not possible because of lack of space. The hon member should go to Heathrow and see whether there is competition as far as duty-free shops are concerned. At that airport there is only one concessionary where liquor stores are concerned. [Interjections.] The hon member for Houghton will find that this is indeed the case at Heathrow airport. There is no competition.

[Inaudible.]

Well, I do not drink, but I do buy eau de cologne for my girl friends. [Interjections.] The ideal situation would be to have competition among duty-free shops and we will go into this matter. However, the hon member for Berea was not unreasonable in drawing attention to these matters. This in my view constitutes a real problem. He says the public maintain the SATS are taking them for a ride. It is not the department that is to blame. That is our major problem. The real culprit in this instance is private enterprise.

I want to refer now to the transportation of dangerous fluids by road. There are trucks transporting acids by rail. Now, however, the people concerned want to transport those acids by road. The hon the Minister of Health and Welfare and his department are in the process of drafting regulations to meet this situation. As I have said before, the time will come when those people will be-compelled to adhere to the most stringent safety regulations. Let us take, for instance, the question of the transportation of dynamite. More dynamite is transported by road in South Africa than in any other country in the world. That dynamite is of course used by the mining industry. Very strict regulations are, however, enforced on all dynamite transportation by road. A vehicle transporting dynamite is not allowed to exceed a speed of 25 km per hour and a special overseer occupying a rear cabin on every vehicle must accompany the transportation throughout. Very strict control is exercised in this respect, and I think the time has come for the Department of Health and Welfare to introduce similarly stringent regulations relating to the transportation of dangerous fluids.

One must of course identify what types of fluids those are.

Of course, yes. Such regulations have to be enforced in order that when an accident occurs people will know exactly what to do.

*The hon member for Kroonstad is a pilot, a safe pilot, a pilot with a good reputation. He is very interested in the findings of the Margo Commission. In his capacity as pilot he also referred to the Directorate of Civil Aviation and the status of that body. He also argued that greater powers should be conferred on that body. We shall discuss this matter again later.

I just want to point out in passing, Mr Chairman, that in the USA the status of the Director of Civil Aviation is greater than that of the Auditor-General of this country. He occupies one of the highest positions in the USA. I am therefore delighted that the Margo Commission also emphasized that one ought to treat the Director of Civil Aviation with greater respect.

Mr Chairman, could I ask the hon the Minister whether he could possibly use his influence in order that something can be done about the disgusting airport at Ilha do Sal, which the SAA uses all the time? I know we will not find him in the ladies but the hon the Minister can take it from me that conditions there are absolutely unspeakable.

How can you know you won’t find him in the ladies?

Well, I hope I will not find him there. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have also been to the airport at Ilha do Sal, and I have not been delighted with conditions there. The SAA of course has a big stake in that airport. I do think nevertheless that we can pay attention to conditions there, particularly to the lack of cleanliness. The same applies of course to the men’s toilets. Perhaps the hon member for Houghton should accompany me there one day so that I can go and show her what conditions are like in those specific quarters. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the hon the Minister answering numerous questions that have been put to him. He referred very briefly to the question of funds, and I should like to deal with that in particular because the Budget allocations for the Department of Transport show that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is facing a grave crisis financially. Newspaper reports have indicated that he intends to ask for an increase in the price of fuel in order to ensure a bigger levy for his department. This will of course only fuel the fires of inflation.

Yet, let us consider his report for 1982-83 in respect of national roads. On page 59 of that report he states:

Let us examine the present sources of revenue of the National Transport Commission. Firstly, in terms of the National Roads Act, an amount of 2,354 cents per litre on petrol, kerosene, distillated fuel or residual fuel oil is levied in the form of customs and excise duty. Secondly the National Roads Amendment Act—Act No 19 of 1983—allows the Minister of Transport Affairs, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, by notice in the Gazette, to impose an additional levy. From 30 September last year until 31 March this year this levy amounted to 1,3 cents. This provided an additional R50 million. The levy has now been reduced to 0,7 cents per litre for the current financial year, which should yield about another R60 million.

This system of calculating the fuel price is completely wrong and outdated, and I am going to try to show it. Let us take the composition of the price of petrol and see how that affects the Fuel Fund. One has a price on the Witwatersrand of 61,8 cents a litre. If one then deducts the pipeline costs and GST the price for fuel at the coast is 54,8 cents a litre. After the deduction of GST there is a retailers margin of 3,8 cents, and then the other prices have to be added. In this there is a fixed figure of 2,354 cents and, out of the Equalization Fund levy amounting to 8,8 cents, the National Transport commission is now receiving 0,7 cents. Therefore, it is obvious to me, as it should be to the hon the Minister, that the whole basis on which revenue is accumulated for the National Road Fund is outdated and cannot be used under present-day conditions.

What this formula has omitted to take into consideration are the ravages of inflation, and I want to detail the petrol prices that have been in operation for almost the past 10 years. In 1976 the price of petrol at the coast was 21,4 cents per litre, the levy was 2,154 cents and the percentage of the total cost of petrol accruing to the National Transport Commission was 10%. In 1977 it was 10,13%; in 1979, 7,24%; in 1981, 4,65%; in 1982, 3,92%, and now it has risen to 4,29%. This means that the percentage allocation for the collection of funds from the petrol pump has been directly responsible for the financial crisis pertaining to the National Transport Commission today.

You are making a very good speech.

Yes, I know. Even with the addition of the 0,7 cents per litre the percentage is still absurdly low, namely 5,57%. What is happening at the moment is that the so-called Equalization Fund’s contribution of 0,8 cents per litre is being used to fund this levy. Last year the price of petrol was reduced on 28 February by 1,5 cents per litre and, on 22 August 1983, just before the referendum, the price was further decreased by 3,8 cents per litre making a total reduction of 5,3 cents per litre, but the hon the Minister did nothing about it. Where was the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs when the hon the Minister of Finance decided that the funding of Sasol 2 and 3 through the State Oil Fund no longer needed the full amount of 4 cents, and therefore took the 2 cents that would otherwise have occrued to the National Transport Commission for the Exchequer? Surely the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs should have told him that the purpose of petrol production is to enable vehicles to use our roads and that the hon the Minister of Finance had no right to take that money for himself. Unless our road infrastructure is sound less petrol will be used. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs should have been watching the machinations of the hon the Minister of Finance. Although there is a financial crisis within the ambit of the National Transport Commission, with the ingenuity of a good businessman, as is the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, I am sure that if what he says is true he will solve the problem by examining the whole structure percentagewise of the price of petrol. Without good servicable roads the whole infrastructure of South Africa will disappear.

I want to deal with the question of urban transport and the compensation for the so-called uneconomic political and socio-economic services. There are four functions of transport namely economic, social, political and strategic. The SATS and various private bus companies have repeatedly stated that they want to be released from their financial burdens. What has the situation been, Sir? For the past 30 years the White electorate have elected a Government following a political policy of apartheid. The Government is compelled therefore to carry out its policy which involves rigid ethnic separation through the Group Areas Act. I do not want to argue the merits or demerits of this fact but the result has been a complete change in the spatial structure of South African cities which has resulted in new transport problems that have arisen in trying to meet the changed accessibility of various race groups in pursuing their socio-economic services. In actual fact, it is political and socio-economic not simply socio-economic. I have here reports—I have no time to deal with them—issued by the National Institute for Transport and Road Research at the CSIR which I have visited during the recess and with which I have discussed these problems. The question is: Who must pay? The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has mentioned the question of commerce and industry. I want to say quite clearly that the principle at stake as to who should be responsible for the payment of the effect of carrying out a political policy should be that it is the State which must compensate such organizations who suffer losses as a result of carrying out the political policy of the Government, and nobody else. It should be made perfectly clear that this is not a subsidy or a contribution to assist a particular group; it is the total price which the taxpayer, every taxpayer, has to pay in the democratic system for electing a Government to carry out a particular mandate or policy.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bezuidenhout weaved so many aspects into his speech that he paid a call on the Department of Finance as well as the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Department of Transport. I know that the hon the Minister will be able to reply to him effectively with regard to all the matters he raised.

The hon member also touched on the question of urban transport and I in turn wish to emphasize this matter very strongly. When I was a member of the City Council of Johannesburg from 1957 to 1972 and we were in the opposition, and the hon members for Bryanston, Sandton and Hillbrow also served on that city council as rulers, I championed three causes.

The one was that a separate lane should be introduced for buses. In due course that request was complied with under NP rule in the City Council of Johannesburg. A second matter I touched on was that the show-grounds should be moved to a central point away from the centre city. That request has also been complied with, but at the time we did not know that it would be transferred to the land of Crown Mines. I think that the hon the Minister will reply in full to that as well. The third matter I raised was the question whether a monorail system should not be introduced in Johannesburg. This is the matter I should like to touch on again in the few minutes at my disposal.

It is not merely an issue of urban transport in Johannesburg; it is also one of urban transport on the Rand, in Pretoria, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Bloemfontein, where all the transport systems are reaching breaking point. In the metropolitan area of Johannesburg, transportation has to be provided for 3 million inhabitants. Every day 394 000 motorcars containing 495 000 passengers stream into the city. At peak periods 175 000 people travel by rail, 55 000 people are brought in by bus and 6 000 travel by combi taxi. This gives a total of approximately 750 000 people travelling in one direction at peak periods.

This imposes a traffic burden on limited access routes. The system of streets in the central city of Johannesburg was not designed for this. The blocks are too short and there are too many robots. Traffic jams take place. Fuel is wasted, the environment is polluted. Frustration increases. The productivity of our people drops. There is rapid wear and tear on vehicles. Valuable time is wasted. Traffic accidents are occurring to an increasing extent.

It has been found recently that the majority of households already have two or more motorcars, owing to the lack of suitable public transport. Only 7% of the inhabitants make use of buses. According to a survey carried out in Randburg, 67% of the inhabitants indicated that they used the bus less than once a month. Therefore it is clear that at present the system of transport is reaching breaking-point.

One effective solution would be a light rail system. I am not advocating the introduction of underground trains; I know that that would be very expensive. The cause I am championing is the introduction of a railway transport system which has already been used very successfully in great cities of the world, in Frankfurt and in large cities in France and the USA. These cities do not all have enormous populations. I speak about the 3 million that we have, but many of those cities have populations of 600 000, 500 000 or 1 million. They are able to use this metroplitan system; why, then, should we not be able to have this system in Johannesburg as well? Why have big cities like Melbourne and Adelaide in Australia retained trams when we did away with them? We thought that we would achieve something thereby, but in their place we began to use buses which run on expensive diesel fuel, and they were a failure. We then reverted to trolley buses, but they did not meet all the requirements. By means of the system I propose we could transport 10 000 people per hour and they could travel at a rate of 80 km per hour. One unit can easily convey 200 to 300 people at once. This is the system I advocate. There is the well-known U-rail, the railway system, and the O-rail, the bus system, in overseas countries, and because the wagons are light they can move at greater speeds.

Part of the system can be above the ground and another part underground. The great advantage is that they can even make use of the road system and the freeway system. By means of such a system the cost of expropriation can be eliminated since the system can be built underground at a low cost. I realize that initially this will entail heavy capital expenditure.

The hon member Dr Welgemoed said that he needed R1 000 million, but the system I am advocating would initially only cost R500 million. Loans for this purpose can be entered into. In Switzerland and the USA levies have been imposed on fuel. As far as urban transport is concerned, 60% of the cost can be borne by the State, while commercial rights may be sold to the private sector. Hotels can be built in the vicinity of stations, while supermarkets and cafes can also be built there.

The same can be done in this connection as is envisaged with regard to the SA Transport Services. Land can be sold to private bodies. This will entail savings of millions of rands because the capacity of this underground train system, or metro system, will be far greater than that of a bus transport system, for example. In this way traffic will be transferred from the road in our big cities to rail traffic, and that will be to the benefit of all of us.

Mr Chairman, 1984 has been declared Road Safety Year. This year, more so than in any previous year, more is being said and written about road safety. On television, too, a great deal of time is being devoted to road safety. In virtually every sphere of the life of the community instruction is provided for old and young among all the different race groups. This does not mean that this problem has not been discussed for decades in various council chambers in this country. Nor does it mean that the various departments and agencies have not been struggling with this problem for decades. It does not mean, either, that penalties and fines have not risen dramatically in recent times. In spite of everything that has been done, dozens of people die on our roads every day. We need only consider the recent Easter weekend to find that 122 people died on our roads during that period, while the death rate for the same period last year was no less than 240. If we compare the Easter weekend with 1983 and 1984, we see that there was an overall drop in the death-rate of 100%. In my opinion, this is due solely to Operation Perseus. Accordingly I want to take this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to everyone who had anything to do with Operation Perseus, either directly or indirectly. They have undoubtedly succeeded in making all road-users aware of death on the roads. I want to urge all the people, agencies and departments that have anything to do with road safety to continue unceasingly with the tremendous task of education in order to keep death off the roads.

I also think it is essential that we examine the relevant statistics. Every death on the road costs South Africa R115 000. This means that the recent Easter weekend cost South Africa no less than R14 million. In order to draw a comparison, I want to refer to road deaths over the past five years. In 1979, 6 037 people died on our roads; in 1980, 7 572; in 1981, 9 087; in 1982, 9 154, and in 1983, 9 121. This gives a total of 40 971 over the past five years and an average death rate of 8 194 per annum. This means that in the remaining 245 days of this year 23 people will die on our roads every day, whereas 76 people will be seriously injured. The hon the Minister once said that in the period 1963 to 1983, 140 667 people had died on our roads, and that this represented the total annihilation of all living beings in a city the size of Kimberley. Apart from the loss of human life over the past 20 years, this cost South Africa R16 000 million. The question that arises now is: For how long are we going to continue to annihilate one another in this way?

Available scientific data show that 56% of all people who die in road accidents have a blood alcohol concentration higher than 0,08 grammes of alcohol per millilitre of blood. It is true that the penalties for driving under the influence of liquor have risen dramatically to a fine of R2 000 or imprisonment of six months, but I ask myself whether that is enough, particularly since no fewer than 12,9% of all deaths over the past Easter weekend were due to too much alcohol in the bloodstream. Is it not time for the driving licence of such a person to be withdrawn for several years, or even revoked altogether, if he is involved in an accident involving loss of life? [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, even his possessions can be seized, lock, stock and barrel, if he is driving under the influence of liquor and is the cause of accidents on our roads in which innocent people have died.

On the other hand, it leaves a bitter taste in one’s mouth to read in the latest Sunday Times that some of the biggest manufacturers of liquor have spent more than R22,5 million on advertisements in recent years. I may be making a mistake—if so, let me apologize in advance—but I have never seen an advertisement containing any reference to road safety or the abuse of liquor, despite the fact that more than half of all road deaths are ascribable to the abuse of alcohol. I think it is time for everyone who has anything to do with the production and sale of liquor, whether directly or indirectly, to meet to consider this problem and point out by way of advertisement the dangers of the abuse of alcohol and, in particular, road safety.

Other scientific data that are available indicate that 14% of all collisions on our roads are ascribable to the surface of the roads. The question arises as to whether enough is spent on modern road-building in South Africa. The hon the Minister also referred to this. My answer is a definite “no”. If the answer is indeed “no”, the State must take the bull by the horns and impose a levy of one or two cents per litre so that the road-user is able to make a bigger contribution to the maintenance and building of new roads. In this way an awareness of road safety will be instilled in every road-user every time he stops at a filling station to take in fuel.

A third factor, of course, is the improper and unco-ordinated issue of motor vehicle licences or vehicle licences in general. This promotes the falsification of motor car licences. It is a shocking fact that it is calculated that there are roughly 1,5 million falsified vehicle licences in circulation in South Africa. If that is so, a tremendous challenge is facing the State in this sphere. This does not affect South Africans alone, but should be tackled in co-operation with the independent states in Southern Africa and with the self-governing states. If we do not take immediate action to counter this problem, then we shall be heading for a disaster in South Africa, as the hon the Prime Minister said.

Thre are several more aspects I could single out with regard to road safety, but I lack the time to do so. Accordingly, I wish to conclude with just one plea: That South Africa should not only be made aware of road safety in 1984, but that we should make every year a road safety year.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kimberley South has made a very interesting contribution here this afternoon in connection with road safety. I intend to deal with that subject myself in the course of my speech, but I know that the hon the Minister has been sitting there all afternoon waiting anxiously for me to stand up so that we can talk about La Mercy and Louis Botha airports.

Yes.

I thought so. Before we do that, however, I would like to refer to a point raised a little earlier by the hon member for Berea concerning the duty-free shops. I can understand the hon the Minister’s dilemma. I know all about the concessionaires at airports. I know that the department operates on a tender basis. I believe, however, that the hon the Minister can solve this problem by applying a formula for the tender, a formula in respect of the mark-up allowable to the concessionaire. If the concessionaire, like a parking concessionaire, knows that he has to work within a certain mark-up, obviously when he tenders he will tender accordingly and, equally, the public will know that they are not going to be fleeced, because the concessionaires will be able to mark up their commodities only by a certain percentage, which can easily be monitored. I submit that to the hon the Minister for consideration when calling for tenders in the future.

Last year—just two days short, incidentally, of a full year ago—we discussed the subject of La Mercy and Louis Botha airports and the hon the Minister in desperation told me to get La Mercy out of my head. Well, all right. He has promised over the years that I could come to the opening of La Mercy airport. He then accepted a challenge to race our wheelchairs down the runway of La Mercy one day when it does become a reality and we are old and grey. You know, Sir, I have given up now. Now I say he must make me a final promise, and that is that he and I will have our ashes interred somewhere at La Mercy, because I believe that that is going to be all we can ultimately expect. Then South Africa will be able to say: “This little corner that is for ever Hendrik and Brian”.

Let us forget about La Mercy. Let us talk about Louis Botha. Only three weeks after last year’s Transport Vote was before the House, the Durban newspapers were full of stories about how Louis Botha airport was going to get a RIO,5 million facelift. As a matter of fact, the Natal Mercury on 19 May and the Sunday Tribune on 22 May waxed most enthusiastic about it. The Natal Mercury, under the headline “Soon a new look—Louis Botha airport”, gave details of the expansion that was to take place, told us that the programme should be complete by the end of 1985—note that—according to officials of the Department of Transport, waxed lyrical about the three phases of development that would take place over these years, and told us that the men’s bar would be extended to three times its size, that there would be a lady’s bar, and that there would be an à la carte restaurant. The Property Section of the Tribune told us about hairdressers, mezzanine floors and, oh, wonderful things. I just want to say: Please, all we want in Durban is an airport. At the beginning of this year I once again raised this hardy annual with the hon the Minister and I asked what it was going to cost—the cost has increased from R10,5 million to R12 million—and when it was expected to be completed. The answer came that it was expected to be completed in the latter half of 1986. In one fell swoop it has gone from the end of 1985 to the end of 1986. Durban, whichever way one looks at it, is South Africa’s number one tourist attraction. Durban is the third largest metropolitan complex in South Africa. We do not want boutiques or hairdressing salons. We want an airport that is commensurate with the status of the City of Durban and its surrounding boroughs. The hon the Minister this afternoon, an hour ago, told us of the necessity of spending something like R28 million on Jan Smuts Airport, but that Cinderella in Durban stands there. It is a disgraceful monument and is becoming something that we can ill afford to continue with. Please, in heaven’s name, let us do something about expediting the work at Durban’s airport and let us do something to provide the passengers with the sort of service that they deserve for the patronage that they give South African Airways.

Having said that, we are in Road Safety Year. I listened with great interest to a programme presented by a gentleman by the name of Christopher Dingle who, bless his heart, does tend to be a little straightforward and honest in what he says. He said that he considered that South African drivers were among the lousiest in the world. I believe that we South Africans—all of us—are the most selfish drivers in the world. I commend Road Safety Year for its slogan “Be prepared, be polite, be patient”, but I think we should also add “Be unselfish”. We South Africans have a thing when we drive. We seem to believe that the road that stretches ahead of us is ours and ours alone. We think that when we drive on it it belongs only to the one who is driving. I want to give hon members a classic example. I live, in common with a number of other hon gentleman in this House and a couple of officials, in Acacia Park. I want to assure the hon the Minister that the fastest way to get from here to Acacia Park at 6 o’clock in the evening is to get into the slow lane. [Interjections.] The quickest way to get from here to Acacia Park is to drive in the slow lane. That is exactly what happens from the minute one gets onto the freeway to the minute one gets off it. The same applies to all other roads in the Peninsula. For some reason I cannot understand people go to the right of the road when they want to travel slowly and they leave the left of the road vacant. On this triple-lane freeway more often than not—I challenge anyone to say that what I am saying is not true—one finds that one comes up next to two other cars, one on the left and one in the centre, travelling at exactly the same speed. One can follow those cars and I will guarantee that they will travel at the same speed side by side all the way to the end of the freeway. These are the driving habits of our motorists. People need to be educated. However, what we do not see on these roads are law enforcement officers who should be there to point out these faults to people.

I believe the hon the Minister during this Road Safety Year would do well to appeal to provincial traffic authorities and to the traffic authorities in our metropolitan areas not to concern themselves too much with tickets in city centres, but to get onto the highways and byways—the De Waal Drives, the Black River Parkways, the N3’s and other roads— to watch the traffic, to educate people and to tell them to move over and to keep to the left if they are driving slowly. Motorists should not take it upon themselves to be traffic officers and say that because they are travelling at the speed limit everybody else should also be doing it. The AA has said it before, and I am sure it will confirm it again, that more problems are caused by slow drivers in the fast right lane than by anything else. I believe that all road users are entitled to ask why the authorities permit such deplorable driving. The authorities do permit it. There is no law in South Africa that says that one cannot overtake on the left, and this is quite ridiculous. One finds along the freeway that people stick to the centre of the road, with some cars whizzing by in the left and right lanes and others weaving and dodging in between the traffic. Lane-jumpers are quite the most remarkable people, but they do this because of frustration. After all is said and done, when one gets into one’s motorcar one’s aim is to get home as soon as possible. There is no need to drive like a speed merchant but one wants to feel that the right lane is the fast lane while the left lanes are the slower lanes. There must therefore be a clear directive that slower traffic must keep to the left. How many times has every single one of us in this House not come across two SATS vehicles racing each other down the freeway and hogging two lanes? I am sorry to say this but it is true. This is deplorable and we will have to educate drivers throughout the length and breadth of South Africa if we want to make road safety a reality in our country.

Mr Chairman, listening to the debate one is impressed by the fact that this is road safety year, and accordingly it is only right that hon members should emphasize it on this occasion. Therefore it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Umhlanga. He waxed quite emotional about the traffic on our freeways. In my opinion the real problem on our three-lane highways is that they are somewhat overloaded, and that is the reason why the traffic does not flow so smoothly. However, I shall leave it at that because my time is limited and I should like to refer briefly to a different matter.

I should like to discuss the registration of vehicles, because in point of fact this, too, has an effect on road safety. The hon member for Umhlanga asked inter alia for more traffic officials who could provide assistance on the roads, and what I wish to ask for here will, by implication, have the same affect. The central vehicle register is already in operation, and it is certainly very beneficial thanks to the information that can be obtained from it. At the end of March 1984 there were approximately 5,3 million registered vehicles in the country, 80% of which were petrol-driven. However, the registration system of vehicles can be considerably improved and that would entail additional benefits for all interested bodies and owners. When we speak about five million or more vehicles it is clear that this is a matter of considerable proportions, and if the registration system could be improved it would make a great difference. Therefore I wish to advocate the consideration of certain adjustments.

In the first place, the registration of vehicles must be adjusted so that a vehicle retains the registration number attached to it when it is registered for the first time, until it lands up in the scrap yard. This means that the present method of allocating provincial registration numbers must fall away. This would mean that vehicles taken from one province to another would no longer cause a problem. However, I have an admission to make in this connection. At the time when the issue was considered I was one of those who opposed it and asked that the present system of registration numbers be retained. It may now be asked what benefits such a system would entail. In the first place, it would facilitate administration and would also save the vehicle owner a considerable sum of money. In addition, innumerable mistakes that slip in when registration numbers are duplicated, will be eliminated. It also means that vehicle owners who move from one region of the country to another will not have to obtain new number plates. Nowadays it is the custom that when a person moves he has to attach the registration number of his new registration district to his motorcar. Accordingly such a person again has to obtain expensive new number plates.

The tracing of vehicles will also be facilitated in this way. The history of every vehicle will be known. All vehicles used for hire can be granted a country-wide distinctive registration number, as is the case in certain provinces at present. I trust that the hon the Minister will have this matter investigated. I know that it affects provincial authorities and other bodies. However, the Minister possesses the necessary machinery for that, eg the NRSI and other important bodies that deal with matters of this nature. Therefore there can be co-operation in this regard as well, and such matters can be thrashed out in full.

I contend that the compulsory testing of vehicles for roadworthiness on every transfer of ownership entails more disadvantages than advantages. Of course, I know what the reaction to this will be. At the moment all the provincial ordinances provide that when a vehicle is sold it has to pass a roadworthy test before the new owner or purchaser may register it. It will probably be said that if that requirement were to fall away, there would be more unroadworthy vehicles on the road. However, that is not true. That would not be a correct inference. I shall try to indicate why that is so.

Firstly I want to discuss the benefits of such a system. In the first place, hundreds, even thousands, of traffic officials who are at present engaged in the task of testing, could be used to make our roads safer. After all, there is a shortage of traffic officials.

In the second place, the transfer of ownership would be expedited. At present innumerable vehicles are disposed of, particularly among private owners, without ownership being transferred, particularly as a result of problems with the roadworthy test. In the meantime those vehicles are in any event still on the road.

What are the defects of the present system? Why is a change necessary? In the first place, roadworthiness tests are not uniform and are being carried out by a variety of agencies. They vary from province to province. In certain provinces they are carried out by the municipal authorities, and in other provinces by the provincial authorities. In addition, of course, this gives rise to abuses. There are irregularities. We are aware of that. We know that these tests can also give rise to abuses. In any event several vehicles are used for many years without being tested for roadworthiness. When a vehicle does not change ownership, the owner can use it for 20 years without its ever being tested for roadworthiness.

The present system also gives buyers of secondhand vehicles the false impression and assurance that the mechanical condition of the vehicle in question is satisfactory if it passes a roadworthiness test. A vehicle can pass a roadworthiness test and still have a mechanical defect. When a vehicle passes a roadworthiness test that is no guarantee that the vehicle is in good condition. If vehicles were to be examined in transit sporadically—in any event, more often than at present—to determine whether they were really roadworthy—for example, by testing the brakes, the lights and the steering mechanism—far better results would be obtained. In any event, the roadworthiness of vehicles is only a minor causative factor in road accidents.

It has been found that unroadworthy vehicles contribute only approximately 7% to the traffic accident rate. I would question even that figure, because it is often found that an accident is caused due to the unroad-worthiness of a vehicle when the specific defect in the vehicle involved in the accident was actually the result of the accident and not the cause. It is difficult to determine whether this is always the case. I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to have this matter investigated. I think that drastic steps are necessary if we are to make progress as regards road safety in this country. If this matter is investigated I am convinced that it will be found that it would save a great deal of manpower and money and that the system would be more effective.

My time has expired and accordingly I may not take this any further. However, I just wish to say in conclusion that while the hon member for Umhlanga requested an airport for Durban, we in Welkom do have a small airport, and we should be obliged if an SAA aircraft would use it now and again, because that would help us a great deal.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister said earlier that he had released a long Press statement, but that we would not know what it said unless we read either Die Burger or The Cape Times. I regard it in a very serious light, since we are discussing the Transport Vote here today, that the hon the Minister did not issue such a statement in advance so that we would also be able to study it and perhaps to debate it. I do not know whether the hon the Minister is trying to hide anything or whether he is afraid of having us debate it, but if this is not so, I should like to ask him to issue such statements in advance in future, so that we may be able to debate them in this House.

†Mr Chairman, as regards the closing of the railway line at Camperdown, I should just like to say that I agree with the hon the Minister that no congestion will occur as a result of the closing of that line because of the small volume of traffic handled by that line. In actual fact the reason why it is being closed down is because all the products to be transported namely livestock, cane and timber, are already being transported by road. I say this too for the information of the hon member for Amanzimtoti.

Hon members may have noticed that I have a particular fascination for fast motorcars which has now deteriorated into frustration. Nowadays when I travel on our roads in a car that is capable of doing 102 km per hour, I do not concentrate on the road because I am actually contemplating which of two headlines would be worse, either “MP in powerful sportscar caught travelling at 201 km per hour” or “MP in powerful sportscar rammed from the rear by 1963 Volkswagen in third gear”. I am sure that this frustration of mine is shared by many a road user and, in fact, anybody who has bought a car over the past 20 years. I want, therefore, to appeal to the hon the Minister to give his attention once again to the whole question of speed limits together with the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs so that we will soon find that the speed limit on certain roads has been raised to 120 km per hour where these roads are built for such speed.

While one agrees with severe penalties for offences such as reckless driving, I also wish to register my disapproval of the outrageously high fines imposed for speeding offences. I say this especially when one considers that just about every road user is technically an offender but that because of sporadic law enforcement, fast driving has become rather like a state lottery in which everyone wins except the unlucky few who have to pay up. I am sure that it is because of these high fines that traffic inspectors are reluctant to conduct regular speed checks since it makes them enemies of the road users and not their friends. Reasonable fines, perhaps with accumulative effect for subsequent offences and more regular law enforcement, will ensure that more people obey the rules.

I should now like to turn to the question of the financing of roads, and first of all I want to deal with the competition about which the hon the Minister has spoken.

*I know the argument is that the cost by rail is indeed less. There is no denying the fact that it is cheaper to convey a load from Durban to Johannesburg by rail rather than by road. I do not believe that anyone could argue about this. In spite of this, even containers are conveyed from Durban to Johannesburg, and on other routes as well, in their dozens or hundreds. I am in favour of the Railways regaining a larger percentage of the traffic, but then it must be by rail and not by road, because the hon the Minister cannot adopt the philosophy of compensating for the lost traffic by enabling the Road Transport Department of the SATS to compete with the private sector on an unequal footing. If this is indeed the objective, I think they will be doing the country a great disservice and I believe he should take a very serious look at his tariffs and services on the railways and leave road transport to the private sector.

A great deal has been said about the question of the financing of roads, but very little has been done about it. We know that the situation is precarious. Important projects which were left in abeyance in the past, when the determination of priorities was rather arbitrary, are still in abeyance. The existing roads are deteriorating and maintenance work is being delayed. One of the reactions of the department—it was a very ad hoc decision and it came quite suddenly out of the blue—was the introduction of toll roads. This is not a method of financing; it is only a method of repayment. [Interjections.] If the hon member does not know what the difference between financing and repayment is, I am sure I am justified in saying that the Government has simply accepted the concept of free enterprise as a word, whilst still not knowing exactly how it works.

I say that this is a method of repayment and not a financing method. While we need the capital now, not one of the toll roads will justify the cost involved in building the toll facilities in the short term, not even a project like the proposed Pinetown road, although this is one of the roads with the highest traffic counts in the country. Depending on the interest rate, that road will certainly not pay for the toll facility as such within the first 10 to 15 years, not to mention the repayment of the cost involved in the construction of the road.

†With regard to the section from Marianhill to Nchanga, I think the decision to turn that particular road into a toll system, shows again the unfairness of the whole system of tolls. This road should have been built some years ago, but then the Government changed its plans in midstream. It is totally unfair that the users or the potential users of that bypass who have already paid dearly in terms of lost time and wasted lives and fuel must now be made to pay for incorrect decisions made in the past. Furthermore it is quite ridiculous for the hon the Minister to say that the funds for that route have now to be used elsewhere. All projects are funded from exactly the same road fund or does the hon the Minister have small bags into which all kinds of amounts are paid? In any event, he has put the wrong label on this one. All projects are funded from the same fund and if additional moneys are required, it must be found for the fund. The priority of the N3 is such that it should be priority A1, right at the top of the list. The first bit of money that the NTC should spend, should be on that route. I think it is unfair that because of irresponsible decisions of the past, when large sums were spent on grandiose projects such as the Garden Route bridges, which to my mind would not have seen the light of day in any true list of priorities, the users of the N3 should now pay for that. It is unfair that other users of the national road network can do so free of charge. If there are to be tolls, something which I totally disagree with, they should be levied on all high traffic sections. Even at this late stage I once again appeal to the hon the Minister to reconsider his decision on the Pinetown by-pass.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Greytown will pardon me for not pursuing the matter he discussed, since I should like to confine myself to another aspect, viz Government Motor Transport. Before doing so, however, I should first like to express my gratitude to the hon the Minister and the Government Garage for making buses available on the Acacia Park route which afford us long-legged commuters sufficient room so that we can travel in comfort. We appreciate it.

The report with regard to Government Motor Transport for 1982-83 once again attests to competent management. Although expenditure was curtailed and difficult circumstances were created as a result, a very high standard was nevertheless maintained. Due to occupational differentiation, there has been an improvement in the position of mechanics in the Government Garage setup, but there is still a shortage of administrative staff. There were plans for building a new Government Garage in Cape Town, but it appears from the report that there has been another delay and that the new Government Garage will not be taken into use before 1985. I want to make an urgent request that this matter be given serious consideration once again. Every effort must be made to build this garage as soon as possible.

Another matter which is cause for concern in the Budget for 1984-85 is the initial R14,5 million that had to be voted has now been cut to R4,1 million, which creates an unthinkable situation. I cannot imagine how the wheels are still going to be kept in motion with this drastic reduction in the amount voted. Something is definitely going to suffer, and it would be a pity if the investment of approximately R120 million that has been invested in vehicles and equipment is going to be prejudiced by this. Today we listened to members asking for R1 000 million and R500 million, but I want the hon the Minister to tell the hon the Minister of Finance that we are only asking for R14 million to rectify this matter. A saving on the replacement and maintenance of vehicles is no saving at all. The use of a worn-out vehicle places an unnecessary burden on the workshops and is uneconomical and unjustifiable, in any case. If we look at the report, we see that in the 1982-83 financial year, 14 million more kilometres were covered than during the previous financial year. These greater distances that are covered require increasingly more maintenance of vehicles, of course. However, we find that despite this, the working costs per kilometre, as indicated in this report and as promised by the hon the Minister, are much lower than in the case of most private undertakings. According to the report, the average cost was 28,5 cents per km for all vehicles run by the Government Garage, whilst in the private sector, if all vehicles are grouped together for the purposes of determining cost, it would be very close to 50 cents per km. We therefore have a considerable saving here. This saving on working costs may be lost in the future, however, if limited financing impedes the proper maintenance of the vehicles.

The Government Garage is responsible for running 17 838 vehicles and during the past financial year it was once again proved that this vehicle fleet is being run economically. There are only 12 workshops where all the vehicles are repaired and, as has already been said, the workshop in Cape Town is most inadequate and unsuitable. There are 94 posts for mechanics, of which 12 are vacant at present. There are also 41 posts for apprentices, but in my opinion, more apprentices should be employed. I think the State also has a responsibility to train apprentices in the motor industry. As hon members are aware, the situation in the motor industry with regard to repair work is pathetic at present. The State has the means and facilities to train people, and every possible facility should be utilized to the utmost so that the necessary number of mechanics can be trained in this country in order to maintain the existing vehicle fleet. A more realistic ration of apprentice to artisan would increase, rather than decrease, productivity. At present there are incentive bonuses, and this results in relatively high productivity. However, the system still makes it possible to give artisans proper training without financially prejudicing the artisan who assists in the training.

Over the past three years the average cost of replacing unserviceable vehicle was R22,5 million per annum. If one were to skip one year, at least R50 million would have to be spent on replacing unserviceable vehicles the following year. Obviously, this would place a tremendous burden on the workshop and, apart from the pressure which is placed on the manufacturers when so many new vehicles are purchased simultaneously, and the detrimental effect it may have on the purchase price of vehicles due to the increased demand, the officials will also be adversely affected and frustrated in carrying out their duties.

One hundred and ninety-five million kilometres have been covered, which is an increase of 8% on the previous financial year. Despite the 8% increase, however, there has been a considerable saving on the number of kilometres which was initially budgeted for.

During the past financial year 1 840 unserviceable vehicles were sold by public auction. The revenue from these sales amounted to almost R2 million. It is important to note that the vehicles offered for sale all had a reserve price. This was done to eliminate any possibility of purchasers forming a syndicate.

The training of artisans and professional chauffeurs was given continuous attention. Professional chauffeurs are trained by the SA Police, as well as the Transvaal Provincial Administration.

In the financial year concerned, one Government vehicle was involved in a collision for every 69 000 km covered. Although this is a marked improvement on the previous year’s figure, I want to request that drivers of all Government vehicles be trained in an organized way on being taken into service and receive periodic in-service training subsequently, since most drivers have had very little or no formal training before obtaining their drivers’ licences.

In the financial year under discussion there were 22 fatal accidents in which vehicles of the Government Garage were involved. There were also 705 vehicles that had to be withdrawn from service in terms of the 90 000 km limit. The cost involved was probably very close to R1 million. During the year, 195 subsidized vehicles were added to the subsidy list, and compensation is paid per kilometre. It must be noted that the cost to the State of subsidized vehicles will not be higher than the cost attached to Government Motor Transport.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister, the Director-General and the staff connected with this department for the way in which they have dealt with this important asset of the State during this year. I believe that in the forthcoming year under review we will continue to see an improvement if more funds are made available to this very effective and efficient department.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Maraisburg will pardon me if I do not continue discussing the subject he discussed. I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Kimberley South and the hon member for Umhlanga.

The hon member for Kimberley South sketched a picture of road accidents and furnished statistics which compel one to speak about the massacre which takes place on our roads, a massacre which has resulted in the loss of a great deal of brainpower and manpower and, the most tragic of all, our future source of manpower, children. Then there is also the large number of those who are maimed and who have to go through life being handicapped. Furthermore, there is the tremendous financial loss that goes with this.

The National Road Safety Council undertook project Perseus during the recent Easter Recess, a project which was described as being relatively successful. The word “successful” should really be placed in quotation marks because that success was still linked to the loss of more than 100 lives and many hundreds of cases of people who were injured. The success is measured by the decrease in numbers in comparison with those of previous years. I think the National Road Safety Council should be congratulated on this exceptional project and the success that was achieved. We are very pleased about that.

I am tremendously perturbed about something in this regard, however, and that is that whilst thousands of holidaymakers go to the sea, to inland resorts and to family, and others remain quietly at home, every traffic officer in every province, city and town has to be on the road over that weekend. They are absolutely denied the privilege of having a holiday over that weekend, or relaxing with their families, simply because of a lot of road users who are absolutely selfish, discourteous, irresponsible, high-handed, undisciplined, disobedient and lawless. Each time such long weekends occur, the same method has to be pursued in order to prevent carnage on the roads. It is a pity that this is the case, but it seems to me that this will necessarily have to be the method that will have to be adopted in future until our road users learn to display courtesy and to be more disciplined and responsible on the road.

The hon member for Kimberley South also referred to the abuse of liquor and action against those under the influence. Such a person can be pulled off the road. After all, it is obvious that he has consumed liquor. He then has to blow into that little pipe and if the percentage of alcohol is too high, he is simply arrested. He could appear in court and be fined, and action is taken against him, but there are other factors that play a role as well. The bypass roads that have been built cause drivers to drive long distances without entering a town or city. In the old days when main roads still passed through the towns and cities, motorists were often compelled to stop there because their wives or children insisted on doing so, but with the bypass roads we have today there is no reason for the motorist to stop. He simply carries on driving. I believe that fatigue plays a tremendous role. Any driver who drives for a long distance without stopping and resting becomes tired. This fatigue breaks one’s concentration, and this causes one to become tired and sleepy, and one can no longer have the same control one would normally have over one’s vehicle. One must therefore seek a solution to this. Perhaps it is ridiculous, but I thought that it would possibly be a good solution if one could establish fixed points along the road—a place to rest or outspan—where drivers could pull off and rest for a few minutes before continuing their journey. This is one solution I have thought of. There may be other, better solutions.

Another problem is those people who are simply always in too much of a hurry. The following distance that should be maintained between two vehicles is often mentioned. This is measured according to the length of the vehicle, or in seconds. This is really a matter to which very few drivers pay any attention. I have had the experience—I think other hon members could attest to the same thing—that when one leaves a space between oneself and the vehicle in front of one, the motorist behind thinks that he can go and take up that space. He simply passes one and pushes in. This causes accidents.

There are another problem concerning the motorist who is in a hurry, and simply cannot wait any longer and who just speeds past and then suddenly finds that a vehicle is coming from the front and he simply pushes into that space because that is the only solution. This also causes accidents. I really do not know how one can combat this. A method one could perhaps use is for the driver who has been the victim of such conduct—if he escapes unscathed—to take the registration number of such a vehicle and report it to a traffic officer as soon as possible so that the offender could possibly be apprehended in that way.

I want to raise another matter—the whole question of retesting. Perhaps this is more a case for the Provincial Council, but I do just want to mention it here. I find that retesting after accidents is a very poor method of combating accidents. The person who causes an accident and who is then retested is often a good driver who really takes chances because of his ability, and who also easily succeeds in obtaining a driver’s licence again. That kind of driver is not put off in this way. To him it is just somewhat of an embarrassment and a little trouble to obtain a new driver’s licence.

I want to raise another matter in connection with the whole question of accidents, viz third party insurance. I do not wish to criticize the fact that the cost of third party insurance has been increased, but I do think that people who cause accidents and are found guilty in a court, should be fined by way of their third party insurance.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, unfortunately I do not have enough time.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member wants to waste my time. Perhaps the law should be amended in such a way that when a person is found guilty he can be fined and that, for example, he should pay double for third party insurance for a period of five years. However, the question is: How is this going to be done? Perhaps the driver’s licence should once again be detached from the identity document and it could be endorsed in court once again. The law could possibly also be amended to compel a person to present his driver’s licence when he takes out his third party insurance. If a person’s licence has been endorsed by the court, he should have to pay double the normal price for his third party insurance. Perhaps such a person should be fined on the spot in court by having to pay five years’ third party insurance. Perhaps we can call people to order in this way. We all pay the same third party insurance and we are assisting the reckless driver who causes accidents to pay for his accident. The person who is fortunate enough never to make an accident is assisting the reckless driver to pay. I think we could give these few matters our attention.

In the time I still have at my disposal, I want to refer to a subject which, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been raised here, and that is the idea of the Director-General to establish a transport museum. Hon members how were in the House at that time, will recall that in my maiden speech I spoke about museums on the basis of the fact that it fell under National Education. I want to congratulate the Director-General on his idea to establish such a museum and I wish him everything of the best with its development. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member for Koedoespoort, yet I want to ask him to forget about this business of excessive drinking. Any number of accidents occur in which the drivers concerned had nothing at all to drink. [Interjections.] Many accidents are caused by people who have had too much to eat or who have been guilty of excesses of some other kind. Forget about the excessive drinking. The wine industry itself will take care of that.

Previous speakers in this debate have already referred to the increase in the traffic on the South African roads and in particular have pointed out the expected high growth rate in vehicle ownership among the Black population and the almost alarming increase in the number of heavy vehicles. I should like to associate myself with these speakers by, in the first place, expressing my concern at the lack of funds available for the provision of a transport infrastructure, particularly for roads, to cope with this growing among of traffic. In the second place I want to raise the idea of traffic control. I think that hon members will agree with me that we cannot simply continue to provide an unlimited number of roads to meet the growing traffic requirements. Sooner or later the stage will have been reached where the roads are simply unable to keep on carrying the traffic. In a research project carried out by the National Institute for Road and Transportation Research, on behalf of the Department of Transport, computer models were developed to predict future traffic volumes on the main roads in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon members must not hinder me, my time is very limited. [Interjections.] The first indication given by these models is that many of our main roads will, by the year 2000, have a volume: capacity ratio of one or more; that is to say, the road will have to carry more traffic than there is capacity available for doing so. This vehicle overpopulation is not only a problem on the country roads and inter-city highways, but is a particular headache on the urban roads and streets. On many mornings, here in Acacia Park, I have wondered whether some of the hon members should not rather stay at home, for after all, they do nothing here either. I therefore want to ask whether it is not time we in South Africa began to think of traffic control, and then I want to add at once that I am not thinking of control in the sense that it should have a restrictive effect on inter-city transport. The latter would definitely have negative consequences for the economy, something which we are least able to afford at this stage. I am not thinking of quantitative control, but more of qualitative control, control which will be such that it will enhance the quality of both the vehicle and its driver, will promote road safety and in that way ensure that our present roads will be able to carry more traffic, which will in turn ensure that the need for the provision of additional road capacity will move further into the future. What I have in mind now are better drivers; not old, decrepit drivers and old, battered motorcars. In the urban context the control should be such that it will be pleasant for the private motorist to make use of a mass transportation system instead of his motor vehicle, which will of course by implication mean that such a transportation system will have to provide a high quality service. What I have in mind now are buses, trains, minibuses and if we are no longer able to travel on the earth’s surface, then mole trains as well.

All in all, it is my considered opinion that control of some kind or another is necessary for the future development of transport.

There is another matter I should also like to raise, a matter of great economic importance to those of who live in the Western Cape. I am referring to the Dutoitskloof Tunnel. In the first place I want to thank the hon the Minister for having seen his way clear to cause construction to continue on the tunnel by way of toll financing. According to the latest traffic count, the average daily amount of traffic per annum over the Dutoitskloof Pass increased from 4 000 in 1980 to 5 000 in 1983, and is expected to be approximately 6 000 by 1990. Of these vehicles approximately 20% are heavy vehicles. The latter vehicles play a major role in traffic congestion on the pass, and also contribute to the high number of accidents occurring annually between Paarl and Worcester. In Dutoitskloof Pass itself 131 accidents occurred during 1983, in which six people were killed. In monetary value it means that those accidents cost the country approximately R2 million. With that money we could have dug quite a long length of tunnel. [Interjections.]

One thing about that tunnel that I find very strange is all the driving back and forth and to and fro. One finds a large truck on the road. It is of course coming from our part of the world, because there one finds just about everything. That truck is now on its way to Cape Town with a load …

Of wine.

A load of wine, yes. It is coming to Cape Town with a load of wine. Believe it or not, Mr Chairman, another truck is on its way from Cape Town to my part of the world …

With better wine.

Never! [Interjections.] The same thing happens with fodder, of course. The one truck is making its way laboriously to Cape Town; the other is as laboriously going the other way. Precisely the same thing happens with milk. Why they want to offload the stuff in our part of the world, goodness knows. After all, we have everything there. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, you will therefore be able to understand why it is so important to us that that project is completed as soon as possible. I should therefore like to ask the hon the Minister what the envisaged date of completion of the Dutoitskloof Tunnel is. I hope the hon the Minister knows. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I should also like to ask him what they intend doing with road to the east of the tunnel as far as Worcester. That is the piece of road on the other side of the tunnel; there where one arrives in the land of Canaan. What are they going to do with that road? [Interjections.] It think you will agree with me, Mr Chairman, when I say that if that part of the road is left as it is, and is not improved the bottleneck which exists at present on the Dutoitskloof Pass will simply be shifted to the eastern entrance to the tunnel.

I say thank you very much to the hon the Minister and his department who, with almost no money, are performing a superhuman task. [Interjections.] Why cannot a levy be placed on fuel so that that work can be completed? [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I also want to say thank you very much to the hon the Minister and the Director General of Transport Affairs. I really must tell the hon the Minister that his Director General is almost as clever a fellow as he is. [Interjections.] There in our part of the world he solved a problem very thoroughly, and very quickly too. I did present him with a case of brandy. He has gone through it by now. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I thank him once again. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Welgemoed made a very interesting speech earlier today. He talked about the national transport policy, which I had down for the second leg of my speech.

I believe that the current situation indicates the lack of a proper and co-ordinated national transport policy. I am aware of the existence of the study group, which the hon member Dr Welgemoed mentioned. I think it is important for us to know whether the hon the Minister is going to table the report of this study group, and also whether the interim report will be tabled. I believe that they are going to be extremely important and I would not like them to be hidden away to any extent either by the department or by the hon the Minister.

In our view the national transport policy should encourage free competition among transporters and, as such, there should be an effort to deregulate to the greatest extent possible. In this regard West Germany is a very good example. There should also be a move towards placing the SATS and private enterprise on an equal footing. Private enterprise has some advantage in regard to the provision of infrastructure. The SATS, of course, has many advantages. However, until such time as the report has been completed we should not proceed with ad hoc solutions.

We understand that there are at least two and possibly more amending Bills pending from the Department of Transport Affairs, and that a select committee is likely to be appointed. I want to urge the hon the Minister to delay the passage of these Bills. We should like to know what the opinion of the study group is in regard to these Bills and whether it approves them, because we believe that it does not. The session has already passed the halfway mark and I do not believe that we can complete a proper study in the time left to us.

Mr Chairman, tomorrow I shall reply to the hon member’s questions in full. In the few minutes still remaining to me this evening, I just wish to reply to a few points.

The hon member for Worcester discussed the question of toll roads, and in this connection I also want to refer to what the hon member for Greytown said. The hon member for Greytown said that we suddenly introduced these toll roads, right out of the blue. After a select committee had been appointed in this connection, the legislation was piloted through this Parliament, and everyone on that select committee voted unanimously in favour of the matter. Pressure was exerted on certain hon members by private enterprise to vote against this legislation, and for that reason they were a little embarrassed. I am not levelling any reproaches at them in this regard; I am simply mentioning it. So how can the hon member say that this is something which suddenly appeared, right out of the blue? The hon member knows what the reasons were; we simply could not find any money for road building.

The hon member for Worcester is quite right. Many of us travel to the north from Cape Town, and all of us are longing to use that tunnel. The hon member also asked when the tunnel will have been completed. The hon member and I went to have a look at the tunnel. Initially it was said that it will have been completed by 1988, and we asked the contractor to speed up the work, and the date is now 1987. We hope it is going to be even earlier. The hon member will realize, however, what difficulties still have to be overcome. You are drilling a tunnel through that mountain and suddenly you run into mud and slush. What is to be done? That mud and slush has to be frozen. We saw the equipment used in this freezing process. It is an enormous task. Then shuttering has to be used to fill in the hole with reinforced concrete. These were all problems we did not foresee.

What is the purpose of a toll road? I am not in favour of toll roads, and I have said this before. However, it is one way of finding money. As soon as one declares a toll road one is able to raise a loan on those toll fees and then it is possible to continue with the work. I pleaded for an additional two cents on a litre of petrol, but it was like yawning into a furnace. As soon as one asks for an extra two cents the Opposition accuses one of increasing the petrol price. In the meantime you are pilloried if the roads are not in good repair and the tunnel has not been completed.

What are the other advantages of a toll road? In Taiwan and West Germany they will tell you that if there is a toll road one has control over the road. If a murder or an act of sabotage is committed then you have that measure of control. These are some of the advantages.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 22.