Order! At the commencement of the debate on his Budget Vote in the House of Assembly on 13 August 1987, the hon the State President announced that the Report of the Margo Commission on Taxation would be tabled in Parliament on Thursday, 20 August, after comprehensive media briefings.

In order to assist the media to report fully and accurately on the contents of the commission’s report as soon as possible after the tabling of the report in Parliament, the hon the Minister of Finance invited members of the Press Gallery to a full briefing session, on the clear understanding that the briefing was confidential, and that no reports on the matter would be published before the report was tabled in Parliament, namely at the commencement of parliamentary business on 20 August, at 14h15.

It has been brought to my attention that a full report on the findings of the Margo Commission has been published in the Financial Mail, which was distributed in certain parts of the country from this morning.

It is clear that the members of the Press who were invited to the briefing by the hon the Minister of Finance were invited on the basis of their membership of the Press Gallery Association, whose members are given special privileges by the Speaker of Parliament for the purposes of parliamentary reporting, and on the basis of trust.

I am of the opinion that by the publication of the findings of the Margo Commission before the commission’s report had been tabled in Parliament, this trust and the special privileges accorded to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery have been abused, and that Parliament, as well as the Speaker, by whom Press Gallery facilities are granted to members of the Press, has been severely embarrassed, and that grave disrespect has been shown for the institution of Parliament and its members.

I regard the premature publication of the commission’s findings in a most serious light, and have accordingly decided to suspend the Press Gallery facilities of the Financial Mail with immediate effect until such time as a satisfactory explanation has been received from the editor of the Financial Mail, when I shall come to a final decision on the matter.

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

For Mr A B Eksteen, the Director-General of this department, and formerly the secretary, it is time to bow out after 11 years. I say “time to bow out”, because if one looks at him, one cannot say “time to retire”. Mr Eksteen served this department competently and with dedication at a very interesting time when many changes were taking place. He became a familiar face here in Parliamentary circles, and we know that he also played an important role in the White Paper on National Transport Policy. Unfortunately I do no have the time to discuss him in detail, but on behalf of this side of the House, I would just like to wish him a long, healthy and pleasant retirement.

Mr Meyer takes over from him from 1 September. We want to congratulate him on his appointment. He is taking up this very important post at a very critical time, and we wish him everything of the best and hope that we will also work well together. We were privileged to have talks with him and some of his top officials last week. We were impressed with the team which is going to be working with him, and we have no doubt that they who are so well equipped and dedicated, will do their best in the interests of the department.

I suppose I may refer briefly to what we were told in the news media yesterday concerning events in one of the Other Places. The words of the hon the State President that one should sometimes keep quiet, are still clearly audible. I then told him that silence is sometimes not golden, and apparently he took this to heart, and did not keep silent yesterday. Therefore, through the hon the Minister, I want to give him the words of John Oliver:

We on this side actually wonder whether it was really a fight, or whether it was possibly only the first shots being fired in the direction of Standerton. [Interjections.] It seems to me I have pinpointed the sore spot exactly.

My colleagues and I are entering a new field, and we are doing so at a time when it is difficult to have any kind of in-depth discussion on the Department of Transport in the time available for this Vote. There is not a facet of this department which does not affect the lives of millions of people in the 24 hours of every day.

It is very clear that the White Paper is on the agenda for this debate. Nevertheless I believe that for many years it will dominate the agendas of, for example, the Annual Transport Convention, the PCA, SABOA and other organisations associated with transport.

I notice that the Government is already a year behind schedule regarding the prospects stated in the White Paper. The Transport Advisory Council should have been in operation by October 1986; the Transport Tribunal should have been in operation by October 1986. Because these two bodies are of the utmost importance to the development of the new policy, its further development has been delayed accordingly.

The White Paper also devotes special attention to the implementation programme, and one of the sub-headings is the legislative programme. I want to ask the hon the Minister what the position is regarding the legislative programme. The programme was passed by the Government for the 1987 Parliamentary session, and it contained a new Road Transportation Act, as well as an amendment to the South African Transport Services Act, 1981, an amendment to the National Roads Act, 1971, and a new Transport Act, 1987.

This legislation is essential to the Government’s new policy, and I do not see the Government getting anywhere near it this session. As far as we are concerned, this once again proves the Government’s inability to plan, and then keep to its plans and carry them out. Meanwhile more chaos is developing in both the public and private sectors as a result of this over-hastiness on the one hand, and its inability on the other.

The transport policy is an integral part of the Government’s economic policy. If the former does not get off the ground, neither does the latter. The private sector is understandably impatient in this regard. The members of the standing committee were at a briefing session of the PCA last week, where this impatience was apparent. There were complaints about “a serious lack of progress”, and this serious lack of progress is leading to uncertainty in the system. This again makes it impossible for those involved in that system to plan and budget properly. This delay with a recently-published White Paper, has already put this programme back one year.

I have seen the statement the hon the Minister made yesterday. It was clearly meant to coincide with today’s discussion of his Vote, and to obviate some of the major points of criticism that existed in respect of the present dispensation regarding transport.

In the White Paper on National Transport Policy, page 13, the Government accepted the abolition of the road freight permit system, but made it subject to two conditions:

There are therefore two conditions, and they are that the road freight quality system be introduced, and secondly that the financial inequities be phased out. The latter pertains to the SA Transport Services. The hon the Minister himself said in his statement that this was the case.

The quality system has not been introduced yet, and this could have very serious consequences for safety on the roads. The hon the Minister himself said that the SA Transport Services is going to be even more detrimentally affected now as a result of the fact that financial inequities have not yet been phased out. I understand why the hon the Minister has done this.

In his statement the hon the Minister also opened up the areas within a 300 km radius of Pretoria and Johannesburg, and certain other areas. I should imagine that in the remote corners of the Transvaal there are small places that just fall outside, because the Transvaal is not round. This would perhaps exclude places such as Messina, Louis Trichardt, Alldays, Barberton and possibly Beauty on the border, there in the Waterberg constituency. In any event it is going to be the most remote areas and corners that fall outside, and I just want to know why the whole of the Transvaal, the whole of Natal, the whole of the Free State and the whole of the Cape Province cannot simply be exempted. Then there will be no uncertainty about what the exemption applies to.

I just want to put forward our standpoint briefly on a few aspects of the White Paper. The transport policy is now being brought in line with national policy. That is the purpose of the White Paper. In fact we have many doubts about national policy. In this particular set-up it concerns privatisation. Let us make it very clear to hon members here now that as far as that is concerned, we believe in free enterprise. We also believe that it is important to promote private initiative and establish small businesses.

Since the SA Transport Services need not provide uneconomic socio-economic services and is allowed to introduce cost-related rail freight tariffs, or are subject to the principles of a new freight transport policy, what will become of the inhabitants of the remote and designated areas, and the inhabitants of the sparsely-populated border areas? What will become of agriculture, which is already staggering? What is going to become of the Blacks who in many cases are dependent on the SA Transport Services as far as their transport requirements are concerned?

South Africa is still a developing country, and without an infrastructure to provide uneconomic socio-economic services, that development cannot make proper progress.

On that basis we question the Government’s privatisation, which, in our opinion, is disinvestment.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Soutpansberg. It is a good thing that the hon member told us what his party’s standpoint is on privatisation, and so on, since they have been asked on a number of occasions recently what the CP’s standpoint is in this regard.

I now have a problem. Last year in the same debate on the Transport Services the former member for Nigel said that the CP was opposed to deregulation and privatisation. I am going to leave it at that; this is another example of the schism in that party in that the right does not quite know what the left is doing. It seems to me that it is the same as in the PFP.

Why did Wynand leave?

The hon member for Overvaal must just keep quiet for a change so that we can speak to him. He talks louder than we do.

I should like to dwell on one point. The hon member said that the announcement of the hon the Minister did not make provision for a few things. However, the hon the Minister clearly stated that he would make provision for the data at a later stage so that there would be time to draw up certain regulations and implement them in order to obviate the problem to which the hon member for Soutpansberg referred.

You are confused.

The statement makes it clear. Why is the hon member making petty politics out of it, or can he not read? I shall let that suffice as far as he and the question are concerned.

Like the hon the Minister, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to wish Mr Adriaan Eksteen, who is retiring after more than 40 years in the service of the Department of Transport and in the service of the SA Government, everything of the best. However, I do not want to wish him the same as an hon member in one of the other Houses did yesterday when he told someone he hoped he would have a successful “min dae”. I want to put it a little differently and say that I hope the Director-General will have a very long “min dae”—if it then has to be “min dae”. I wish him and his wife everything of the best as they, shall I say, come to a halt after so many years of moving between Pretoria and Johannesburg. I hope they enjoy the days ahead.

In the same breath, I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Soutpansberg and wish Mr Ronnie Meyer, the new Director-General, well. He is coming in at a difficult time, but he is coming in at an interesting time. I wish him everything of the best, and I hope that with the team he has, there will be success and progress.

I now want to come to the theme of my speech. Transport in South Africa and Southern Africa is facing the greatest challenge in the history of transport with the adoption of the White Paper and its implementation in the new transport policy. The question is no longer whether transport is going to change, but the answer being sought to the question now is how and when transport is going to change.

Irrespective of what the hon member for Soutpansberg had to say, I should like to make a plea here that this matter be approached in a level-headed way. We cannot deal with this precipitately. The decisions being made, the conclusions being arrived at and their implementation in practice are so drastic and revolutionary in certain instances, that they cannot be rushed through. I think we should deal with this in a level-headed manner and try to deal with matters as they arise.

I wish to associate myself with the words of Aristotle that change is the fulfilment of what is possible. I think that should be the point of departure in the changes in the field of transport. In addition, I want to echo the words of Latner when he said as long ago as 1850 that without transport there could be no civilisation. Since we are adapting the transport policy, we should do so in such a way that we develop civilisation. So much for the hon member for Soutpansberg.

I also want to say that the first step towards deregulation began yesterday or the day before with the announcement. This is in accordance with what the hon the Minister accepted in the White Paper when it was laid upon the Table here earlier this year. What the hon the Minister did was an act of faith. It is a major step forward, but the second part of the contract has not yet been fulfilled, viz the conditions for the accommodation of inequities, as stated in the White Paper. That is why the hon the Minister rightly said that the Transport Services were going to suffer if this did not take place.

In the regulations we must restrict the negative effects on the Transport Services to the absolute minimum, until the whole package is ready to proceed. We debated most of these matters yesterday evening when we discussed the Transport Advisory Council Bill here, and I do not think it is necessary to go any further. The regulations that are being drawn up and the quality control being introduced, must be of such a nature that since we are moving away from economic control to quality control, those regulations can and must be implemented. If this is not done, the object of deregulation is defeated.

I should like to dwell for a moment on a few of the quality aspects that are necessary. I just want to refer to the road freight quality system which is dealt with in detail in section 3.5 of the White Paper. To me there are basically three aspects, viz the vehicle safety standard, the vehicle driver standard and the load, in particular the prevention of the overloading of vehicles.

I am going to deal with roads in a moment, but allow me just to say that the overloading of vehicles has two disadvantages, because it ruins the asset we have in our roads, and is presently the greatest danger to us as motorists. Today I want to request that when the traffic legislation is introduced, the hon the Minister ensures that we are ready to implement that legislation for the sake of road safety and the assets we have to protect. The hon the Minister is aware that according to research, depending on by how much it is overloaded, one overloaded vehicle can do as much damage to a road as 80 to 100 vehicles. Deregulation can result in cut-throat competition if it is not handled correctly. If we allow this, we will have done deregulation a disservice. This happened in Australia when it was not implemented correctly. I trust that with all the assistance we requested from the Transport Advisory Council yesterday, this matter will be approached and implemented correctly.

I do not want to dwell any further on the overloading of vehicles, except to emphasise once again that it is fatal to road safety and everything we have already achieved in that respect, as well as to roads.

Surely the purpose of deregulation was to ensure a safe, reliable transport service for the country, to promote effective and fair competition and to encourage private enterprise. We must not lose sight of those concepts. This intricate problem facing us is of real importance to this debate. I should like to ask the hon the Minister a favour today. I want to ask him to let us have a debate on the White Paper, on the transport system in general, next year when private members’ motions come up for discussion, so that we have it out with one another in this House for once concerning the political effects of certain decisions. I shall refer in more detail to these in a moment. I think it would be a good thing to debate this matter.

I want to dwell on the question of roads for a moment. This is dealt with in part by the White Paper, but in my opinion not enough attention was given to the matter. In the transport infrastructure, as I see it, roads are one of the most important conditions in being able to continue our socio-economic development in this country. They also have a very important strategic value which we must not overlook.

The roads in our country are of a very high standard. There are two standpoints in this regard in the private as well as the public sector. On both sides one has those who say the roads are too good and there are too many. Likewise, one has those on both sides who say there are too few and they are too bad. I do not want to go into that debate. I just want to mention the two prevailing standpoints in this regard in South Africa to hon members.

The length of the national roads in the Republic of South Africa is approximately 3 000 km at present, and that of the main routes in the Republic, 10 000 km. One must also bear in mind that the length of the Republic’s total rural road system is just over 270 000 km. The total amount spent annually on roads in South Africa is approximately R2 400 million. We must preserve and maintain them.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am rising merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Overvaal for affording me an opportunity to complete my speech.

In this country there are a number of road authorities which are often uncoordinated and perform their work independently. A central authority is essential for the activities and functions of the separate road authorities, as well as for the necessary physical and financial planning to see to it that an effective network is maintained. In particular it is essential to make better use of the limited financial resources we have in South Africa. That is why I am making a plea for this.

The involvement of Central Government takes place mainly through the Department of Transport. I think they are doing a good job.

As far as national roads are concerned, I just want to say that although there is an arrangement whereby the provincial administration takes care of routine maintenance and specific projects, we must bear in mind that 90% to 95% of the road network is maintained by other bodies, and that only between 5% and 10% is maintained by the central Government. We must just weigh those two points up against one another.

The system of national roads, which includes the main roads between centres, must be planned and financed by a central authority, and minimum standards must be drawn up in that regard. I think the need for a central authority to carry out the coordinating functions has been very clear up to now. Since some of the executive functions are vested in the central authority, the aim must as far as possible be to draw up essential overall priorities, and the same applies to funds.

It is a well-known fact that in this country we do not have sufficient funds to do everything we want to do. We therefore cannot allow too much, or too little money to be spent in one area, for example, on roads. I want to make a plea here for a central road fund, to which every road user will contribute. If we can do this by way of user costs, so much the better,—However, I want to plead that we accept this in principle, and that we proceed to obtain a central road fund, which will deal mainly with the following: The allocation of funds from roads to separate authorities; the approval of priorities; and the drawing up of work programmes, so that we do not award all the contracts in one year, and nothing the next. This is essential, and to achieve this, I want to plead for a South African roads council.

I should like to see the following bodies represented on this South African roads council. Central Government, the provincial administrations, local authorities, road user organisations, and other interest that are groups involved. In this way we can ensure that we achieve what we are striving for.

I want to consider toll roads for a moment. Toll roads have now been established. We have gained experience in this regard. We know how matters have developed over the past few years. It seems they have been very successful.

No.

They have been successful because we received money from the private sector, which is now able to participate. It has that opportunity. That is why I advocate the idea of trying to privatise as many toll roads as possible, all things being equal, and provided that the motorist is not going to pay too much or be prejudiced in any way.

However, I believe with our experience we should take another look at the toll road system, and then I want to ask the following general questions. Is it not time to take another look at the demands and requirements in the light of practical experience, to dust off the report we drew up on the standing committee, and to ask the following? What must be omitted and what must be added? Here we must give special attention to questions like the following. Must an alternative route be provided, maintained and financed under all circumstances? The second question is the following. In the light of the previous question, is there or is there not justification—we must decide about that—for levying tolls on existing routes that are being improved out of funds, for example, from the levies that have already been paid on money for petrol? This is the kind of question we have to consider. I want to add, however, that in the first instance these questions are not only of an economic nature, but political.

I therefore want to request that next year we try to make the time available for this debate a little longer, so that we can discuss more of these matters.

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

The hon member for Primrose has, as usual, made a thought-through and well-researched speech. There are two aspects among the many which he raised with which I should particularly like to deal. The first one relates to toll roads, in respect of which the hon member gave the impression that in this country toll roads have functioned very successfully. Sir, I want to tell you that that is not my impression at all. I want to give the reason why I say that. On 23 February this year I received an answer to a question in relation to the Tsitsikamma toll road and its collection of money in 1986. I think the figures in this regard might be of interest to the Committee. They are as follows. In 1986 a total of R1 177 000 was collected on the Tsitsikamma toll road. By the time the concessionaires had taken their expenses and their commission—assuming there are two legs to this issue—the amount that accrued to the State at the end of the year was only R489 339.I submit that that is not a picture of success, Sir. I submit that if we look at the cost, not of the road or of the bridges, but simply that of erecting the facilities to collect the money, we realise it is not even a viable proposition.

We have spent millions on the collection facilities there, and under those circumstances, even if we charged a normal commercial rate of interest on the provision of those facilities, or depreciated them on any sort of a normal basis, then the amount of R489 000 actually amounts to a drop in the ocean. I cannot really believe that that is successful at all.

The second point I want to raise is the following. The hon member for Primrose placed great emphasis—and quite correctly—on the vehicle-quality and driver-education systems that are to be introduced together with the new system of national transport. The hon member did that quite correctly. We must never forget, however, that we do not start in a vacuum. We have had ordinances and laws in this country which regulate vehicle quality—the obtaining of roadworthiness certificates when vehicles change hands and so forth. There are a host of regulations, ordinances and laws in respect of vehicle quality. Those, Sir, are not out of the window. I submit that if the vehicles are not of a proper quality today the problem does not lie in the laws and the ordinances; the problem lies in the control of those laws and ordinances and in the control of the traffic concerned. My personal view is that what we need is not better laws; we need better controls to ensure the quality of the vehicle and the quality of the driver.

Finally I want to deal briefly with the hon member for Soutpansberg, who opened the debate here this afternoon. He referred to the new system. He mentioned socio-economic services, particularly to Blacks and to farmers. These were the two areas he mentioned. Now, Sir, that is of very real concern, and I well understand the hon member’s point of view. I should, however, submit that if we are going to provide socio-economic services to Blacks and to farmers, we must do so up front with a sum of money which the taxpaying public in South Africa can see and can understand in order to know what it is costing us to provide these services. When one hides these subsidies, as is happening with cross-subsidisation in the SA Transport Services, one does not in fact know what one is paying.

I believe the Margo report, which has now been tabled and can therefore be discussed, comes to a very strong conclusion that tax should not be used in order to provide incentives. If one wants to provide incentives one must provide them up front and not use tax. I believe the same thing should happen in transport. If we want to subsidise our socioeconomic services we should not penalise one section of the community, for instance the motorists, with a high cost of fuel because of the high cost of transporting the oil or the fuel from Durban to the Reef. We should not penalise the user of a harbour with high tariffs and high wharfage charges. Let it be paid up front, and then I think we shall have gone someway towards solving the problem.

I come now to the speech I want to deliver. First of all I believe we should welcome the hon the Minister to the transport debate, because I think I am right in saying that this debate is the first appropriation debate that he has handled as Minister of Transport Affairs. We welcome him and wish him well.

I want to congratulate him somewhat more fully than I would otherwise have done upon two things that he has recently done which I think took a degree of courage and which I certainly welcome.

The first is not related to the transport debate. I refer to the banning of smoking on SAA domestic flights. [Interjections.] I support the hon the Minister fully in that regard. I know that he has had a lot of flak about this and, if it is of any help to him, I promise him that I shall not give him a hard time.

The second point is the opening up of transport within a 300 km radius of post offices in various areas. That is a good move, and I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on it. I am glad he has done it, and I shall refer to it later.

I also wish to thank all the officials of the Department of Transport who have put in another year of good and hard work. As I said last year, they are administering a system which is, to say the least of it, an unfortunate one, but within the ramifications of that system they have done a good job, and I would like to thank them on behalf of the PFP for the job they have done.

Finally, we have sadly to say farewell to the Director-General of Transport, Mr Adriaan Eksteen. I have been spokesman on transport for some little time and have had the pleasure of working from time to time with—and perhaps from time to time against—the Director-General of Transport. I must say that I have found all the dealings we have had with him to be courteous, and I have had no problems in any shape or form with his grasp of the situation which I believe is outstanding. We wish him and his wife well in their retirement. I understand that he is coming to live in the Cape, and I congratulate him on his choice, as obviously the Cape is the cream of the country. [Interjections.]

You haven’t been to the Free State yet!

What about Port Elizabeth?

My hon leader asks about Port Elizabeth. I want to tell him that Port Elizabeth is in the Cape Province!

When we look at the actual transport budget itself—this is in fact what we are meant to be debating here this afternoon—I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the ramifications of this budget. In the first place, we are being asked to vote R785 million for transport in the year ahead. That is a great deal of money, and it has to come out of the taxpayers’ pockets. We in Parliament have therefore to ensure that that money is being properly and wisely spent. I am not for one moment satisfied that that is the case.

You will note, Sir, that the increase over last year is only R34 million, which represents 4,6%. On the face of it that is good. However, when one takes into account that they have reduced the subsidy to the SATS from R300 million to only R150 million, then the increase becomes R184 million on the amount spent last year. In fact, therefore, we have a massive escalation in expenditure in respect of the remaining sections of the department, amounting to 24,5%. This is far higher than the rate of inflation. These are facts; they are figures that one cannot argue with. As far as the Department of Transport is concerned, if one takes into consideration an additional amount of R184 million that is being spent, that represents increased expenditure of 24,5%.

The South African public who use the transport system are still having to pay that R150 million that has been taken away as a subsidy or compensation to SATS, because the SATS have simply had to put up their rates—which they have done—in order to recover that money.

There are individual accounts that give cause for concern. Administration is up by no less than 46%. That is a very large percentage increase. Personnel expenditure, before the improvement in conditions of service, is up by 14,8%. We have a Deputy Minister who, according to the budget, costs us R86 000.

He is not worth it.

I very sincerely hope he is going to be worth it.

Then we have an amount for professional and special services which has gone up from R891 000 in the previous year to no less than R2 924 000 this year. I should like to hear an explanation for this. Why do we have to spend R2,1 million more on professional and special services in the year ahead?

My final question on the individual figures of the budget concerns an item “Implementation of the National Transport Policy Study” for which R1 973 000 is budgeted. I should like to ask the hon the Minister what they are implementing and whether he could give me some details of what this amount is being spent on. If they are going to be spending this amount, I do not quite understand why because as far, as I understood it, the implementation of the National Transport Policy Study should actually save us money and not cost us money.

Then there is Government transport. When one looks at Government transport as budgéted for one sees that there is an increase of no less than 72,5%; in other words, almost double the amount spent last year. Most of this is described as “augmentation of the trading account”. That, Sir, is official-speak. What on earth does “augmentation of the trading account” mean? When one makes use of the parking facilities across the street and one sees all the Mercedeses and the BMWs there, one perhaps understands why the amount to be spent is so enormous. I believe that the expenditure on this item is a sign of the degree to which the Government has gone wild; a sign of the degree to which the gravy-train is being utilised; a sign which must be of great concern to the taxpayer who is having to pay for all of this.

In the debate last year I mentioned the vexed question of the subsidisation of the bus commuter. We are concerned because the commuter whom one is subsidising is actually the commuter who needs the least amount of subsidisation. We have a situation in Port Elizabeth—I said this last year—where the Coloured bus service is prepared to operate without any subsidy whatsoever because they know that from the Coloured areas into Port Elizabeth they can fill their buses and run them profitably without subsidisation. Yet, they have been refused a licence to operate and we continue to subsidise the existing bus service because they operate on non-economic routes and the economic routes have to help to pay for the uneconomic ones. Let us face it, the good routes are the routes through the high population centres such as the Black and the Coloured townships whereas the bad routes are those into the predominantly White areas. So the latter are being subsidised at the expense of the Black and Coloured areas. I should like to hear the response of the hon the Minister on that matter.

Finally, I want to mention that last year I raised the question of the National Transport Policy Study and the White Paper on it. I said then—in April 1986—that every day, every week and every month that went by without the system being implemented cost South Africa money. Yet, here we are in August 1987—16 months later—and very little progress has been made. Last year the then Minister told us that he had spent R7 million on the National Transport Policy Study; that it had been concluded on 31st March, 1986; that legislation was being prepared that he would like to submit the following year—that is this year; that he wished to table the White Paper during the current session—that was the April 1986 session—and that essential legislation should be ready to be piloted through in 1987. Here we are now with nothing of import in relation to this matter in front of us. We all know what the objectives are and I have welcomed the steps that the hon the Minister has taken in relation to the 300 km radius. It is good news, but it is not the whole story. It is only a fraction of the whole loaf that has to be supplied to the South African transport-using public.

I will have another turn during this debate when I will return to the subject but for the moment my time has run out.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to associate myself with what previous speakers have said about the retiring Director-General. I wish him well and I can say that I always had a very happy relationship with him concerning business matters. I trust that he will have a long and healthy retirement. I am also looking forward to continued good relations with the new Director-General.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central remarked that the Tsitsikamma toll road had shown a profit of only R489 000.

That was not profit; it was income.

It was income. The hon member is putting only one side of the picture, however. How does he compound the saving in fuel, time and wear and tear? How does he compound that saving to the motorist? [Interjections.] Let us have both sides of the picture.

That has nothing to do with toll roads. [Interjections.]

Order! No, I cannot allow a dialogue across the floor.

I should like to deal with the implementation of the new transport policy. On the one hand there is the private sector who feel that the delays are inordinate; and on the other hand there are the problems and difficulties of the department who are doing their level best to translate the proposals of the White Paper into practical terms. The reconciliation of these two factors is no easy task because deregulation must bring some order or else chaos will ensue, and I am sure that that is the last thing the private or public sector wants.

On the part of the private sector it is felt that there is no visible action. What they would like to see is some action and progress towards the achievement of the goals contained in the White Paper on National Transport Policy. This would imply a definite action to resolve the prerequisites for the implementation, namely: That the SATS must be relieved of the financial burden of providing uneconomic services; the SATS must be allowed to remain autonomous and be relieved of other obligations imposed upon it; it must, for example, be allowed to be given the right to refuse traffic or suspend services; and the role of the road transport services of the SATS must be clarified.

The rates of harbour charges, including ad valorem charges levied against coastal shipping, must be brought on to a cost recovery basis, and the SATS should be relieved of its burden of inter-departmental cross-subsidisation.

Private road hauliers must be made to contribute their relative proportion to the provision and maintenance of roads. Operators in all modes must pay full taxes, licences and levies on inputs. Here the SATS’s reciprocal agreements on these matters should come to an end. Appropriate and sufficient infrastructure for the on the ground enforcement of the new road quality matters must be introduced.

Let us go a little further. I believe that the adjustments to the SATS’s tariff structures should be done openly and within the parameters allowed by the South African Transport Services Act, and not as this is done at the moment. The privatisation of the South African road transport services must be investigated openly and properly. The existing permit system should be administered properly to avoid undue hardship and advantage to any parties in the interim; for example, permit applications must be finalised without delay. Adjustments to the SATS tariffs should be accompanied by simultaneous action to place commodities on the exempted list and/or to make competitive routes part of the exempted area provisions. For example, the SATS have introduced the so-called freight-of-all-kinds rates on the Johannesburg-Durban route. Thus there should be no argument against declaring the route exempt from permits.

What is required is to ensure and safeguard fair and equitable competition between the public enterprise, the SATS, and the private sector on an ongoing basis. Here the question must be asked whether anybody is overseeing the aspect of fair competition between the State and the private sector in the interim. The hon the Minister may well consider whether the time is not ripe to appoint an independent ombudsman to oversee the implementation of transport policy and to ensure that competition remains healthy and fair in the interim period.

In this regard I want to quote from the White Paper:

I lay emphasis on the next part of the quote—

So, with respect, Sir, I think the idea of an ombudsman to give effect to the stated policy is not a bad idea when one looks at the situation in an unbiased manner.

However, there is one aspect that this whole transition from the old to the new depends on, and that is the road quality system referred to as RTQS. The hon member for Primrose made reference to this just now. The RTQS is aimed at improving safety and traffic quality in the road transport industry and will create an environment in which the much sought-after deregulation can take place. These aims can only be achieved by the improvement of standards in respect of the following: Firstly, the fitness of drivers; secondly, vehicles and operators; thirdly, in road traffic legislation; and lastly, by the effective enforcement of these standards.

As with any new system introduced, it will require the proper organisation and administration of the system to carry out all these tasks that I have mentioned. One may well ask how much progress has been made with the establishment of this organization within the department. Is progress being made in this regard? I am the first to accept that the introduction of RTQS is a delicate and complicated process which involves the raising of required standards above those at present held by the personnel at testing stations and testing centres. It also involves the upgrading of facilities.

However, the private sector are worried, because they want to be given the assurance that the SATS are not taking advantage of the interim period. They want to know if the SATS are feathering their own nest in the interim period. This is what they are asking and I would like the hon the Minister to give the assurance that this is not the case.

To conclude I would just like to quote Mr Heydenrych, the Marketing Director of the SATS, who agreed that contract rates appeared to be the main cause of complaint from the road transport industry. He said:

The question must therefore be asked whether the SATS are taking advantage of their position at the moment. I believe the private sector would like the assurance that this is not the case.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by making a few comments in respect of the opinions expressed by the hon member for Primrose. He said, in reaction to what the hon member for Soutpansberg had said, that we should not approach the implementation of the transport policy precipitately.

I want to make it quite clear at the beginning that I never heard the hon member for Soutpansberg saying either directly or indirectly that we should do it precipitately.

I also did not say that he said it.

You did say it, man!

No, Koos, you are sleeping, man!

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I should also like to ask the hon member, in view of his present reaction, please not to react so emotionally each time a speaker of the CP says something constructive. [Interjections.] The question exists as to whether the Government sets certain goals and then does not put them into practice. It is very clear that this is the case. Only yesterday we saw it happening again. I also read this morning in one of the morning papers that a Minister in the Cabinet of the State President asked him yesterday to tell the people where he was taking the country. It was a Minister in the Cabinet of the State President who asked this.

Can you believe it! [Interjections.]

This just shows the extent to which the Government has lost its way.

It is true, and is also stated in the White Paper, that the Transport Tribunal and the Transport Advisory Council should have been in operation in 1986, according to the Government’s plan as set out in the White Paper. We are now nearing the end of 1987, and the Transport Tribunal has not yet been established and the Transport Advisory Council Bill has only just been piloted through Parliament.

Yes! Who is sleeping now?

I want to make the following comments about the Transport Tribunal, as explained in the White Paper on national transport policy. On page 39 and further on in the White Paper the recommendations on the establishment of the Transport Tribunal are explained. It is indicated that the Government accepts these recommendations. According to the White Paper the two main functions of the tribunal will be firstly, to monitor the implementation of the new transport policy and, secondly, to adjudicate disputes on appeal.

I foresee certain problems with certain aspects relating to the functioning of this tribunal. I see them in a possible conflict with the functions of the Transport Advisory Council, which will shortly be established in terms of the Transport Advisory Council Bill. The functions of supervision over the implementation of the transport policy and the investigation of problems and making of recommendations to the hon the Minister, seem to overlap with the functions of the Transport Advisory Council. This is clear from clause 10 (a) and (d) of the Transport Advisory Council Bill, which I am not going to repeat now in order to save time.

Further, the tribunal’s functions overlap with those of the Transport Advisory Council as far as independent investigations are concerned, as well as the submission of reports, for example on safety matters. This is clear, for example, from clause 10 (b) and (f) of the Transport Advisory Council Bill which I shall also not repeat, again to save time.

The only monitoring function which, according to the White Paper, will seemingly be the sole responsibility of the Transport Tribunal, is that of an ombudsman. This is in any case a function which fits in with the name of the institution, namely Transport Tribunal. This ombudsman function of the Transport Tribunal, together with the adjudication of disputes on appeal, should, according to me, be the only two functions of the tribunal. As the president and one deputy president of the tribunal must, according to the recommendations, be qualified jurists, it is clear that the main consideration for the establishment of the tribunal is in any event to detect irregular conduct and to adjudicate transport disputes.

If the functions of the tribunal are limited to detecting irregularities and adjudicating transport disputes, the number of members need not be so great. This will be conducive to cost effectiveness.

To sum up, I want to suggest therefore that the functions of the Transport Tribunal be limited to those of an ombudsman and an appeal body for transport disputes.

While I still have a bit of time, I should now like to say that I understand that the first speaker on this side of the House on this matter, the hon member for Soutpansberg, feels as I do, ie that he agrees with the hon member for Primrose, that we should discuss the White Paper more intensively next year, as he also suggested. We would have welcomed it if we had had the opportunity earlier to have a more intensive discussion on this White Paper. It now seems that the recommendations of this document can have far-reaching consequences. We therefore look forward to the prospect of having more time to discuss this matter next year.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodepoort will not hold it against me if I do not react to his speech.

I just want to say that I think the hon member would do better to confine himself to the commas and full stops, because it is very clear that that party’s other spokesman on transport is not here today and that that hon member read the speech on his behalf.

Is that supposed to be a joke? [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to associate myself with the thanks conveyed to Mr Eksteen. I also want to wish him everything of the best, because he and I have close connections. Besides the fact that I worked with him for five years at the National Road Safety Council before I became a member of this House, it is true that every man who achieves great success in life has a very good wife at his side. I can say today with pride that I know that this is so in Mr Eksteen’s case because he married a girl from Bethlehem, namely Annatjie Krog, the daughter of one of the most respected and appreciated families in my home town. I trust that they will enjoy a very pleasant and restful retirement.

I also want to express my sincere congratulations to Mr Ronnie Meyer. I am sure that he is also going to make a great success of this important position.

I want to talk about a matter which has already been discussed many times in this House, namely road safety. I still believe that we can never say enough about this. The work done by the National Road Safety Council, is very difficult to quantify. Nevertheless I want to say immediately that the statistics of the past years have shown that although the death and accident rate has not dropped, it has at least remained reasonably constant in spite of a significant increase in the number of vehicles, but even more importantly, in the number of kilometres covered annually by vehicles on our roads. For example, 1984 was Road Safety Year, and although there was no dramatic decrease, it is still interesting that there was a decrease in road deaths of 7% in 1985—a direct result of Road Safety Year.

The National Road Safety Council has in the meantime—for which we are very grateful—identified three areas on which it wants to concentrate for the promotion of road safety, namely education, particularly the education of our children, law enforcement and transport engineering. In order to become involved in and to promote these three main areas of road safety particularly on local level, it has been decided to launch an experimental project. It will extend over two years and will be known as the “model town project”. It is my pleasure today to be able to say that the first model town which has been chosen and in which the project will now take place, is the main town in my constituency, Bethlehem. There is very good co-operation from the town council and of the provincial administration, and these people are prepared to make a reasonably large contribution.

As I have said, certain problem areas have been identified, for example, that of education. I should like to quote briefly from the annual report of the National Road Safety Council. I quote from page 5:

Now I could just add that there has been very good co-operation in this area with all the schools. Amongst other things, four motor vehicles have been made available to pupils of secondary schools for driver training.

Furthermore, as far as the law enforcement is concerned, attempts are being made to improve the quality of the law enforcement. The training of municipal as well as provincial traffic personnel has also been improved significantly by placing the accent on public relations as well as on a more professional approach. The National Road Safety Council has also made six well-equipped motor vehicles available to them, and I can assure the Committee that there has been a significant improvement in service as far as this is concerned.

Great efforts are also being made in the area of transport engineering. For example, a colour coding system has been started in Bethlehem. Traffic lights have been fitted with certain reflector boards and many other improvements are being implemented in this way. This project, which was started at the beginning of the year, has already produced very good results. The number of motorists wearing seatbelts in Bethlehem has, for example, increased from 59% to 70%, and this took place within a period of six months. This is significantly higher than in the rest of the country.

In the meantime the traffic patterns on the roads in South Africa are changing significantly. This is a result firstly of the policy of deregulation and privatisation by the Government. Secondly, it is being caused by the appearance of the new method of transport for Black people, namely the kombi. Now it may be so that there are not all that many kombis, but they ply back and forth so persistently! [Interjections.]

I do not want to express an opinion on the principle of kombis and whether or not they should be used. What I do want to indicate, is that the quality of the service and the quality of law enforcement will have to be improved significantly. The risk factor in the use of these kombis is tremendously high. I can only refer the Committee to the number of accidents in the past three to four weeks; more than 40 people were killed in accidents in which these kombis were involved.

I have said that the quality of road use and law enforcement will have to improve. I am not referring now to the quality of this service which these people offer to the public, but rather to the adherence to traffic regulations, as well as the roadworthiness of the vehicles used.

This brings me to a very important matter, namely the Transport Information Bureau, which has been in use for many years already. The large number of forged or illegal drivers’ licences has been referred to on several occasions in this Committee. The CSIR calculated at one stage that there were approximately 400 000 of these forged drivers’ licences. In a Commission for Administration report it is stated that they consider this figure to be conservative. The establishment of the various registers for this bureau has made good progress, because at this stage complete registers for drivers’ licences and for vehicles already exist. As long ago as 28 February 1983 I was involved, as an MEC, in a meeting at which a decision was made that the carrying of drivers’ licences should be made compulsory. Secondly it was decided that all drivers’ licences should be re-issued. Thirdly, all drivers’ licences must be subject to a period of validity.

To make this possible, it is essential that the driver’s licence and the identity document must be separated. This principle of the separation of the driver’s licence and the identity document was accepted by the Cabinet as early as 4 October 1983. The Cabinet instructed the Commission for Administration in September 1986 to investigate the practical implications of this separation and to report back on the matter. I understand that a report was published and that the Cabinet will meet again shortly to consider this very important matter.

Therefore I should like to call upon the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and the hon the Minister of Home Affairs to give positive attention to this matter and ensure that these two documents are separated as soon as possible. This will make far better law enforcement possible. The quality of law enforcement will be improved, because it will mean that not only will our roads be much safer, but many more lives will be saved. As well as this, it is perhaps also essential that we give very urgent consideration to a national road traffic law. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bethlehem who has just sat down expressed among other things sentiments about the necessity for better training with regard to road safety, and I think we must all agree with that. I hope he will excuse me if I do not follow him on other matters because I want to talk to the hon the Minister about airports.

Before I do so, I too am going to take the opportunity of congratulating Mr Eksteen and wishing him well. I hope the road ahead is going to be a smooth one, a well-built freeway, and I wish him every joy.

Without a toll road on it!

With regard to airport matters which I want to raise with the hon the Minister, I should perhaps start with the question of baggage handling, particularly at Jan Smuts airport where it seems to take an inordinately long time for one’s baggage to appear after one has disembarked. [Interjections.] One is extraordinarily lucky if one is able to get away in under half an hour after arrival, and on occasions waiting time can exceed this.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether there is anything that can be done to speed up this process. [Interjections.] I am obviously not in the picture when it comes to logistical problems that have to be faced but it seems to me that there is no real sense of urgency in trying to give the best and fastest possible service to travellers. The marvels of the speed of modern air travel are somewhat spoiled when one realises that it sometimes takes as long to get one’s baggage as it does to fly from Bloemfontein to Jan Smuts.

While waiting for one’s baggage, the discomfort is acute. Hordes of people gather next to the conveyers with their trolleys. Geographically, certainly at Jan Smuts, this is not ideal. One runs the risk of being run over by a trolley or trampled underfoot while trying to get hold of one’s suitcase. All in all, the whole process is highly unsatisfactory. I cannot help thinking that there is considerable room for improvement, both with regard to facilities for collection and with regard to speed. Similar problems obviously exist at all our airports, Sir, but it seems to me that it is most evident at Jan Smuts Airport.

While on the subject of airports, I should like to raise again the whole subject of the duty-free shops at Jan Smuts. This matter has been raised on many occasions although not with this hon Minister who is new in this portfolio. These duty-free shops continue to rip off the public by charging prices which are in excess of prices which pertain to similar items away from the airport buildings and on which duty is charged. [Interjections.] This applies specifically to the liquor store but also to other items which are by no means cheap. Travellers are enticed into the shops in the somewhat naive belief that because such things as liquor or perfume are “duty free”, they are going to be cheaper than outside. Nothing could be further from the truth!

I think some of the blame must rest on the shoulders of the lessee who inevitably takes advantage of a situation where he can trade without any competition at all and with a captive clientele. I tend to believe, on the other hand, that a considerable amount of the blame must be laid at the door of the department because of the method of tendering for concessions. I think I am correct in saying that in respect of the liquor concession, the rental payable is a percentage of the gross daily income. In other words, the higher the prices charged, the greater the financial advantage to the department. This is all very well; it is more income for the department, but it should not be Government or departmental policy to be part of a profiteering exercise which is to the disadvantage of the travelling public. I would hate it, Sir, if the hon the Minister got to his feet and said how bad things are in every other duty-free shop in the world. There are good ones and there are bad ones, and it should be our aim to make ours the best and most advantageous duty-free shops in the world.

I think I am correct in saying that the liquor concession is on a five year lease but that the goods shop concession is of longer duration. However, I should like to urge the hon the Minister to alter the terms of the lease to ensure that, firstly, rentals are not so high as to force the concessionaire to charge high prices; and, secondly, to get rid of the tendering system which gives preference to the tenderer who gives the highest percentage of his income to the department, thereby ensuring high prices.

Talking about profits at airports, it would be interesting to know just how profitable or otherwise our individual State airports are. It would be extremely interesting to have available the figures relating to income at each airport in relation to costs. Obviously, State airports which are run with the accent on safety, as well as comfort and convenience for travellers, are a necessity in any modern state. I should like to know how much South Africa has to pay for these facilities. I am not aware of having seen individual costings on the running of individual airports. I think it would be of great interest to this Committee to know something about that.

At this stage I want to ask the hon the Minister about his attitude to the whole concept of the privatisation of State airports. We have just seen in Britain a very successful public flotation of the British Airport Authority—the privatisation of the seven major airports in Britain which up till now were owned by the State. I presume the hon the Minister has already given the matter some consideration; if he has not yet done so, he should have. I should like to hear what Government policy is in this regard. The concept certainly warrants very serious consideration. Airports could then be run as commercial units where costs would be considered on the criterion of profit and return on capital. At this stage I feel unable to offer a personal opinion as to whether or not this is a good idea in the light of South Africa’s particular problems. However, I think it is important for the Government—which is doing a great deal of talking about privatisation—to state its policy, particularly in the light of the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation and the endorsement by the Government of the principle of user charges, in terms of which the full costs of a service, where applicable and possible, could be recovered from the user. I look forward to receiving a full and comprehensive answer on this subject from the hon the Minister.

Finally, I should like to pose a question originally asked by Mr Jimmy Zurich of the SATS Artisan Staff Association. Earlier this year he asked why it was necessary to appoint a Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs—I am not criticising the hon the Deputy Minister personally in this regard—at a time when, for example, the SATS was consolidating its worker force very successfully. One would have assumed that at a time when privatisation and deregulation are in the air, the department itself should be attempting to cut down on staff. Why then do we need a Deputy Minister? What are his particular duties? I have found since returning to this House that more and more Deputy Ministers have been appointed at a time when I believe we should be showing the country that we are economising in every possible direction. It will be interesting to know what his duties are.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston asked certain question regarding the appointment of a Deputy Minister, and it is a little difficult for me to react to them myself. The hon the Minister will discuss that matter himself.

However, I do want to refer to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who said rather derisively that an amount of R86 000 was now being allocated in the Budget to a Deputy Minister. Our total expenditure is R785 million. The hon member mentioned this. When he said this he reminded me of an old gentleman who once said the following to me about another chap, and I should now like to repeat what he said because it applies very well to that hon member.

Tell him!

That old gentleman told me: “If I could buy that man at my price and sell him at his price, I would make an enormous profit”. [Interjections.] Therefore, if I could buy that hon member at my price, and sell him at his price, I am sure we would cover the whole R785 million of this Budget. [Interjections.] I shall leave it to the hon the Minister to say whether a Deputy Minister is necessary in this particular situation.

I should also like to refer to a few points hon members have raised so far. I also associate myself with the fine words of thanks and appreciation addressed to Mr Eksteen for his many years of service, particularly to this department and to the country. It is seldom that an official can look back after 41 years on one period of success after another, and I think Mr Eksteen is retiring at the peak of his career; a career in which I believe he made far more friends than enemies. I believe we are all particularly proud of the fact that we have been associated with him over such a long period. We thank him, too, for the exceptional knowledge and wide experience that he never hesitated to share with hon members and with those who were very close to him.

At the same time we also congratulate Mr Meyer on his appointment as Director General. We cannot but express the hope—in fact I am convinced of it—that he will do a very good job of filling Mr Eksteen’s shoes because he, too, has considerable experience and is devoted to his task. We wish him luck and our best wishes for the future accompany him.

Reference was made once again today to the White Paper on Transport. The hon member for Soutpansberg claimed that we are already a year behind. I want to point out to the hon member that we started to deal with the legislation on the Transport Advisory Council in the standing committee last year. It is not the fault of the department or of anyone else that this particular legislation was not passed last year. In fact, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and others will know that last year the standing committee, as part of the parliamentary system, spent more than enough time dealing very thoroughly with that particular legislation. That is why it could not be settled. If it could indeed have been settled, I am convinced we would already have had that legislation in the Statute Book.

I have said on a previous occasion—I repeat it now—that I do not believe there is any reason to think we shall not be in a position to have the legislation that is still to come, passed by Parliament within a year or so. Nor is there any reason to maintain that we shall not honour our promise and not try to implement this new transport policy before 1991. After all, that was the objective and I do not feel we are deviating from it.

The hon member for Soutpansberg, who is implying that this indicates a serious lack of progress—as he referred to it—does not have to worry about it any longer. It is purely because we followed the usual procedure and the standing committee spent a considerable amount of time on it. I believe the standing committee used that time most productively in the interest of the transport industry in South Africa. I therefore believe this ought to satisfy the hon member for Soutpansberg.

I was also quite astonished that the hon member for Soutpansberg put up a smokescreen here about the hon the Minister’s announcement regarding the extension of the released area to 300 km.

What smokescreen?

The hon member has the hon the Minister’s announcement in front of him.

Of course! Then I discussed it.

Surely it is stated quite clearly that the hon the Minister will announce a date, as well as the regulations in terms of which quality control will be implemented. Why then arouse the suspicion that we were allegedly not giving effect to the prescriptions and that everything would simply degenerate into chaos and confusion, in which each person could simply do as he pleased?

Yes, but we know you people by now!

When the date and the regulations have been announced, the hon member will be able to see that it has indeed been implemented according to the prescriptions. I deplore the fact that the hon member, who has an announcement at his disposal and who has studied it, can arouse this suspicion. In my opinion it was totally unnecessary; it is just an example of petty politics.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also raised arguments here in connection with what we are spending at the moment. He mentioned the “gravy train”, State transport, the Government garage, as some of the items that involved enormous expenditure. After all, that hon gentleman is a garage owner.

No longer.

Oh, no longer? Well, Sir, I shall tell you why. He probably got out of it because he realised how costs were going up.

*The hon member has only to read because he will then see that expenditure has increased enormously over the past few years. I just want to read a few of the items of expenditure to the hon member. In 1983-84 only 3 135 new vehicles were purchased. This cost more than R31 million. In 1984-85 the figure was 2 251, and the cost R23 million. In 1985-86, 2 800 cars were purchased at a cost of R39 million. However, in that two-year period the average cost per vehicle increased from over R10 000 to R13 000.

That is 30%, not 70%.

The hon member really ought to understand this kind of thing.

The hon member also maintains that we have reduced subsidies for the SATS by the enormous sum of R150 million, and he therefore cannot understand why there is such a tremendous increase. I just want to point out to the hon member that this is quite correct because previously our contribution was R300 million, and it is now R150 million. However, immediately below that is an item “Interest subsidy of R26 million” which was not there previously.

†Under the item “Grants” there is an increase of R48 million to R121 million.

*However, the hon member does not mention this. After all, he could have determined the expenditure. The subsidies on buses have increased considerably. Indeed, the amount for last year was R256 million, whereas it is now R320 million.

Surely the hon member should also know that the expenditure related to this increase has a great deal to do with the bus boycotts and the unrest we have had. However, he does not say a word about the fact that these are the people responsible for it. Other elements in the South African community were responsible for the unrest we have had in South Africa, and during this time considerable damage was done to buses. Where does he think this increase should come from? It has to come from the State; we are helping these people to render that essential service to those who are less well off in South Africa, who are dependent on public transport. While we are doing this to help those people, the hon member is casting doubt on this increase in the Budget.

I hope that in the future the hon member will go into this kind of thing a little more thoroughly and not ask unnecessary questions here. He was provided with an answer as to why there should be an increase.

Your understanding of figures is very limited.

Surely, Sir, anyone who can read can see when there is a reduction and when there is an increase compared with the previous year.

Now he has you.

No, the hon member does not have me. [Interjections.] May I ask the hon member whether there is a reduction if one initially spends R256 million on bus subsidies and then one spends R350 million. No, it seems to me that the hon member for Overvaal reads a financial report just as badly as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central does.

I want to return to the new transport policy and to say that I, too, would welcome it if we could have a proper discussion on this matter. Admittedly much has already been said about the matter and I believe the Government’s attitude is clear. We stand by deregulation and privatisation and we shall therefore be implementing the provisions contained in that White Paper. However, people do not always realise that this department is constantly in communication with all the institutions that were involved in the White Paper, for example, Nato, Safto, PCA, Road Transport consultants, the FCI, the Associated Chamber of Commerce and the Sakekamer. Each and every one of these institutions is regularly consulted by the department, and the door of the department is also always open to them. They are constantly being consulted on existing and proposed legislation. Legislation is usually the result of lengthy investigation, consultation and negotiation. We are not deviating from that commitment or mode of operation. When a completely new era has to be begun, it cannot simply begin suddenly without proper reflection or planning. The fact that this work is not always apparent to the public does not mean it is not being done. I therefore want to say that the Department of Transport is continually engaged in implementing the provisions of the White Paper and is continually working on proposed legislation.

I should like to point out to hon members that we also have an obligation in respect of deregulation. We cannot tackle it in any way that would cause damage to the economy. I believe, however, that we are in the very fortunate position of being able to learn from the lessons of several countries that have implemented deregulation and privatisation. We need not make the same mistakes they have made. If the process takes a little longer than we envisaged, but we learn from the lessons of countries that have made mistakes or that have possibly gone too far, I do not believe the time will have been wasted.

I should like to quote to hon members a few comments on deregulation which appeared in Time magazine just over a month ago. For example, on the deregulation and privatisation of airlines the following was said:

I leave it at that and quote further:

Nevertheless, the following is added:

Hon members can therefore see what has happened. I quote further:

These things are not a blessing in disguise. There are problems involved. We have to ensure that we do not experience the same kind of problems. If we can prevent the public from suffering any adverse effects, and if something else develops in its place, I believe it would be a good idea for us to give the matter due consideration.

The hon member referred to the British Airport Authority.

Are you talking to me?

Yes, I am talking to you. [Interjections] I beg your pardon. You did not mention it; somebody else did.

*Reference was made to what is happening in that regard. I want to point out to the hon member that steps have recently been taken for British Airways to amalgamate with British Caledonian Airways. The one airline has 164 aeroplanes and the other only about 20. There has been a great deal of agitation about this move owing to the fact that it would once again allow a monopoly to develop. I believe we in South Africa should also be very careful in our implementation of deregulation and privatisation as a whole.

I could also point out that the same thing has happened to the trucking industry in America as far as this matter is concerned. I say we should go ahead with deregulation and privatisation but we should just avoid creating greater problems for ourselves, for the public, and for the economy of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I trust that the hon the Deputy Minister will accept it if my only reaction to what he said is to state that I am of the opinion that his criticism of the hon member for Soutpansberg was wide of the mark and, to say the least, attested to the fact that he did not listen closely to what the hon member for Soutpansberg said.

I should like to refer to the hon member for Bethlehem’s behaviour earlier this afternoon. As far as I am concerned, he displayed questionable behaviour in making the statement that the hon member for Roodepoort was participating in the debate as a substitute for another hon member and that he was reading his speech. In the first instance, I want to tell the hon member for Bethlehem that I do not think that is conducive to good debate. Secondly, the hon member for Roodepoort made an excellent speech in this House, one which in any event stood head and shoulders above the hon member for Bethlehem’s speech. [Interjections.] Thirdly, it is ironic that the hon member for Bethlehem, who is sitting on the other side of the House, should have made such a remark, when time without number he has witnessed, as we have, how hon Ministers stand with their eyes glued to little pieces of paper literally reading out their speeches.

I should like to associate myself with other hon members who have expressed their appreciation to the officials of the department for their administration of such a large and important department.

Do not read it out!

I hope that the appreciation I have conveyed to the officials will be answered by a very favourable consideration of the representations I have made regarding financial assistance in respect of the airfield at Potgietersrus and another important matter, namely the urgent representations regarding a four-lane highway from Middelfontein to Potgietersrus and Pietersburg, and farther north. I also referred to this in my maiden speech on 10 June.

We cannot remember.

It is extremely frustrating to drive on the freeways from the Witwatersrand to Pretoria, past Warmbaths as far as Middelfontein, and then suddenly to find oneself caught up in the congestion of a single carriageway. It is also dangerous from the point of view of road safety, because one is inclined to drive along the first section of the single carriageway at the same speed one travelled on the freeway on which one had been travelling a long distance. After all, the risk of collisions, with the concomitant loss of human life, as well as injuries and damage to vehicles, is higher on a single carriageway than on a dual carriageway.

As I understand it, there are basically two types of factors that are considered when a decision has to be taken on such a matter. Firstly, there are the economic factors involved, and there are various other factors. The economic factors relate to the costs of reconstruction, which have to be weighed against the advantages to the community and to road users.

The cost of an entirely new four-lane highway along a shorter route, already planned but then shelved indefinitely, is naturally far higher than the cost of alterations to the existing road with a view to converting it into a four-lane highway. We know that cost is an important factor. The conversion of a road into a four-lane highway could be done more quickly than building a new road along another route, and time is an important factor because the problems on this road are now assuming alarming proportions. We have had such serious collisions on this road during the past few months that they have even been reported in the national media. Recently, 22 human lives were lost within the space of a few days. It is a matter of urgency that the traffic flow on this road be stabilised.

Thirdly, such reconstruction would also be in the interests of the existing businesses on that road because the route would not be changed. It is clear from discussions held with representatives of the municipalities of Potgietersrus and Naboomspruit that there is unanimity on this issue. The need for a four-lane highway is further emphasised by the fact that for the past few years—I stress this—the present road has been carrying heavy traffic 24 hours a day, every day of the week. Unfortunately, an incorrect impression has recently been created in local newspapers by, inter alia, a representative of the department, that the traffic flow on that road is spasmodic. This road is the connecting route between South Africa and the rest of Africa; between the PWV area and the Black states of Venda and Lebowa. A very important factor is that agricultural produce, and, of course, other loads, are to an increasing extent being transported in bulk on this road. The establishment of rest areas along this route confirms the volume of heavy-vehicle traffic. It is also generally expected that there will be an increase in heavy-vehicle traffic due to deregulation.

Another factor is the fact that due to the reduction of passenger trains from Johannesburg to the north, more passengers will be making use of motor vehicles on this road. The opening of the freeway to Middelfontein has, of course, also contributed to the increase in the number of road users travelling to the north. In any event, it is accepted throughout the world that the increase in road users is always higher than originally predicted or estimated. This serves to reinforce my standpoint all the more as far as this road is concerned.

Apart from the factors to which I have already referred, there is also the strategic value of the Northern Transvaal, which I think warrants serious consideration. From a security point of view, this area is a sensitive one. The population has to protect the northern border and the extensive rural areas against revolutionary infiltration, and the area serves, as it were, as a buffer for the densely populated PWV urban area.

The Defence Force and the Police have often, but particularly in recent times, admitted their dependence on a stable population and a sound infrastructure. The area should therefore enjoy priority and development should be welcomed and encouraged, and not retarded. Other incentive measures should be augmented by the reconstruction of this road as an essential part of the infrastructure.

There is another matter for criticism, and that is the fact that the funds for the building and maintenance of roads are inadequate. I believe this attests to irresponsibility when one takes the following factors into consideration. Firstly, it is generally accepted that the longer an existing road is allowed to deteriorate, the higher the unit cost of repair work to that road will be at a later stage. We are faced here with the deterioration of a road and with progressively worsening and escalating costs of repair work.

Despite the fact that we have experienced an increase of more than 4% per annum in road usage since 1975—not calculating a cumulative total, this amounts to an increase of 48% in road usage since 1975—the funds available for this purpose in real terms are still the same as in 1975.

In conclusion, I think it is appropriate to address one or two words of praise to the National Road Safety Council, to Dr Dreyer of the Directorate: Road Safety, and to all the bodies that work with them. Their extensive efforts in the field of road safety have been crowned with success, and in the limited time at my disposal I just want to quote a few examples.

The number of deaths per 100 million kilometres travelled, has been reduced from 18,1 in 1984 to 15,1. The percentage of drivers under the influence of alcohol has decreased from 14% in 1986 to 3,4% in 1987.

The percentage of drivers wearing safety belts has increased from 48% in 1980 to 61% in 1986. We know that the latter figure will have to increase to more than 90% before the wearing of safety belts will produce any significant results as far as road safety is concerned. Meanwhile there has already been an improvement, and the bodies concerned are to be congratulated on that. The establishment of a chair of road safety education at Potchefstroom University represents a significant step forward.

It is our wish that the success that has already been achieved will be followed by even greater success in future.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Potgietersrus is still very young, and I must say I have seen many fellows more undistinguished than him. He does not look all that bad, but I want to caution him. He is still young. The hon member is a little impetuous. He spoke here about hon Ministers reading out their speeches from notes.

The hon member for Bethlehem started it.

I nevertheless want to say that if the hon member for Roodepoort was not reading out his speech, then as sure as fate I must have attended the school for the blind in Worcester. [Interjections.]

The roads the hon member was advocating, will be forthcoming. He must just wait a little until the NP again comes to power.

He said he was reading out another man’s speech.

Order! Hon members should leave the issue of the reading out of speeches to the Chair.

But it was that bloke … [Interjections] … that hon member who started it. We shall rebuild those roads when the NP comes to power again.

I would just like the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central to tell me whether I understood him correctly. He said he hated tobacco farmers and smokers. Is that correct?

No. [Interjections.]

I just wanted to have that on record, because I have seen some of the big old Progs actually listing to port, with a heavy cigar drooping from their mouths. [Interjections.]

Only the people in Pretoria do that!

Even when the first people landed here at the Cape in 1652, they had to overcome a major obstacle in an effort to get from here to the most beautiful and fertile valley in the country on the other side of the Klein Drakenstein mountains.

[Inaudible.]

I am not reading; I am thinking! [Interjections.]

Various roads have been built during the past 125 years. In 1949 Dr Malan—he was our Prime Minister at that time—opened the Du Toit’s Kloof pass. Some of the youngsters here were still being breast-fed at the time. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must refer to hon members as hon members.

The hon youngsters then, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

In any event, the rapid economic growth in the Western Cape over the past 20 years has emphasised the importance of better road links between Cape Town harbour and the extremely important hinterland. Investigations into suitable routes have shown that a tunnel through the Drakenstein mountains as part of the N1 highway would be the solution. After years of hard work, the opening ceremony for the Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel is almost in sight. The date has not yet been set, but it will be early in 1988. That is next year.

Are you inviting us? [Interjections.]

If you behave yourselves, yes! [Interjections.]

This is a large investment which has been made in the Boland by the National Transport Commission, but then again, where could one make a better investment than in the winelands of the Boland? It does not always pay so well, but it is pleasant; it is enjoyable, and that is what counts!

In the process of planning and building these roads, it was very often necessary to negotiate with interested parties, and in this regard I want to express my thanks to the Department of Transport and its officials for their tact in dealing with these people and their problems. In particular I want to thank the Director-General, Mr Eksteen, for the role he played. His door was always open and he was always willing to speak to the owners there and then. Sure as fate, Sir, it almost always worked. We very often had to deal with farmers, and most of the problems were resolved. I have learned from Mr Eksteen that one should never lose one’s temper. Even if this sometimes appears necessary, one should simply keep one’s mouth shut! [Interjections.] I just want to thank Mr Eksteen personally for what he has done for the Department of Transport. I wish him and Mrs Eksteen a long, pleasant rest. One thing, though, he must not lose his temper with her.

I want to extend a most hearty welcome to Mr Meyer. Even if we are a nuisance at times, we on this side of the House mean well. I only hope he can put up with us.

The toll fees have not yet been fixed, but I believe these fees will be less than the amount a motorist would save by using the toll road rather than the longer route. By using the tunnel, the route will be 11 miles shorter. The estimated volume of traffic that will use that road, after it has been opened, amounts to some 4 500 to 5 000 vehicles every 24 hours, and that is quite high.

It is difficult to predict how the traffic volume will increase as a result of the elimination of the pass. I foresee that everyone on this side of the mountain will now want to cross the mountain into the land of Canaan, which could mean an increase of 20% within the first year after the opening of the tunnel.

It is expected that the second tunnel will have to be used towards the middle of the next decade, when the traffic count will probably be 8 000 vehicles per day. The second tunnel has already been completed and could be put into operation within two years if necessary. I want to appeal to the relevant commission to put the second tunnel into operation as quickly as possible, because I predict that these slow-moving vehicles will cause some extensive traffic jams. I also predict that those who are held up by this slow-moving traffic will be using some rather choice swear-words. I drive to Cape Town twice a week, and I am not one to swear, but I can clearly hear the swear-words coming from the chaps in the other cars. I myself do not swear. I am a Sunday School teacher. [Interjections.]

The roadworks on this side of the tunnel, on the Paarl side, will be completed by the time the tunnel is opened. They are also working hard at the other end of the tunnel in preparation for the opening. There is still a great deal of work to be done, because the existing roads must still be widened to four lanes for the expected heavy traffic.

Last year our attention was drawn to a proposed pleasure resort in Du Toit’s Kloof. I just want to tell hon members what I saw there. The site of this proposed pleasure resort is at the spot where the tunnel comes out of the mountain on the Worcester side. I drive past it every week. It is bitterly cold there; I am not spinning a yarn—I almost said I was not lying—the baboons sit above the roadway in the sun because they cannot stand it below—it is too cold. Not even the baboons can live there. I went down there. Some of the frogs are snow-white—they have never seen the sun.

Order! It was never my impression that the pleasure resort was intended for baboons and frogs. The hon member may proceed.

Let me just say this: Long before the weather forecaster has even forecast the weather, it starts raining there. How one can establish a pleasure resort there, is beyond me. I think that if I had a rondavel there and felt like relaxing there between the rocks and the …

Frogs!

… frogs, then I would have to take along my bed, my wife and a bottle of muscadel. That is how we would have to spend the whole weekend.

Order! I am sorry; the hon member’s time has expired.

But I have not finished yet! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, after the speech of the hon member for Worcester I look forward with great anticipation to the opening of the Du Toits Kloof tunnel and I am sure it is going to be a great success. I wish the department well with the construction of that tunnel. Like the hon member for Worcester I intend referring to my notes from time to time and I also might do a bit of thinking while I am looking at the notes.

I want to disagree with my colleague the hon member for Bryanston when he said that Jan Smuts Airport must surely have the worst luggage retrieval system in South Africa. I recently went to Durban and I know that the former member for Umhlanga, Mr Brian Page, used to raise this matter from time to time. Surely the luggage retrieval system at Louis Botha Airport must be worse than the one at Jan Smuts Airport. Passengers are fortunate to emerge from that hall alive, because a great deal of discomfort is caused to passengers by the inconvenience of that retrieval system operating in the tiny room that it does. I really am surprised that there is not greater harm done to passengers, and I hope the hon the Minister will have a look at that.

Talking about inconvenience and discomfort, I want to mention the facilities available to passengers at the international departure hall at Jan Smuts Airport. I believe that a crisis situation exists there and something should be done about the facilities available to passengers in that hall. I am aware that there are plans to have a new building designed for Jan Smuts Airport, but I am also aware that that is still many years away. In the meantime something should be done to improve the facilities available in the international departure hall at Jan Smuts Airport.

The present lounges are grubby and most unattractive and the halls are totally inadequate and uncomfortable. Because I walk around at Jan Smuts from time to time I am aware that the walls in the domestic arrival and departure halls have had a coat of paint lately and things in that part of the building are looking a bit better. In the international departure hall, however, a great deal of work needs to be done to improve the comfort of the passengers on their way overseas.

There were two occasions in the recent past where I had to experience the discomfort of spending time in those halls. Neither occasion was a Friday night when most of the flights leave for overseas and there are a large number of passengers moving through those lounges and the crush of human beings on those Friday nights must be almost unbearable.

The first occasion was a Sunday night when the terminal is not used to excess. There was a slight delay in my flight and I had to sit around for a while in Lounge B from where I was to depart. What I found uncomfortable and unsatisfactory was that there was no departure board indicating when the flights were to leave from Jan Smuts. The facilities are poor and overcrowded. There are not enough seats for the passengers in that lounge and there is a general smoky atmosphere. Because one has to spend some time there one wanders upstairs to the bar to have a beer. There is nothing fancy about the bar in Lounge B—it is nothing like the Cape Sun or the Carlton—but I was charged R1,74 for an ordinary dumpy beer. I think this is excessive particularly when one takes into account the point made by my colleague the hon member for Bryanston that there is no tax payable in that section of the hall. I think R1,74 for a beer is excessive. [Interjections.]

As I have said, there are no facilities in that section. The public address system is also inadequate. As my flight was delayed a large number of people had moved through the departure doors and I went along to the official on duty to ask him what time my flight was leaving. He told me most of the passengers had already boarded the flight, but it had not been clear from the public address system that my flight had been called.

The beer!

It had nothing to do with the beer. [Interjections.]

As I have said, there is also no departure board in that hall with a flashing light to indicate that a flight has been called. I think the facts of those inconveniences should be taken into account and something should be done about Lounge B.

The second incident to which I want to refer took place in Lounge A. I was on an early morning flight to a neighbouring state and it was delayed for some two hours.

Were you on your way to Dakar?

No, I said a “neighbouring state”.

Sun City!

There are simply no facilities available to passengers in Lounge A either. There is a departure board but it is not working. One therefore has to rely on the hostesses and stewards to advise passengers when flights are delayed because there is no departure board to advise passengers of what is happening.

Generally the facilities in those departure halls are, as I say, inadequate and run-down. This gives a bad impression not only to departing overseas visitors when they find that our facilities are in such great need of repair but to South Africans as well. Why should we have to suffer substandard facilities when we could have facilities of a good standard? I would ask the hon the Minister to investigate the situation and to effect the appropriate improvements.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg North will forgive me if I do not link up with his speech and react to it directly.

Firstly, I would very much like to associate myself with the good wishes which previous speakers have conveyed to Mr Eksteen, and with the words of welcome to Mr Meyer.

The death of 14 innocent people in England yesterday at the hands of a man who went berserk with a firearm, has horrified the world. It has also aroused sympathy for the relatives of the victims. A fresh look will probably be taken at the issuing of firearm licences to people who are inclined towards violent behaviour. This event makes one realise the potential danger to everyone when firearms end up in the wrong hands. However, when 14 people are burnt to death because the driver of a motor vehicle has been negligent or reckless, it often goes by unnoticed. Even if an entire family is wiped out through the actions of such a person, the reality of such a tragedy is seldom brought home to us.

When a car-bomb in one of our city centres kills people and causes millions of rands’ worth of damage, we seek out the terrorists and track them down wherever they may be hiding. We also take precautions to prevent a repetition of such a tragedy. The fact that the bomb was planted in a stolen vehicle, and that someone could possibly have been negligent, by leaving the vehicle unattended with the keys in the ignition, for example, also escapes most of us.

The dangers inherent in the transportation of petro-chemical substances on our roads are not always diminished by legislation or by taking the appropriate precautions. Moreover, law enforcement agencies are very much more concerned with the visible defects of old vehicles than with the dangers inherent in recklessly transporting butane gas, for example. These mobile bombs, which pose a far greater threat than even the most powerful car-bomb, are often entrusted to someone who has received no appropriate training. Often this substance is often even transported in a vehicle which has apparently been built for this purpose, but which is not mechanically sound. Such a “truck-bomb” may move freely through the centres of all our largest cities at the busiest times of the day or night without any restrictions.

When one considers the requirements which must be complied with before a firearm licence—which is a licence to possess a firearm and not, of course, an authorisation to use it—is issued, one realises that the dangers inherent in a motor vehicle which ends up in the wrong hands, are not always appreciated. A firearm must be kept in a safe place and if it is lost due to negligence, the owner is prosecuted and, if he owns other weapons, those weapons may even be confiscated. No firearm may be purchased without a licence and a firearms register is kept by the dealer. The SA Police keeps a central firearms register into which all the particulars of the owner are entered, including all his offences. Whenever a firearm is sold, the existing licence is cancelled and a new licence must be obtained for a new firearm, even if it is one of a similar make. If the applicant for a firearm licence cannot prove that he is competent to handle the weapon he wishes to purchase safely, he must first join a shooting club in order to receive the necessary training. Many girls and boys are trained in the art of shooting at school, and in most instances schools have safe shooting-ranges which have been erected at great cost. Why can a training centre not be established at a central venue for the training of pupils from neighbouring schools in traffic safety? The time has come to take cognisance of the recommendations of an authoritative body such as the National Road Safety Council, and to implement its recommendations. The National Road Safety Council has for many years been calling attention to the rising accident rate, and to the problems this poses for the country. The National Road Safety Council has not only pinpointed the deficiencies and shortcomings, but has also suggested some solutions.

It is a pity that the means are not always available to implement the NRSC’s plans and that it sometimes appears as if the authorities are not interested in those plans of theirs. In many instances, however, the motorist and the pedestrian do not heed the warnings of the NRSC either. As matters stand at the moment, the NRSC is unable to enforce its authority, and the vital changes this body recommends may be ignored or, at best, implemented in a half-hearted fashion. I should like to see the NRSC also obtain representation on the Transport Advisory Council.

The speed limits on our country’s highways are too high. There is no doubt that this is one of the reasons for the very high accident rate in the country. However, I ask who would dare to reduce the speed limit at this juncture. Because we are so confident of our own ability to drive a roadworthy vehicle under all conditions at the authorized speeds, we lose sight of the fact, or do not realise, that there are many other people who are less competent drivers. They often drive their powerful and even unroadworthy vehicles on the same roads that we use. They do not have the ability to drive a vehicle at the present maximum speed allowed on our roads. I do not believe it is necessary to conduct a further investigation into the road safety problem. We must simply ensure that the recommendations of the NRSC are actively implemented without delay, regardless of their political or financial implications.

Sir, if smokers on our domestic flights can be taught not to smoke in the toilets, I ask whether it would not be possible to persuade our education departments to do justice to the question of road safety in our schools and colleges of education. I believe that learning to drive a motor vehicle safely is just as vital as any other academic or in-service training.

I am of the opinion that it would be in the interests of the National Road Safety Council and of the country as a whole if the law enforcement agencies could join forces under one authoritative structure. A national road safety system must be established.

In conclusion I want to convey my thanks to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister, the Director-General and his staff, the Department of Transport, and in particular the director and staff of the NRSC, for everything they have done during the past year to make our roads safer for all of us.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bethlehem had a great deal to say about the hon member for Roodepoort and he has not been here very long. I wonder whether he was watching and listening to his hon colleague who has just spoken. I refer to the style he adopted and the way he read his speech. I think that if he were to take note of that, he would hold his tongue in future about the methods of other hon colleagues.

He knows what he is talking about!

It was very difficult to hear what the hon member for Maraisburg had to say, but he said something about smokers. I do not smoke, but I just want to say to him that the debate about smoking on aircraft will persist for a long time, because my impression is that the smokers simply do not want to give up. [Interjections.] I just wonder whether one could not set aside a place for them to smoke somewhere outside; on the wing, say. [Interjections.] It seems to me that we are going to be talking about this for a long time, particularly if the pilots also begin to take a stand on the matter. What if they no longer want to fly, or no longer want to land? It seems to me that we shall be talking about this for a long time.

The debate as to whether the passengers in the economy class should be given hot meals or not will probably carry on for a long time too. I am one of those who want hot meals, Sir; you can keep the cold food.

I want to refer to the contribution of the complaining hon member for Johannesburg North. He took us on a trip here—first it seemed as if we were going to Dakar, but apparently it was a different kind of tour—in his search for something about the airports that would give him reason to criticise the Airways. I, for example, have never yet had trouble with my luggage. I have been here for 10 years and I fly a great deal, here and overseas. In all the years I have been flying I have only lost a suitcase once, so I do not know why the hon member is complaining about luggage. The hon member complained about the facilities in Johannesburg. In my experience the facilities in Johannesburg are perfectly adequate. He even complained about the public address system. I think he was just in a complaining mood and I do not know whether we should take him seriously.

You sound like the Minister.

He says that I sound like the Minister, Sir.

I have my criticisms, too, but they are of a more political nature. I think that the officials are doing their share. We shall discuss the political aspect with the hon the Minister.

While we are dealing with Jan Smuts Airport I do just want to refer to the fantastic work done by those people who stepped into the breach when the strikers were not there. The other evening while handing in my luggage there I noticed that there were three people, whereas there are usually six. I was told that those three not only worked better, but worked harder and produced better results than the six who were absent. I think that this is an occasion to thank those people publicly. It is an excellent thing that they should show us that where necessary, we can cope ourselves.

If one looks at transport affairs as a whole, one notes that it is an enormous department as well as an enormous responsibility. When one considers the number of people involved in this department, the millions of rands, the enormous tasks in our developing South Africa, it is quite clear that there are tremendous challenges, not only for the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister, but for the officials as well.

Then, if I may leave politics aside for a moment, I wish to say that the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials are very well equipped for their task. Apart from the political side, in regard to which we differ with them, we think that they are doing a good job and we wish to convey our sincere thanks to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials for the fine work they are doing.

The chief spokesman of the NP, who is obviously not hearing what is going on in the debate at the moment …

You are simply talking nonsense, Koos!

I think that that hon member is perhaps the one person who is exceptionally well equipped for this post, particularly when one takes note of his academic background and his many qualifications. We want to wish him, too, everything of the best and express the hope that he will spend less time sitting in this House reading magazines, and pay more attention to the debates.

Are you going to cross the floor now?

I have no intention of crossing the floor.

Are you sure? [Interjections.]

I now come to quotations from the White Paper on the National Transport Policy and here I want to refer to certain aspects. The first is public security. I quote from item 3.4.1 on page 16:

This is something which causes me concern. The Government’s view is stated in item 3.5. 2 on page 16, and I quote:

This is the Government’s standpoint—

I now wish to discuss with the hon the Minister what this means. Does “Southern African” mean “Southern African” or “South African”? What does it mean? Does it mean the traditional “South Africa”, because then we should simply have said “form the basis of a South African”?—but Southern Africa is bigger.

He means the bigger.

It is in fact bigger. When one uses the term “Southern Africa” it certainly implies a much bigger geographical area.

*Now I want to ask what that means. What exactly does it include? Does it perhaps include more than just South Africa? Does one include in that the independent states; in other words, the TBVC countries? Does one include Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana?

Of course.

Does one include Zimbabwe, Zambia and all those other countries? Does one include Maputo? The boundaries of Southern Africa must be precisely defined, because the consequences entailed by this are considerable. It all depends where the boundaries are. This matter is not clear to us. We regard it as a very important point to be cleared up. We should like to know what the situation is, because as far as politics goes we do not know where the NP is heading.

Here, where it is a matter of road transport, it is quite interesting to ask what road the NP is taking, specifically as far as these many roads are concerned.

They themselves do not know.

Morgenzon.

Morgenzon? I want to say to that hon member that I would far prefer to stay in Morgenzon than in the South Africa that this Government is preparing for us. It is a South Africa in which we are being overwhelmed by people of colour on the Rand, in which the Government lacks the guts to remove the many thousands of squatters. That is the situation. That being so, I would prefer to stay in Morgenzon.

Order!

I just had to tackle them a little, Sir. [Interjections.]

As far as general road safety is concerned, some people have made contributions concerning the issue of traffic lights at night. What happens is that some traffic lights still work on the basis of red, amber and green. The question is why they cannot be left on amber at night, because why should one stop at a red traffic light at two o’clock in the morning? Would one not perhaps be wasting important time … [Interjections.] There are many important things one could stop for at night, Sir. [Interjections.]

Another issue that we want to raise is the SOS system in the Cape. The question is whether it works and what contribution it is making. We should like to have more information on this.

Mr Chairman, I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister that the first time I saw him in this House was many years ago. At the time he was standing here somewhere and he was the chief spokesman of the United Party on agricultural affairs. I just wish to conclude by telling him that he has come a long way since then, because he has succeeded in becoming a Deputy Minister. However, his great achievement was ultimately to convince the mighty NP to adopt the policy of the then Official Opposition. We are going to do just the same. After the next election we shall be sitting there, and then we shall follow his example of taking over the Government.

Mr Chairman, I have nine minutes at my disposal in which to ask for R77 million, and I therefore trust that the hon the Minister will reply to the hon member for Overvaal in so far as a reply is necessary. In these nine minutes at my disposal this afternoon I shall be asking for R77 million for the Pretoria West by-pass.

Cash or cheque, Fires?

Because I am now requesting money for the Pretoria West by-pass, it is only right to begin by considering the advantages of urban by-passes in general. Urban by-passes enable a city to develop its metropolitan area fully and properly by keeping through-traffic out of the city. They prevent traffic-jams, which result in a waste of time and fuel, and also prevent the underutilisation of very expensive capital goods in the form of trucks and buses.

Perhaps the success of urban by-passes may be gauged by the success of the by-passes around Johannesburg, and the Pretoria East by-pass. The Pretoria East by-pass was opened four or five years ago, and it has four traffic lanes. It has been such a great success that the road will have to be expanded to its full capacity of six lanes. That is how heavy the traffic is on that road, and this is greatly to the benefit of the Pretoria city centre.

This brings us to the need for the Pretoria West by-pass. This by-pass is known as Road PWV9. It has a very interesting history. The necessity for the urgent completion of this road stems from the large-scale industrial development to the west of Pretoria—from Rosslyn, through the industrial areas of Sandfontein and Booysens, past Iscor and the industrial development in Pretoria West.

Tremendous urban development is taking place in Pretoria North as well as to the north-west of Pretoria. In this connection let me refer to Mabopane, Ga-Rankuwa and Soshanguve. If these Black towns continue to develop at the rate at which they are now developing, they will become larger than Pretoria, not to mention the rapidly growing new town of Akasia in the constituency of the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology.

Something which further highlights the necessity for this by-pass, is the fact that the Pretoria City Council is currently involved in the development of Road K20, that is to say Schuurman Avenue, which will facilitate the entire development of that part of the city’s traffic-flow, because originally traffic-flow to the west was planned by way of a road which would run directly alongside a railway-line, and this would have prevented the expansion and widening of that road altogether. What makes future development essential is the fact that this is very closely linked to the further construction of Road PWV9.

The importance of this road was demonstrated as long ago as 1972 by the investigation into the highways network which was conducted in that year, and by the PWV transport study which was conducted in 1980. Moreover, the first part of this road was built from Mabopane to Sandfontein, and was opened during 1984. The cost of this amounted to R86,7 million; that was for half the road in 1984.

We now come to the R77 million, because that is what it will cost to build the rest of this road and to complete the entire exercise. This cannot be done because the provincial administration, specifically the roads department, does not have the money to build that road. The allocation of funds to the Transvaal Roads and Bridges Department for the construction of roads is inversely proportionate to the growth in the population of the PWV area. It is constantly decreasing instead of increasing. The Transvaal Roads and Bridges Department is simply not in a position, financially, to complete the construction of that road.

Moreover, the standing committee recently expressed its grave concern at the critical backlog that has built up during the past 10 years in relation to the funding and construction of roads in the Transvaal. This road must receive urgent attention. It will cost R77 million and there are three possibilities. The first of these would be to make it a national road and to finance it from the National Road Fund. The second possibility would be for money to be made available by the National Road Fund to the Transvaal Roads Department in order to complete this road. The third possibility would be to make it a toll road so that it could eventually pay for itself.

An amount of R77 million is a great deal of money, and I realise that. However, the need for the road to the west of Pretoria is very great, and we could assist the entire PWV area by completing the road. It is already half-finished and is bringing a great measure of relief. If we could complete the remaining section—the hon the Minister would do well to consider the three possibilities—it would be very greatly appreciated, and it would be to the advantage of Pretoria and the entire PWV area.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Hercules will excuse me if I do not follow up on his argument for it was a local one.

I want to say that the previous hon Minister of Transport, Mr Hendrik Schoeman, was a very pleasant Minister with whom to deal. One very seldom heard him attacking anybody personally. In fact, I do not think he ever did so. In this respect he was rather similar to the former leader of the PFP, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert. The only time I heard ever him being personal towards an hon member, was when he told the then member for Port Elizabeth North, if I am not mistaken, Mr Pottie Potgieter, that if his brains exploded it would not blow the glasses off his nose.

This brings me to the hon Deputy Minister of Transport. I had hoped that the hon the Deputy Minister, now that he was in this position, would stop making personal, insulting remarks across the floor of the House. [Interjections.] I would urge him to do so because I think the debate would be richer for it.

I want to turn to another White Paper. We have heard about the White Paper on the National Transport Policy, but of course there has been another White Paper, namely the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation. The major concern we have in regard to this White Paper is the delay involved in moving towards privatisation and deregulation.

I am afraid the White Paper on privatisation disappoints. Naturally we welcome the thoughts and intentions expressed, just as we do mother love. We are very sceptical, however, as to when this Government will do anything worthwhile to deregulate and to privatise. When we consider that the hon the Minister who has now been given the job, is the third in the series and so far all we have had predominantly are lofty thoughts, we really begin to despair of seeing any action. I frankly believe the person we need in this job—I am not talking about this hon Minister—is someone who has been successful in the private sector and who really knows what it is all about, not somebody who for years has been a leader in a government that has caused the very problem that now exists.

That very fact argues a state of understanding of free market systems and privatisation which will preclude the right speed of action and even the right corrective action. Obviously privatisation and deregulation apply very largely in the field of transport which is now the subject of this debate. Obviously the biggest steps that can be taken in terms of transport are with the SATS.

I do not think, however, that we should disregard the fact that the Department of Transport itself has aspects which could be privatised. I believe there are a number of opportunities and I would urge the hon the Minister to look at them and to practise what the Government preaches. Let us look at some of the small things. The Department of Transport has a bridge-design section. Why cannot that be done by private consultants? Secondly, the Department of Transport runs a number of nurseries. Why does the Department of Transport need to run nurseries? There is one at Donkerhoek, at Camperdown and at Knysna. Why is this necessary? Surely it can be done by the private sector. These are small matters, but there are also major areas.

The big area is roadbuilding. There are plenty of governmental roadbuilding units around this country, not in terms of national roads, but more in terms of provincial roads. I believe those units should be dispensed with. I do not believe they are more efficient or do a better job, or are, in fact, cheaper than the private sector under contract and under tender could provide those roads. I think that should be looked at.

Of course my colleague, the hon member for Bryanston, mentioned the airports. I believe he made a very good point there. Airports have been successfully moved into the private sector in other countries and I believe it is very possible to do so here.

To demonstrate what I mean in regard to the lack of movement towards privatisation and away from regulation, I wish to refer to a question I asked last session, question No 277, in relation to applications for licences for intercity bus services. I received a letter from the hon the Deputy Minister, dated 18 March 1987, in reply to this question, and I was somewhat horrified at his answer. Here we have an hon Minister and a Government who have given us a White Paper on moving away from regulation and towards privatisation yet, on intercity bus services, they had received 89 application during the specified period—this was the latest specified twelve month period for which figures were available—of which only 43 had been granted and 33 were still awaiting some decision or another. We must understand that it often costs a transport company a lot of money to make these applications.

However, what is more important is that when one looks at who these were granted to, one sees that almost 50%, that is 20 of the 43 granted, were granted to the SATS in that period. Then there were something like 10 granted to Greyhound Buslines and various others to Inter-Kaap, Randcoach, Bus Service etc. I find that very disquieting. I believe the SATS should be getting out of intercity passenger transport. This is a field which can be covered by private enterprise, and the hon the Minister knows this. The hon the Minister also knows that he has in fact been instructing the SATS to dispose of their intercity bus services. Yet, in the period with which we are dealing, almost 50% of the applications granted were granted to the SATS.

When one looks further at who objected to bus licences being granted to private sector organisations, one finds that in almost every instance where a person or body from the private sector had applied for and was granted a licence, the objectors were the SATS.

They immediately lodge an objection. The following are examples:

Application for permits for Inter-Kaap: Objectors: SATS.

Application for public permits by Greyhound Buslines from Bloemfontein, Cape Town etc: Objectors: SATS.

So it continues. This really does not make sense. If this Government were properly committed to deregulation and privatization they would not be seeking to extend the public sector control of transport in this way and they would not be granting these additional licences. They would be doing everything in their power to ensure the maximum utilisation of the private sector in this particular regard.

I urge the hon the Minister to consider very seriously ensuring that the Intercity bus transport is made much more open than it currently is. There is no question about it that we are going to tread on toes in doing so. We are going to tread on the toes of the SATS and of those people who have licences, because it is the nature of the human being that if he has a licence he would like to keep it as exclusive as possible. I do not blame him for not wanting the extra competition. I should love to run a motor business in a town with no competition. It would be marvellous, but that is not the reality of life.

I do not believe that we can overly consider the vested interests of either the SATS or the private operators of buslines in obtaining licences and I urge the hon the Minister to move in this direction as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has raised the question whether we on this side of the House are in favour of privatization, especially privatization in the engineering field. I should like to tell the hon member that privatization places a duty not only on the Government but also on the private sector. Especially in times of economic upswing we have experienced that the private sector do not have such a good track record in rendering certain services to specifically the roads department.

*I should like to touch on a matter which refers more particularly to my constituency and region. It has to do with the establishment of a regional airport for region F. In the Lowveld in particular this has become an absolute priority owing to the rapid growth and the transport requirements of the region. The existing airport at Nelspruit is totally inadequate, particularly for medium and heavy passenger and commercial traffic. Its safety standards are, to put it mildly, totally inadequate and in addition, the airport is dangerous. The Eastern Transvaal, particularly the escarpment, the Lowveld and the Kruger National Park are widely known as a tourist Mecca. The development that is taking place in this region is exerting increasing pressure on the supply routes to the region, and particularly on the existing airport. A strategically placed airport would alleviate the pressure considerably and at the same time serve as the necessary stimulus for further development and better exploitation of the tourist market in the region.

Magnum currently undertakes six return flights per day from Jan Smuts and conveys 3 800 passengers and 6 000 kilogrammes of freight per month. City Air undertakes five flights a week from Durban and conveys 410 passengers per month. Metavia undertakes seven flights to Maputo and conveys 380 passengers and 1 000 kilogrammes of freight per month. This shows that there is a demand and that there is, in addition, considerable growth in air traffic.

After the recent establishment of the customs post at the existing airport at Nelspruit, it is expected that air traffic will increase, particularly to Swaziland and Mozambique, because it has become cheaper now that clearance may be obtained at Nelspruit instead of at Komatipoort, as used to be the case. The people who use the route from Nelspruit via Jan Smuts to Durban now prefer to take the direct flight.

Nelspruit is strategically situated for the self-governing national states, KaNgwane and Gazankulu. Moreover it is the gateway to Swaziland and Mozambique, and the main road transport routes on the east-west and north-south axis meet here.

Seen from a military point of view it affords a supporting role for the airports of Komatipoort and Hoedspruit. An important factor is that the regional airport of Nelspruit will be within or near a focus of economic development. Due to its situation and existing infrastructure, Nelspruit is widely recognised as a regional centre. All the services relating to a regional airport are already established there. Here one may add that the only two decentralisation growth points in region F are situated in this part of the world, namely Rocky Drift, which is 13 km from Nelspruit, and Kabokweni, which is 20 km away. These industrial development points will therefore have direct and convenient access to the proposed regional airport, and this could serve as a further stimulus for industrial development. This in turn would ensure job creation and therefore higher standards of living for all.

The development in the nearby KaNgwane and the industrial development points at Rocky Drift and Kabokweni as well as the towns of Nelspruit and White River exert considerable pressure on the transport system to provide rapid transport not only of passengers but also of goods to this region. This agricultural region produces many subtropical fruits for export, and for that reason air traffic is utilised. During the past 22 years several investigations have been carried out by the Lowveld Regional Development Association, the city council of Nelspruit and the Regional Development Advisory Committee for the Eastern Transvaal in an effort to find a suitable area for the airport. Thirty-eight possible areas were investigated, a short list of 13 areas was chosen and these in turn were examined and re-examined by consulting engineers. In this way the Mataffin terrain was selected.

The following guidelines were adopted in making the final choice of a suitable terrain. The design has to comply with all the requirements of the airfield layout as laid down; the airport must be situated close to suppliers of all existing services; the airport must be situated close to the economic and population centres of the region; and the airport must be equally accessible to heavy and light commercial and passenger traffic and to military traffic. On the basis of these criteria this terrain answers to the purpose very well. The engineering reports in this regard are available. Unfortunately it is agricultural land, and the area needed is 150 hectares. Even in the final stage of development, however, it will be possible to carry on with farming on much of the envisaged 150 hectares.

I can assure the hon the Minister that thorough studies have been carried out. The topography of the area is very difficult and it is inevitable that some of the agricultural land must be utilised. However, this will be an investment for the future which will really provide a major boost to the decentralisation programme in the Eastern Transvaal.

Mr Chairman, to begin with, I should like to thank all hon members who participated in this debate.

This debate on transport is a wide-ranging one. Bearing in mind that my time is limited, I shall attempt to reply to hon members’ points as far as possible, but hon members are welcome to discuss them with me further if I do not reply to them all.

I should like to associate myself with hon members who referred to the retirement of Mr Adriaan Eksteen after a most distinguished career in the Department of Transport. I wish to add my thanks and appreciation to what hon members said for the time we worked together intimately. I think one may say that the people with an interest in something quite different from their daily round are in fact the interesting people in society. On delving into the Director-General’s past a little, I found it of exceptional interest to discover that he had actually been trained in theatre, broadcasting and drama. He is leaving us now and consequently will not be a witness or take part in the last act of the drama of the White Paper on Transport Policy. Nevertheless I wish to thank him for this production. We wish him and his wife, who is also present in the gallery today, the very best and hope she will keep him roadworthy for a long time yet. I also wish to congratulate Mr Ronnie Meyer, our new Director-General, and express the hope that his career in that position will be a long and happy one.

I think we may tell one another today we are on the threshold of a new era of development in the transport system, which in truth is no simple task. When one has to unravel a system built up over many years and convert it into something new, mistakes can be made. I concede that at once, but I think the greatest mistake we can make is merely to table plans, issue White Papers and not test them in practice. Two days ago we announced a radius of 300 kilometres for unrestricted conveyance within certain areas. This is a cautious but determined step and therefore also a great one to prove Government sincerity in the application of the new transport policy study.

This implies throwing open certain important industrial areas to undertakings and fair competition. What does this mean in practice? It denotes that within those areas no permits will be required any longer in the traditional sense of the word. Consequently there will merely be registration, because all people conducting business in those sectors have to be on record.

An additional important consequence is that there will be no further problems in the interpretation of rights in those areas, which are extensive. This is a very important aspect because there is a multitude of court cases and disputes regarding the transport industry—as hon members know. They occur to such a degree that we calculate they cost the industry approximately R60 million per annum. I consider it important for us to get away from that aspect. Greater competition regarding applications and court cases, disputes and all attendant matters will have the further practical effect of producing even greater competition.

The SATS will also be involved in this and, in fact, make an important sacrifice in this regard because there are certain protective measures at the moment which will no longer apply to the SATS. The SATS will be affected but is itself looking forward to this challenge to proceed in instituting this policy. For that reason we have already taken this early step. It is to be hoped that fiercer competition will also result in lower costs or at least very realistic tariffs.

I have had a number of reactions to this announcement. All have been positive except one, in which it was claimed that I had not announced the date in an effort to delay this entire action. I want to say here today that by means of that announcement we have in truth anticipated requirements of the White Paper because certain important prerequisites are laid down before total deregulation can eventuate. In the first place the SATS has to be compensated for services run at a loss which it has to furnish for socioeconomic reasons at the moment. The transport industry of the private sector has to make certain contributions to provide its proportional share as regards road construction and maintenance.

There are a few reasons why I could not announce the date immediately. In the first case there are certain quality control measures which are already being instituted protern and which will be handled at ground level by provincial administrations. They have to be afforded the opportunity to make certain arrangements. Those entering the market also have to have the opportunity to prepare themselves. It is important too that there be certain control measures within these released areas until total deregulation takes place. Those measures have to be drawn up and promulgated properly. Consequently I can say that, although I cannot announce that date today, we shall not use this to delay matters unnecessarily. That date will definitely be announced before the end of the year.

I should like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister, who participated in this debate, very heartily for that participation. He made a balanced contribution on privatisation and deregulation. I want to thank him in particular for his assistance in all spheres in the two departments in which we are involved. The hon the Deputy Minister is particularly well equipped for this task because he used to be the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs. I should like my great appreciation for the services he renders the department to be placed on record.

The hon member for Primrose said we were facing the greatest challenge regarding transport. He referred to the Road Freight Quality System and especially to one important aspect of it, which is the overloading of vehicles and the negative effect this has not only on our roads but also on the incidence of road accidents. I want to add something here. This also represents a very negative factor to the haulier and can lead to great loss.

It is important in consequence—I shall mention in a moment how far we have progressed with this—that we incorporate the quality system in the Statute Book as soon as possible. We hope this may be included in the Bill we should like to introduce at the beginning of next year. This is necessary so that we may proceed with the aspects referred to by the hon member as rapidly as possible. We can do this to some degree even now; the regulations I referred to a while ago are actually related to this.

The hon member suggested we might discuss a private member’s motion—especially on the question of toll roads—in a debate in this House next year. I wholeheartedly support this suggestion. I consider it necessary for us in this undertaking, which to some extent is also experimental, to exchange ideas with one another, so that the general public also knows what it is all about.

The two aspects mentioned by the hon member are of particular importance. I am referring on the one hand to the question of alternative routes. To what degree for instance should there always be alternative routes in the case of toll roads? Should there always be such routes? Can we afford this? The other important point raised by the hon member dealt with the question of whether we should levy toll fees on existing roads to be able to build others. I think the public and the road user would certainly react favourably if we could raise certain existing sections of roads to a high standard—and even build other sections—if that money were spent on the same road. The owners of motor vehicles, that is to say road users, are reasonable people in general. I think this is a point we could argue with profit. I want to predict we shall probably obtain road users’ support on that point; it is important that we actually obtain their co-operation.

The hon member also referred to central authority over roads. If we examine the transport situation in South Africa, I think we cannot conduct a significant argument on it unless we arrive at the important point of central co-ordination.

It is a fact that we have four provinces at the moment which did excellent work for us in the past. Nevertheless it is also true that there are 10 more organisations situated within the borders of the RSA as we know it. Each has its own legislation and launches its own projects. It is totally unthinkable for us to go ahead and be confronted by a situation in which a haulier is travelling from east to west and perhaps has to cross 10 or 14 or whatever number of separate districts and deal with a different law each time. It is impracticable. Although the devolution of power to our provincial administrations is definitely our policy and we have also granted those bodies legislative powers, it is very clear that this is a case to which devolution cannot be applied in practice. I can tell the House we have conducted comprehensive discussions with the four administrators on this matter and I think we understand one another in principle. I foresee that the entire matter can be turned into a success story with the co-operation of the provinces. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Soutpansberg began by giving his speech a slightly political flavour. I want to assure the hon member he has no cause for concern. The hon the State President has no problem in dealing effectively with his Cabinet and the composition of Parliament.

He is struggling!

He is welcome to oppose it.

But people swim anywhere they like!

The hon member said we were behind schedule and asked how matters stood with the programme. I shall refer in greater detail to the programme a little later. He also mentioned an inability to carry out the programme. The hon member alluded to this but I think he should understand that to start the entire matter and to get it in full swing is not so easy. After we tabled the White Paper, new inputs were made which had to be considered. The hon member expressed appreciation for this and I thank him for it. The steps we have now announced are major steps which we are taking even before—he agrees with me on this score—certain prerequisites have been complied with.

The hon member asked about cases outside the circle. I am as concerned as he is about that question as there are many areas outside the circle. It is impossible to draw a circle of 300 km round every place. The hon member will appreciate that it simply cannot be handled administratively. In any case the Act provides at the moment for a circle with a radius of 40 km to surround those places where unrestricted transport may take place. This cannot be changed by regulations; legislation is required for it. Nevertheless I do understand the hon member’s question.

This hon member raised a further important point. He questioned the discontinuation of unremunerative socioeconomic services. I think we all agree that in this country a person will probably not be able to extricate himself from socioeconomic services which are unremunerative in our lifetime—if ever. All we are proposing is that those services be identified. If we find that those services have to be rendered in the national interest, they should be subsidised openly. In that case we should not ask other users of transport and other sectors in transport to subsidise them because we should do this from the Central Treasury. In addition I can tell the hon member that services are not withdrawn, leaving a vacuum. This is done because services already exist which are preferred to those rendered there by the SATS. I thank the hon member for his significant contribution, however.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for South Coast gave a very concise exposition of the White Paper, and he asked what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations. He also asked whether the SATS was only feathering its own nest. I think that according to what I have explained here we are rather ahead of schedule as far as the implementation of the recommendations is concerned, and that the SATS in particular is the concern that is affected negatively. I think that answers the question comprehensively.

The hon member also referred to the function of an ombudsman and a tribunal. This is a matter which I will refer to the Transport Advisory Council. I will ask them to give me further advice on the matter. Since the suggestion of an ombudsman or tribunal was made, the details of the policy have changed to a certain extent, and there is no longer someone who must decide what the traffic can bear. The necessity for this tribunal has therefore changed somewhat. I have therefore decided and already announced that this matter will be referred to the Transport Advisory Council as a matter of urgency.

It is necessary and I believe it is correct to say that the new transport policy contained in the White Paper is being implemented and some progress has already been made, apart from the announcement two days ago. The legislation pertaining to the Transport Advisory Council is well on its way through Parliament. The Road Traffic Bill, the Transport Deregulation Bill, the Passenger Transport Bill and the South African Roads Board Bill have all been drafted and circulated for comment. The drafting of regulations for the Road Traffic Bill has reached an advanced stage, and it will be ready for circulation in October 1987.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether it will be possible to circulate those draft Bills among members of the standing committee? If he is circulating them for comment, they are certainly not confidential and it would be to the advantage of members of the standing committee to have them at this stage.

We shall certainly consider that, and if at all possible we shall do so.

Progress made in regard to other measures is as follows: The SA Bureau of Standards has drafted and is finalising codes of practice for testing stations and roadside vehicle fitness inspections; firm arrangements have been made with the SABS to carry out inspections and the certification of testing stations; the National Road Safety Council has prepared a draft manual for better driver licensing examinations; preparations for the issuing of professional driving permits have been initiated; the National Institute of Transport and Road Research is drafting procedural manuals to improve control in respect of the overloading of vehicles; and—I think this is important—the Public Carriers Association is co-operating with Government in regard to the new policy by drafting a document aimed at operators to encourage the proper loading of vehicles. This is the response we have had from the private sector.

With regard to the implementation of the passenger transport policy, the interim bus contracts have been drafted, negotiations are in progress and demonstration projects to assist in the implementation of the new passenger transport policy have been identified and are being implemented. The critical factors are getting the legislation through Parliament in 1988 and establishing the road transport quality system. I thank the hon member for South Coast for taking part in this debate.

Time is running out very quickly and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has asked me rather a lot of questions. He asked for particulars on spending.

I think when one considers that the total amount of the budget for this Vote last year was R751 million and has been increased to R785 million that this is a pretty good performance. We have tabled explanatory notes to explain all the items. The hon member knows very well that the amount earmarked for the SATS, R150 million, is only a transfer payment. That does not affect our figures. So I want to differ with the hon member on that particular item as far as its affecting our spending is concerned.

The hon member raised the point of professional services. Previously the National Road Fund bore a large portion of the costs in respect of the National Transport Policy Study. Now this expenditure is borne by the department which explains the increase under “Professional Services”.

As far as the cost of the implementation of the study is concerned, a great deal of work is being done by private sector contractors like Unisa, CSIR and others. Those are the points to consider when one looks at the increase in expenditure. The hon member is welcome to discuss that with me privately because I cannot possibly explain every item to him here. That would take up all of my 40 minutes.

In his second turn the hon member referred to the White Paper, in particular to the building of roads. As far as the Department of Transport is concerned, one might say that 95% of construction is being done by the private sector and is, in fact, privatised. Only a very small percentage is still being done by the provincial administrations.

In conclusion, I want to tell the hon member that we cannot just get rid of SATS services and leave a vacuum. The most important item in the privatization of the SATS concerns is deregulation. Firstly, it puts SATS on an equal footing as far as competition is concerned. Only then will the businesses which SATS must not undertake, show up and we shall get rid of them.

*The hon member for Bethlehem made an exceptionally interesting contribution on road safety. I agree with the hon member that we can never stop deliberating on this problem. Nor can we ever stop making a personal contribution, which is to set an example on the road. If one takes to the road and merely tries to avoid causing accidents oneself, one will get into trouble. That is why people get into trouble. One should also avoid accidents on the other man’s behalf; the clever road user avoids the other man’s accident for him. This is the important point we should convey. Langenhoven said:

That is the principle and spirit in which these things should be done.

Unfortunately I cannot reply in full to everything the hon member said but I want to tell him that the central bureau to which he referred is an extremely important item in dealing with this entire matter and good progress is being made in it. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Nelspruit referred to the proposed regional airport at Nelspruit. Unfortunately I cannot go into this in detail, but I have all the relevant information. The hon member also knows we are paying this matter serious attention. I can assure him that instructions have been given for the Ministers involved in this matter to visit the area, because the hon member is aware of problems in regard to certain land—it consists of rich agricultural soil etc. We shall certainly carry out those instructions and the hon member will know about it as soon as we have done so. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Worcester referred to the at Du Toits Kloof tunnel. We are making very good progress on it and I want to tell him I agree with him fully that it is already an asset merely to be able to drive through the winelands. We hope to be able to open this tunnel in March 1988. I can also assure him for a start that we shall ensure in any case that the cost to drive through it will be less than the benefit to the motorist. I thank him for his contribution.

The hon member for Maraisburg spoke about road safety. He asked in particular that the NRSC be represented on the Transport Advisory Council and I can assure him that is exactly what will be done. He also referred to dangerous substances. There are laws controlling these as well as regulations issued by the Department of National Health and Population Development so we are attending to this. I thank the hon member for participating.

The hon member for Overvaal made an appeal regarding services at the airport and I thank him for doing so. The hon member also praised our officials; he even referred appreciatively to the hon the Deputy Minister and me. [Interjections.] Hon members asked whether the hon member perhaps wanted to cross the floor and I was just about to think so myself.

Your boss would have a seizure!

Since he has already rejected partition, as they believe in it, I do not consider it beyond the realm of possibility to make such a suggestion.

We don’t want him. [Interjections.]

The hon member asked me to what I was referring to when I spoke about the Southern African set-up. I want to tell him transport is always the first subject we mention when we discuss matters of common interest in Southern Africa. This means that we should like to co-ordinate with all the countries in Southern Africa he mentioned to bring about orderly transport in this region.

One cannot legislate jointly.

But one can conclude agreements with them. They tell us we first have to have a uniform law before they will negotiate with us because they have to know on what foundation they are building.

I do not wish to argue the question of smoking on domestic flights here—as referred to by the hon member. Unfortunately this is one of the matters on which one cannot satisfy both sides. Just as there are people who cannot live without smoking, there are those who cannot fly while other people are smoking. There are such people too, and everyone cannot be satisfied.

It is interesting to note that the USA has piloted legislation through Congress which also prohibits smoking on flights of less than two hours. This is in line with the provision we have made. The hon member also saw that we had discussed the matter with the Tobacco Board. Their members appreciated that I was no enemy to the industry. I am quite satisfied that I need have no doubts on the safety of our passengers—which is the most important point. [Interjections.] It also presents no problem to safeguard this further.

The hon member for Hercules referred to the western bypass. I can assure him this is one of the subjects currently under consideration. Obviously other matters are also being considered because our funds are not unlimited, but his request is definitely receiving attention.

†The hon member for Bryanston referred to excessive prices being charged in the duty-free shops. In the first instance I must tell him that I cannot control those prices or the terms of tender.

If the department receives a portion of the return, it is not for the department to stipulate the price either. We will be satisfied with a smaller amount because we receive a percentage. However, I do think that his suggestion is a good one and I will consider getting an independent expert in accountancy to investigate the matter once more to establish what the position is as far as that aspect is concerned.

* Unfortunately I have run out of time otherwise I should have liked to reply to the hon member’s arguments in more detail.

The hon member for Roodepoort also requested that this transport policy study be debated further in this House. Obviously the Government has already laid down the guidelines and we shall now be bringing the legislation to the House. During the discussion of that legislation as well as of a motion—as mentioned by the hon member—we shall have the opportunity to discuss it more comprehensively.

I want to tell the hon member for Potgietersrus that I am not aggressive or hostile toward him. He is a young member—he could exhibit a little more humility and modesty. This would not harm him; on the contrary, it might help him. Furthermore I want to tell him that the department is carrying out planning in connection with the road he mentioned, the one which runs north from Middelfontein. He also referred to the airport at Potgietersrus. He is free to inform his local authorities that they may apply for assistance. We do assist airports when we have funds available so they are welcome to apply.

†Let me conclude on a positive note. The hon member for Johannesburg North complained about the facilities at the Jan Smuts and Louis Botha airports. I may mention to him that those matters are not only being considered at the moment—we have considered them already—but we are also doing something positive about them.

*I thank all hon members who participated in the debate.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Bill to be considered by this House today constitutes a further and, I am happy to add, one of the final stages of a comprehensive revision of the provisions of the Water Act, 1956, (Act 54 of 1956) before a full consolidation of this complex piece of legislation is embarked upon. Although relatively voluminous, the Bill before you actually deals with only three new principles, while the rest of the amendments comprise efforts to facilitate the application and enforcement of existing control measures and to update terminology which became outdated and which I do not consider to be contentious.

I choose to devote the time at my disposal to a few observations on the innovations introduced by this Bill in order to place them in their proper perspective. The most prominent among these pertain to the exercise of control over the use of subterranean water and to this end clause 17 substitutes a new Chapter for the present Chapter III of the Water Act, 1956, dealing with this matter.

Before discussing this amendment, allow me a brief outline of the development of the principles governing the use of subterranean water in our legal system. Roman Dutch law, which had its origin in the law of the Roman Empire, has over the centuries acknowledged the right of a landowner to the exclusive use of subterranean water found on his land. The considerations on which this right is based are clear, namely that until quite recently the technology to abstract large quantities of subterranean water to the possible detriment of neighbouring landowners simply did not exist and, furthermore, the close interrelationship between subterranean water and surface water was initially not fully comprehended.

The advent over the last few decades of drilling techniques and mechanically powered abstraction systems, however, soon led to the realisation that the overutilisation of a subterranean source of water could result in disaster to neighbouring landowners and measures to control the abstraction of subterranean water already featured in the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act, 1912, (Act 8 of 1912) which was later replaced by the present Water Act, 1956. From its inception, the exercise of control over the utilisation of subterranean water was undertaken on a selective basis within defined areas. Initially only the so-called dolomitic areas of the Republic were involved but this limitation was extended by the 1956 Act to include any defined area within which overutilisation threatened to deplete the source.

Within these subterranean water control areas the drilling of boreholes and the abstraction of subterranean water have been under the control of the Minister for the past 30 years and more with the object of protecting and preserving the source in the interests of the landowners concerned.

As our knowledge of the hydrological cycle increased over the past few decades, a new science, that of geohydrology, underscored the fact that the occurrence of subterranean water in aquifers was only one manifestation of this cycle and that surface and underground sources of water should not be dealt with as completely separate sources, isolated from each other.

Experience already gained over many years in the control of the utilisation of surface water indicated the course to be followed in the case of subterranean sources and the proposed Chapter III does no more than place control and utilisation of subterranean sources on the level already in force in respect of surface sources. It obliges the Minister to make detailed surveys of existing use and to acknowledge such use, as well as to make allowance for reasonable additional exploitation in accordance with the scientifically proven extent of the aquifer concerned. Up to this point control is exercised by the State solely in the interests of the landowners concerned by restricting total abstraction from the aquifer to the level which can be sustained by it. Only in instances where it is clear that water is available in excess of the existing and reasonable use of landowners within the control area, will the State be entitled to join in the utilisation of such an excess in the public interest. The fact that the Republic is not richly endowed with water resources compels the State in the public interest to develop all available resources to the optimum and the country simply cannot afford the luxury of having unutilised water in the form of a subterranean source readily available in a particular area in excess of the reasonable needs on the land on which it is found, while on the other hand large amounts of capital have to be expended on interbasin transfers of surface water for use in that area.

Control over the use of surface resources has on the whole been a resounding success, resulting in use on a par with the yield of a particular river, while at the same time allowing the State powers of development of the resource in the public interest where this is possible. I am convinced that in future the same statement will be applicable to the utilisation and development of our subterranean water resources.

†The second aspect I want to touch on is contained in clauses 21 and 24, dealing with the declaration of Government drainage control areas and providing for measures to control the construction of works for the accumulation and use of private water. The distinction between private and public water and the principle affording an owner of land exclusive rights to the use of private water found on his land are as old as our legal system, dating from Roman times.

As is the position with subterranean water, however, modern technology and a fuller understanding of the hydrological cycle have emphasised the need to deal with the utilisation of any particular water resource with full cognisance of the effect it will have on other related resources.

In this particular instance experience has shown that the further development of private water resources in certain drainage areas will result in a further reduction in the availability of water in public streams in that area. Existing capital outlays, both private and public, are under threat of becoming useless and even the continued existence of whole irrigation communities is under stress. The disruptive effect of allowing further uncontrolled development of private water resources in these sensitive areas cannot be accepted and in the public interest the State is forced by circumstances to intervene in such cases in an effort to find a happy medium between the utilisation of these two interdependent sources.

Here again, existing development in a declared drainage control area will be acknowledged by the Minister and it is only new development which will be controlled. I am fully aware of the fact that the control measures now proposed, relating to the construction of works for the accumulation, storage and use of private water, overlap an area in which soil conservation is a primary object and I want to give hon members of this House the assurance that the application of these control measures will only be undertaken in close liaison with the authorities involved in combating soil erosion. I am convinced that here too a happy medium can be attained.

The last item I wish to deal with is presented in clauses 29 and 30, providing for a charge to be levied by the Minister on existing water use within a certain area. Let me immediately stress the fact that this power will only be available to the Minister on very restricted conditions, namely the pre-existence of a treaty with another government pertaining to the construction of a water works and the fact that the charge can only be levied in an area to the benefit of which the works are constructed only after full particulars of the proposed charge and the works concerned have been tabled in Parliament.

*These restrictions dispose of the possible argument that the charge will apply to a present generation for the benefit of future generations by virtue of the fact that the construction of the water works concerned will always be imminent and that their completion and commissioning will in most instances relate to the immediate future.

The question is then reduced to weighing up a relatively small payment in advance by users, of whom the majority will still be there to enjoy the benefit derived from the establishment of the new works concerned, against the alternative of providing the funds required from revenue, requiring their financing by all taxpayers, of whom the great majority will never benefit from the establishment of the works in question.

Viewed in this light and bearing in mind that the charge envisaged will have the immediate effect of reducing the inevitable increase in water tariffs which will follow the commissioning of the works involved, I have no doubt that the advantages attached to the proposal outweigh the disadvantages.

This brings me to the final observation, viz that South African water law has grown in importance over the past decade as the fact that our water resources are restricted has been underlined time and again by drought conditions even in relatively well-endowed parts of the country. This fact leads us increasingly to the realisation that centralised planning of development and control over utilisation of the full spectrum of our water resources has to be an essential feature of our legal system and to this end the amendments under consideration will contribute to the benefit of all the peoples of our country.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, I think this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment to this post, and I want to wish him every success in administering his portfolio. As far as his political activities are concerned, I do not begrudge him a reasonable measure of adversity, as I believe the hon the Deputy Minister will appreciate.

Under normal circumstances we would have supported this Bill and lodged a very strong objection to those aspects with which we were not in agreement. Due to our disillusionment at the amalgamation of the taxes and levies in the price of diesel, and particularly due to the fact that this affects the farmers, who now have to reclaim the money, we have come to realise that we cannot take such a chance. The State’s objective is to clamp down on those who abuse the system, and what is now happening is that the State is benefitting and the farmer is being prejudiced by this, because in terms of the Act he is obliged to lend money to the State. A tremendous administrative burden is therefore being imposed on him, whilst there is no indication that those who abuse the system are being exposed. For that reason we have decided not to support this Bill. In any event, we have no confidence in the Government’s ability to apply control measures fairly. [Interjections.] Furthermore, we have come to realise—as we have said before—that the Government has no sympathy for the farmers, and that we must therefore be ever alert when it comes to the interests of the farmers. [Interjections.]

The most important aspects dealt with in this Bill pertain to the control, of subterranean water. We are not opposed in principle to the control of subterranean water. We realise full well that as a result of technological development and the fact that subterranean water is one phase of the hydrological cycle, it is essential that there be some control as progress is made. I repeat, however, that we have no confidence in the Government when it comes to applying that control in a fair and just manner. Provision is being made today for control measures, but everything depends on how these are to be applied in practice.

That is absolutely ludicrous!

The present situation is that the legislation provides for the declaration of subterranean control areas. The hon the Minister may also control the abstraction of water on behalf of the landowners, particularly where it is suspected that too much water is being abstracted. It is therefore accepted that the subterranean water is the property of the landowners. In the interests of landowners control is limited to the abstraction of subterranean water.

Although it is considered to be their water, and control over it has taken place in their interests, the control thus far been exercised has given rise to a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction. It has also led to some fierce court cases. In clause 17, however, the Minister is now accorded the right to take possession of that subterranean water and to abstract it in the interests of the general public. Provision is also made for existing rights to be protected, but one of those existing rights involves the fact that in terms of our law that water has traditionally been regarded as the landowner’s water. That right is no longer being protected at all. The fact that the Bill states that existing rights are to be protected—I take it this has to do with pump installations and water that is used—is actually of little consolation. The Minister decides how much water is to be abstracted and for what purpose it is to be used. He therefore decides subjectively and arbitrarily.

The landowner is now being placed in a position of having to resort to the courts whenever he is dissatisfied with the Minister’s ruling and whenever the Minister has made a mistake. He is, however, at a disadvantage against the Minister because he has to finance the court action himself, whereas the taxpayer finances the Minister. Moreover, the Minister also has the expertise of the entire department to back him up and which he can use in a court case, and one really needs expert knowledge in a case like this, whilst the man who feels he has not been properly treated has to purchase expert advice at great expense. He is therefore not fighting an even battle and he is placed in a tremendously unfavourable position. That is why we say that the traditional standpoint is that this water belongs to the landowner. The hon the Minister is now giving himself the right to alienate this water, without making any provision for these people to be compensated for that right which is now to be taken away from them.

It was explained to the standing committee that the owners were not utilising the water and that they were not aware of this excess water. I want to tell the hon the Minister that the fact that these people are not utilising this water does not mean that they are not aware of it.

It is money in the bank.

We received a map which indicated which areas might possibly be declared Government water control areas. Sir, I want to tell you that the people know there is water in the Dendron area, for example. After all, it is no secret that there is water there. The same applies to Alldays, which the Government wants to declare a Government water control area. Here again, it is no secret that there is some good water there. It is common knowledge that there is water in the dolomitic areas, stretching from the PWV area through the Western Transvaal up to the Northern Cape. It is also no secret that there is water in the Ghaaps Mountain area. The people know there is water there.

The position is that those who bought land there paid a premium when they purchased their farms. Others, who would have sold out by now had there not been any water, have declined to sell due to the fact that there is subterranean water there, although they have not yet been able to exploit it. Now the hon the Minister comes along and says after six years of drought—he represents a Government which has no sympathy for the farmers—at a time when agriculture has been ruined … [Interjections.] Now the hon the Minister says he is going to take that water, and he is not going to compensate the people for it.

As a result of the Government’s activities we are not in a position to utilise the water, and now the Government is making no provision for compensation for the loss of that water. I now want to tell the hon the Minister—he knows this as well as I do—that the first time he abstracts water in such a control area for purposes other than agricultural purposes, it will have a detrimental effect on the price of land in that area. That is why the CP will not support this legislation. The Government is making no provision for these people to be compensated for a vested right of theirs, a right which has traditionally been entrenched in South African and Roman Dutch law. We do not accept the alienation of this right without compensation.

We foresee that the abstraction of that water will take place at the expense of agriculture, and I wonder to whom the Government is going to distribute that water. We also foresee that this matter will give rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction, particularly coming from a Government that has no sympathy for the farmers … [Interjections.] We also foresee that agriculture will be placed in an unfavourable bargaining position. That is why I reiterate that we are not opposed to control. A reasonable government could probably make a good job of applying control measures, but this Government cannot.

A further aspect to which the CP objects are clauses 29 and 30, which provide that the inhabitants and the users of water in an area may be charged a levy for the purposes of constructing a water work in terms of an international treaty. In this regard there is also a provision that a report on the proposed water work is required to be submitted to Parliament. In the report details are provided of the water work in question and the purpose for which the proceeds of the levy is to be used. The fact that a report is to be submitted to Parliament, is the only proviso. The object of this clause is to impose a levy on the inhabitants of the PWV area, who will ultimately use the water from the Lesotho Highlands scheme, in order to collect funds from them at this early stage to finance the project.

We have no objection to the fact that the users of water, those who will actually benefit by it, should pay for it, because that is fair. What we do object to, however, is the fact that the Government intends to start taxing that area in advance in order to obtain the funds with which to launch the scheme. This is a very clear illustration of the fact that the Government has ruined South Africa to such an extent that it is no longer able to finance such development projects in the traditional manner.

Are you not interested in the farmers?

The Government did not do this with the Tugela-Vaal scheme or with the Drakensberg schemes. At that time South Africa was in a position, financially-speaking, for the State to appropriate the money and for the users to begin to repay the money only from the day on which they received the water, after which the money flowed back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. However, South Africa is no longer in such a position, as a result of the Government’s financial management. For that reason we say that the people who are now going to pay will most probably not even use the water, because the Government is now collecting the money from the area to which the water is to go, but when that water arrives, those who have paid will no longer be using water.

Furthermore, I want to say that the CP is not in favour of water from the Highlands scheme being channelled to the PWV area. We believe the water should be used in the area where it is to be found; there is also a great deal of labour available. We believe that the water in the Eastern Free State, Bloemfontein and Qwaqwa should be used to stimulate development in those areas in order to bring about proportionate development in South Africa’s various areas. We believe that the North Eastern Cape and areas such as the Free State are the areas where development should be stimulated, but now all the water is being pumped to the PWV area. However, the infrastructure of the PWV area is already overstrained. To create a job opportunity there costs twice as much as in the rest of South Africa due to the fact that the infrastructure is overstrained. That is why we are asking why the water is not being used in those areas. If this were done, we would not have to face the tremendous costs involved in pumping the water, nor would a permanent inflationary factor be incorporated in the South African economy.

Even the Rand Water Board stated in its submission to the Government that it did not agree with this method of financing. It stated that according to a departmental estimate the people would have been paying 6,5 cents per cubic metre for their water before April 1987, had the scheme been approved by the standing committee last year and been implemented in April 1987. The levy which the Government is now placing on water, however, will cause the price of water to increase to 11,4 cents per cubic metre. This is a tremendous increase. That is why we say it is unfair that these present water-users should have to pay a levy which will benefit waterusers in the future. Furthermore, we want to tell the Government that transferring this water to the PWV area is not going to solve or even alleviate South Africa’s ethnic problems; it is going to make them more complicated and intricate than they are at present. However, if the Government makes use of the water in those areas where the people are at present, it may also make a contribution towards the physical planning of South Africa in order to solve South Africa’s ethnic problems.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to look at these proposals which the SA Agricultural Union has made in its memorandum, namely that wherever the mines abstract their water and allow surplus water to flow away, this should again be placed at the disposal of the landowner.