I move—

I object.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday, I was drawing attention to the harmony that existed when both sides of the House took part in a discussion on a Bill in a positive and constructive, yes, even co-ordinating manner; that is to say when both sides of the House functioned in a full knowledge of what their vocation was and when they were true to that vocation, and when the Opposition had a clear realization of what the function was of a minority group in a democratic system of government when the majority group acknowledged the right of the majority group to exist and to function; all that is conducive, if not to mutual blind confidence, then at least to calculated confidence when a Bill such as this is discussed in this House.

That takes us on to that high plain of which this House is proud, and which we should like the people inside and outside this country to acknowledge. Mr. Speaker this Bill has aroused a certain measure of disquiet amongst some of our farmers, partly because they do not realize the full impact of some of its provisions, but partly also perhaps some provisions of this Bill will understandably have an irritating effect on a certain type of farmer because their application will mean a certain amount of economic disruption to him and will necessitate drastic adaptation on his part. That, as a matter of fact, is always the case when established practices come into the picture, even though it is admitted that such practices are not always in the best interests of the general public.

By selling farm produce, mainly fruit, along declared national and special roads, the farmers have built up a kind of independent market for themselves, a market where they, in the first place, sell their produce for cash at the minimum of cost and in the second place render a service to members of the public who, when they are travelling, may perhaps find it difficult to go to municipal markets to buy fresh fruit at a reasonable price and in the third place eliminate the middle man, although we acknowledge the important part that he plays in our marketing structure. In the first place you have the farmer who sells his fruit along the road without the assistance of the middle man. You have the hawker who moves his vehicle from place to place and removes it at night and in the third place we have the hawker who offers his fruit on a lorry, the wheels of which have been taken off, and that wheelless vehicle remains alongside the road day and night to the great danger of the travelling public. I feel very sorry for those who fall in the first category, partly sorry for those in the second and very little or not at all for those in the third, because of the potential danger that they constitute to the travelling public and because of their unsightliness along our main road at the entrances to our cities and towns.

I have received numerous telegrams, not one of a personal character, but all on behalf of certain farmers’ groups who have for years been selling their entire crop through the channel which this Bill wants to limit. In the main they ask that the farmer himself should still be permitted to sell his produce on a sight outside the proclaimed width of a road with due regard to safety. We know that under this Bill a person can still sell fruit outside the proclaimed width of a road on his private property. but Clause 7 does have a restricting influence, to which I shall return later. I do not want to deal with specific clauses in such detail that you, Mr. Speaker, will regard it as your duty to remind me that we are not in Committee but that we are taking the second reading. I think Clause 9 is the cause of the disquiet. Clause 9 will be Section 15ter (1) in the new Act and it is very clearly a prohibitive clause; it prohibits any person from trading along a declared road. The preposition “on” in the definition is, however, reassuring. It refers to trade within the proclaimed width of the road and not outside it. Difficulty will however arise when it comes to the question of the granting of ingress to and egress from a declared road by the Road Transport Commission for the purposes of carrying on trade alongside that road. Even the permissive character of Clause 7 which will become Sections 14bis (1) and (2) in the new Act does not reassure the farmer in this respect because if ingress to and egress from roads is to be largely or completely refused by a statutory body from whom no appeal lies to a higher authority, the practice of selling his produce along a declared road, which has become an established practice in the marketing of farm produce, will be something of the past as far as the farmer is concerned. It will cause a major disruption and will require a great deal of adaptation. We fully agree that it is necessary to review the existing position and we support the idea wholeheartedly that a prohibition should be placed on all sales within the proclaimed width of declared roads in order to put a stop to the accidents that this practice causes because somebody turns off the road right in front of you, applies his brakes on the edge of the road, and causes a collision, or because a Native jumps under your car with a bag of naartjies hoping that you will buy them and when you enquire as to the price you find that they are not too cheap, yet he always says: “Nice, master, sweet naartjies.” Collisions are also caused because numbers of motor cars park close to the stalls and the whole area around and near the declared road is occupied by people who stand about talking and eating fruit. Revision of the position is also necessary so that wheelless motor vehicle which is a very unsightly display window and a perpetual danger, can be completely done away with. But we hope that the permissive character of the Bill in its entirety, together with the sympathy of the Road Transportation Board and the influence of the hon. the Minister, will all contribute towards some concession being granted in the Committee Stage to enable the farmer to retain something of this system of marketing which is under discussion, bearing in mind the maximum amount of safety and the elimination of innumerable unsightly trading stalls along our declared roads.

Having in duty bound said these few things of which the Minister is aware as a result of the discussions we have had in that connection and having drawn attention to the needs of the bona fide farmer as far as the retention of his right to sell on private property alongside declared roads, is concerned, I leave it in the hands of the Minister and of the Department of Transport, assuring them, as in the past, of our wholhearted support and our sincere co-operation.

It was interesting to listen to the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister. We listened to it with joy and pride. We on this side of the House, as well as hon. members opposite, are proud of our network of roads and in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has told us that R200,000,000 has already been spent on the construction of national roads and that this legislation will bring about comprehensive changes, as the Minister has said, you feel, of course, that you want to go somewhat deeper into the matter. This legislation controls the ingress to and egress from roads. This Bill provides that any land that is required for national road construction purposes may today be expropriated by the various Provincial Administrations and that the costs of such expropriation be regarded as part of the costs of constructing the road and recoverable from the National Road Fund in the customary way. When I look at Clause 2 I find something that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, something which I am sure will have the sympathy not only of this side of the House but also that of the other side of the House. I refer to the fact that under existing legislation the farming community have to sacrifice land for a road 100 feet wide, if such land is ordinary grazing land, without receiving any compensation, and that they only receive compensation when there are buildings on it or when the land is under crops or if the land has been cultivated in some other way. What is true in the case of Natal is also true in the case of the other provinces. In Natal expropriation takes place in terms of Section 10 of Ordinance 11 of 1942. It says that any land may be expropriated and as much of it as necessary used for the construction of a main road, provided such road is not wider than 100 feet. Section 12 deals with the compensation and says clearly, in sub-section (3), that no purchase price can be demanded except compensation for improvements in the form of buildings or other structures or in the form of irrigation or any other way and also for any loss that may eventually be suffered as the result of a remaining extent. Those are exactly the same conditions under which the Railways expropriated land some years ago and this hon. Minister, together with his predecessor, assisted the farming community in that they changed the position. In other words, it was only in those cases where improvements had been effected or where the land had been cultivated that the farmers received compensation. When the Minister tells us to-day that the construction of national roads has only cost R200,000,000, I wonder how many morgen of land, grazing land, have already been sacrificed by the farmers without any compensation. I do not think it is right that position should be allowed to continue. I feel that where our national roads are used to get from one point to another, and where they often encroach on a farmer’s farm and cut it in half, he should be compensated for that portion that is taken away from him. Not only is the land expropriated, but once the national road has been constructed and the fencing erected on both sides, that farmer is held responsible for the maintenance of such fencing. The life of a road is not ten or 15 years, but the life of a fence is indeed ten to 15 years. My argument is this that it is reasonable to expect a fence to last from ten to 15 years without having to spend a great amount of capital to maintain it but once a fence has been in existence for 15 years, it means that the farmer has to spend a great deal to maintain it. We had the same position in the case of the Railways and the Minister introduced legislation that provided for compensation to be paid. Seeing that the tendency in all civilized countries in the world is to-day to make greater use of road transport and to place less emphasis on railways and seeing that it was clear from the Minister’s speech that they will concentrate more on the construction of national roads, greater sacrifices will be demanded from the farmers. I want to give the Minister an example of what happened in my constituency, in the Mooi River and Nottingham Road area. What is true of my constituency to-day will later become true of other constituencies and the first person who will find himself in difficulty in this connection is the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Maree) and then the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins). The position is that a railway line was constructed. It was then decided to double the line in the interests of South Africa and the farms of those people were once again cut up. The original railway line cut them and then they were cut again by the second line and they were cut for the third time by the national road which is usually not very far from the railway line. The policy to-day is to double the national road and to straighten it. Work will be commenced at Pietermaritzburg and will go through my constituency. There are farmers there who have to carry the doubled railway line, the original national road and now the new national road, they all traverse one farm, and no compensation was paid in respect of the two last-mentioned. Most of the farmers had to sacrifice land for the first railway line without compensation. They were compensated in respect of the second line.

But the first line was constructed by the United Party.

I am not talking politics now. I am talking in the interests of the farmers. I do not know who constructed the first railway line nor does it make any difference. May I remind the hon. member for Wakkerstroom that he introduced a motion in this House last Friday in which he alleged that the farms were already too small and when the first line was constructed the farms were not as yet too small, but to-day they are. It is of the utmost importance that compensation be paid to a farmer when his land is expropriated. I want to urge all sides of the House to see to it that is done. I am not talking politics but this matter is of great importance and I think that if the Minister takes the initiative as far as compensation for land, grazing land, expropriated for national road purposes is concerned, the Provincial Administrations will follow his example.

It has on previous occasions also been my privilege to get up after the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). We are living at a time when the lion and the lamb graze together and I take it, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to congratulate the hon. member for Drakensberg on the victory which the United Party gained yesterday in Houghton and Johannesburg (North).

This Bill meets the needs that have arisen as a result of the ever increasing speeds at which traffic passes along our roads. I want to point out to the hon. member for Drakensberg that one of the things that she pleads for is being remedied in this Bill. In Clause 2 provision is made that where pieces of land are cut off from a farm, the National Transport Commission will have the right to provide the Provincial Administration with funds to pay compensation. I join her in appealing to the Minister to see to it that this fragmentation does not go too far. I want to refer to the position that we find just this side of Paarl, not far from here. There you have the old tarred road and next to it the new national road from Cape Town to the north. This new road is only ten or twelve years old and another new road has already been planned, a road that has become essential as a result of the necessity to double the new road. But unfortunately the idea is for this road to follow another course and that will mean that those farmers who made sacrifices twelve years ago will now have to make further sacrifices. I want to express my appreciation for the fact that we have a Minister who is so sympathetically inclined, because I am sure —he has already invited me to discuss the problem with him—that having such a sympathetic Minister, we shall be able to solve this problem. But I do want to issue a word of warning that this fragmentation should not be allowed to go too far. I welcome Clause 2 because it brings about a big improvement. Because of the provisions of Clause 6, namely, that the National Transport Commission will in future close gates and accesses to the national road, it is no longer necessary to cut up farms unnecessarily. That, however, almost becomes an insurmountable problem if you want to construct a straight road. In that case it is inevitable that pieces of land are cut off farms and where it is not always possible to construct two or three subways on such a farm, the best solution will be if there could be an exchange between the owners on either side of the road. But then the compensation will have to be sufficiently liberal, and I realize that I am on dangerous ground here and that you, Sir, will possibly call me to order because the question of compensation is something for the Provincial Administration to deal with. However, I hope you will be as lenient with me and you were a few minutes ago with the hon. member for Drakensberg when she quoted from that Ordinance. I want to plead with the Minister to use his influence with the Provincial Administrations concerned to see to it that this compensation is such that exchanges can take place because it often happens that a small piece of farmer A’s land on that side of the road is cut off and another small piece of farmer B’s land on this side of the road but on farmer A’s side. If there could be an exchange the problem would be solved, but the survey fees and costs of transfer of these small pieces of land will be so high that people will not consider it worth while to do it and the result will be that both these pieces of land will be neglected, because A cannot cultivate the small piece of land that lies on B’s side, and vice versa. The result will be that both pieces of land will be neglected and lost to agricultural production. We cannot allow that to happen in this country where our agricultural land is so limited. I want to put forward a plea for the highly developed agricultural areas of our country where intensive farming methods are applied. It happens so often where there are small holdings or highly developed farms such as we have in the Boland, that small pieces of land are neglected. I have more than one example of that in my area. That is why I once again want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence with the Administrations so that the compensation will be sufficiently liberal to enable these exchanges to be effected, not only in the interests of those farmers, but in the interests of the agriculture of the Republic of South Africa. It is true, we are living at a time when there are surpluses, but these times will pass and the farming community will once again have to put everything in gear to provide food for an ever growing population, and for that reason we should not allow land to lie idle because of this fragmentation.

There is also another way of taking action. It often happens that such a double road takes up 200 feet, that it takes up such a large portion of that smallholding or farm, that the farmer cannot make a living on the remaining piece. He should then be placed in a position by way of reasonable compensation to purchase adjoining land. I know only too well that it costs so much to construct a road that the authorities concerned do not want to spend a great deal of additional money to expropriate the necessary land, but my submission is that in view of the fact that the travelling public get the benefit of these wonderful roads, that travelling public should be willing to incur the necessary expenditure to get those wonderful roads; and for that reason the farmer or the smallholder should receive adequate compensation so that he will not suffer any loss.

In conclusion I want to draw attention to Clause 10 where the National Transport Commission is now empowered to plan roads. In this respect I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that such planning takes place in close co-operation with organized agriculture. Because it often happens that this fragmentation to which I have referred can be avoided if there is a small deviation or a very minor turn. Unfortunately our experience” has been that the people who plan the roads are engineers with cold, hard logic. They do not have the love of the land that the farmer has; they do not have that sincere love for the land; their only object is to make that road as straight and as good as possible. With minor deviations that road can be constructed in such a way that we do not encroach too much on our agricultural land and for that reason I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that planning is done in the closest co-operation with organized agriculture and if that is done I predict that we shall have good roads, straight roads, with minor deviations in some cases, but roads that will not make too many inroads on agriculture.

As a new member of this House and as a migrant from the Provincial Council, the question of roads naturally interests me greatly and I welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction. I would like to refer to the background to the establishment of national roads. The national road system which was introduced in 1935 was a bold and ambitious scheme and it came as the result of considerable public pressure. There are many of us here who still recall the slogans that appeared in the Press throughout the country over the years. “We want good roads”. We had to overcome many obstacles, and we were not without our pessimists. First of all we saw the advent and the beginning of the gravel road. Even with its dust it was very much better than what we had experienced previously with our unmade roads. Then later we saw the black-topped road which to-day stretches to nearly every part of South Africa. I think our country can be very proud of the progress that has been made with the first part of this programme which has been completed. I would like to pay a tribute to the provinces for the part that they have played in this scheme in collaboration with the national roads authorities. I would like specially to mention the Cape Provincial Administration. In this Cape Province of ours, which is a very big province, we have succeeded over the years in building roads to the borders of Natal, to the Free State, to the Transvaal and we are now building a road to the borders of the Rhodesias, and are busy building a link to the South West Africa border as well. We have our Divisional Councils who have been busy building the link roads. At the present time finance does not stretch to black-topping them, but they will be black-topped in the very near future. The financing of our national road scheme has been a colossal task, but the road-user has played his part in finding the revenue. My only regret is that the total tax derived from the road-user has not been paid into the Road Fund. These national roads of ours have a considerable economic value. I think we are inclined to discount their real value, and I think it would be difficult to estimate the savings to the motorist, to the commercial user, in repairs and replacements. It has brought our small towns near to the cities, and these national roads are playing a very large part in attracting tourists to this country. We need the revenue of the tourist and these national roads, as I say, are playing their part.

There is one very important point—and I think the entire costs of national roads can be written off to this point—and that is the strategic value of our national roads system. I do not think that particular value can be underestimated. I think we can write off the entire cost of national roads to that value. We know from our experience in the last war, especially in the East African campaign, that it was a case of fighting on the very good roads that the Italians built.

The only black spot in the whole history of our national roads system is the road-safety factor. At the present moment the growing accident rate on these roads is a matter of concern. It requires intensive road-user education, the road-user will have to be taught how to use these roads with safety. The roads themselves will have to be designed to assist wherever possible to promote safety. This Bill, by making provision for limited access roads, will no doubt assist in that direction. Having completed their task of linking the towns and cities, under Clause 4 of the Bill, the Minister has now decided to come to the rescue of the cities by lending financial aid for the building of through roads and link roads. I feel sure that this will be welcomed by all, notwithstanding the strings attached to the offer, but I think it is an accepted fact that the man who pays the piper usually calls the tune, providing of course that it is the correct tune. We in the Cape have been very fortunate in that the Provincial Administration has given assistance in the past in meeting 80 per cent of the cost of the construction of our proclaimed roads within the urban area. One can see the results in and around Cape Town. You see the doubling of the highway over De Waal Drive, Rhodes Drive, to the Southern Suburbs. Further on at the Black River, you find from the Southern Suburbs a doubling and linking of the roads to the national road to the North, the building of these roads in and around the city would have been completely impossible if we did not receive this assistance. The local ratepayer is certainly not in the position to pay for these roads.

As I have said, this Bill deals with limited access roads. National roads, are inclined to become like railways and rivers. They are by nature limited in their access, and if they were not so, they would not be able to serve their very useful purpose. By limiting the access to these national roads of ours, we also improve the road-safety factor on these roads. But there would be no point in designing limited access roads if you do not at the same time design the service roads and bridges. When I talk about service roads, I think it is generally accepted that where a national road goes through a built-up area, that adjacent to this particular road there must be built a service road to carry the traffic of the area adjacent to it, to the junction point. Very near us here we have a national road that stretches through from Maitland to Bellville and beyond, and I can well remember that when I came into the Provincial Council, one of the first things that we had to deal with was an Ordinance making it possible for the Administrator to build limited access roads. That particular road was designed as a limited access road. In other words, the two-lane traffic way you see at the moment was meant for the main traffic, and adjacent to the two-lanes there were two service roads. Apart from the fact that the two bridges have been built near Bellville and one near Maitland, nothing further has been done. You have two very big developing residential areas building up alongside this road, and they have direct access on to this national road of ours, which to my mind is all wrong. I think when we are building our national roads we must build service roads and bridges. I just quote this as an example. The same thing happens in the platteland, as my hon. friend, the member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) (who was a colleague of mine in the Provincial Council), will know. One can imagine going through a vineyard area outside the Cape where quite often you see roads leading directly onto the national road. This Bill makes provision for the Administrator to have the power to close-off gates. But, sir, it is not good enough to close-off gates. Provision must be made for the adjacent owner to get to the junction point of the national road. He cannot be expected to go around the mountain to get onto the national road. That is why service roads are so imperative. We are inclined to forget about it, but they must be built. When one gets up to the Northern Cape which is cattle country, you find that whereas quite a lot of the cattle to-day are moved by truck, there are farmers who move their cattle by road. They drive them along the national road and the cattle become a natural hazard to the road-user. There service roads are required very urgently and are a “must”.

As far as our through-ways through the towns and cities are concerned, they naturally have to be of a limited access nature as well. A through-road in the city invariably goes through built-up areas, through congested areas, through industrial areas, and as a result they must of necessity cut off quite a number of cross-roads, and it does create hardship. An owner of a property who has built up a very lucrative business or is struggling to build up a lucrative business, finds a road driven through in front of his property, and it practically puts him out of business. There again something must be done in the planning to help those people. There must be some way of relieving their position, either by building a service road through to their business or bridging the road. Overseas it is the practice, wherever they can, to bridge these roads. We have a road here which is going to be pushed through my Constituency; it is known as Boulevard East, and this particular road will leave Rhodes Drive and cut diagonally across a highly congested area and will enter Cape Town at the foreshore. Negotiations have been going on for years and now at last that road is to be built very shortly. But the effect of this particular road is this. The road will be at groundlevel, although it will be bridged a certain length of its way and quite a number of cross-roads will be cut off. It is going to affect this particular area. As I have said, these roads become like railway lines and rivers; they do have this dividing effect, and provision should have been made for this road to be bridged the whole way. Sir, I only quote this as an example because in all our large cities to-day, when this Bill becomes law. you will find that greater impetus will be given to building our ring-roads and through-ways, and it will take foresight and planning to alleviate any hardship that is going to be felt by the adjacent owners. It happens not only in the towns but in the platteland as well. It is not good enough just to draw a line across a map and to say, “this is where we are going to put the road.” I think we will have to give very much more forethought to that.

Clause 9 of this Bill makes provision, in the interests of road-safety, to control trading on these national roads. That will be welcomed by everybody. But at the same time I think you have to take into account the fact that the road-user does require refreshments at times, and provision should be made at points along the road for service roads where the road-user can leave the national road and refresh himself and take a few gallons of petrol.

Finally I should like to make just one appeal to the Minister. We have these beautiful roads in this country of ours stretching from one end to the other, and I should like to hear from the Minister whether he can see his way clear to relax the provisions of the Road Transportation Act. That is probably outside the scope of this Bill, but I would like to leave that thought with him.

It is my pleasant duty to congratulate the previous speaker, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) on his maiden speech. It seems to me that he chose his subject well, and that he also has particular knowledge of roads. His reference to the economic value of good roads to the industrial and commercial development of our country, and also their strategic value in time of war, is fully endorsed by me. The hon. member is the successor of the well-known and almost notorious Mr. Harry Lawrence, who sat in this House for 32 years, and who played a particular role in the activities of this House during the past three decades. I do not know whether this hon. new member will have the stamina also to retain his seat in this House for 32 years. If so, I just want to advise him not to follow the bad example of his predecessor, and, in this regard, I wish to refer to the old adage which says that it is no use a man doing good for 99 years and then back-sliding in his hundredth year. He should not follow the bad example set by his predecessor and do in the last year of his service what the latter did to his party. At all events, I congratulate him on his speech and hope that he will be a useful member to his party and also to this House in future.

To come to the subject under discussion, it is surely a fact that everybody who is interested in effective road development in South Africa can welcome this Bill with acclamation, because it is a further step towards the improvement and better control of our roads. In South Africa we are very proud of our roads. We have splendid national and provincial roads, roads which are good for vehicles and pleasing to the eye. They are good for traffic because they are well built and they are pleasing to the eye because they have been well finished off, because special care has been devoted to rounding off the sides of the roads, with special attention to the prevention of erosion, etc. The careful rounding off of approaches to bridges, railings, etc., all contribute towards creating a good impression on the travelling public, apart from the fact that our roads mostly also wind through beautiful natural scenes.

Good roads are like good blood vessels in the human body. When the blood vessels become old and calcified it is very dangerous. It endangers life. Any sudden obstruction, particularly of the important coronary and other main vessels of the body can cause sudden death. The same applies to a road, and particularly to the important national, provincial or proclaimed roads which carry the traffic of our country from one corner to another. The ageing and crumbling of our road service must constantly receive attention, otherwise it can develop into a road disease, a road disease of wear and tear and accidents which may prove fatal. Still worse is the dangerous position which arises when, as the result of road obstacles, a sudden obstruction occurs which can bring sudden death to the traveller. Medical men call this disease, caused by a sudden obstruction of the veins, thrombosis; the ordinary man calls it a blood clot which obstructs the circulation and causes sudden death. The vehicle which suddenly stops in a road in front of another one and which suddenly turns across the road into an unexpected side road right in the path of a fast-moving vehicle, or a vehicle which overturns on a bad road, one which should have been straightened, or a stray animal which has entered a gate which should have been closed or which should have crossed a bridge or gone through a subway, are the causes of those road obstructions, these sudden obstructions, those blood clots or this road thrombosis which can affect the traveller just as suddenly as this dread disease to-day strikes so many people. It appears that medical men up to this moment are still sitting with their hands in their hair trying to ascertain the causes of or how to prevent the formation of this dangerous blood clot; and if we think of the numerous road accidents with fatal results, we welcome this Bill all the more. We also welcome it because it is a further attempt to reduce these danger points. When we thank Minister Schoeman, we want to call him Dr. Schoeman, who, with his fellow road specialists, has made another attempt to ascertain what the causes are of these many obstructions which cause so many fatal accidents. Like a good doctor, he has again given a prescription for the prevention of road thrombosis. What also catches one’s eye on reading this Bill is the particularly realistic and sympathetic approach by the responsible Minister and his administration towards the owners of properties on whose land roads are built. The cautious approach, the recognition of the rights of the owner, the compensation which is offered and paid, are clearly defined, and show that claims will not be made recklessly or ground expropriated without compensation or without thoroughly taking into consideration the interests of the farmer concerned. The control of access and egress for greater safety, the building of bridges, subways and roads on which cattle can be herded from camp to camp have been placed on a sound basis in this Bill.

Then we come to the fairly contentious clause, Clause 9, to which reference has already been made by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) and others. We realize that this is also intended to prevent and to reduce the incidence of that fatal, sudden road thrombosis. The car which turns in on to the wrong side of the road right in front of one in order to stop at a fruit wagon or fruit stall, the arm-waving Bantu or the child who runs right into the middle of the road in order to offer fruit for sale or to attract the attention of the traveller, are eliminated by this clause. But still I have doubts as to the practical application of this clause. As hon. members know, it has become tradition over a period of many years to hawk along our public roads. Hon. members will remember the timber wagons, the fruit and vegetable wagons, the ox and mule wagons which travelled over the dusty roads of the NorthWestern Transvaal during the depression, by means of which many farmers sold their products and firewood on the diggings, in the towns and along the roads. That gave them an income on which they lived in those days, and therefore it was of vital importance to them. These activities in later years developed into what we have to-day in the form of the fruit-stall, the lorry or the ox-wagon parked along the roads and loaded with fruit and which encroach into the roadway and sometimes stand there day and night in order to sell fruit. That was carried to unnecessary lengths. On the other hand it renders a service on both sides. It offers a market for the produce of the farmers, and it is also convenient to the traveller who can obtain fresh fruit in that way. It has been developed to such a fine point to-day that in districts like Rustenburg and others there are farmers who sell practically their whole naartjie crop in this way along the roads until right into the Free State. Read literally, Clause 9 now totally prohibits this traditional way of trading by the farmer. And then we must remember that the farmer has already been prohibited from hawking in the urban areas by various ordinances and regulations. Therefore he complains. rightly, that his products have to pass through tremendous bottle-necks before reaching the consumers. In so far as it prohibits trading within the proclaimed area of a public road. I cannot find fault with it. But there is another aspect; the question is whether many of these farmers will not still be able to offer their fruit and vegetables for sale across the fence along the road, through their fruit stalls, lorries or wagons standing on the other side of the road boundary but on their own property. The question is what the position will be then. Will the traveller first stop and turn out to the border of the road, and will he still be allowed to buy fruit through the wire or across the fence or even across an imaginary fenceless border-line? Will that be a contravention of the law? Technically, it seems to me that the transaction taking place between the buyer who is a traveller on the road surface and the seller, the farmer who stands on the other side of the fence, is in conflict with the Bill. What is the position in this regard? We must get more information from the Minister on that point, because I believe that there will still be farmers who in this way will try to direct stalls on their own property, and that even traders may obtain the right to carry on business in this way on the farmer’s land or on somebody else’s property. The question also arises: In the case of people who do not know the law well, e.g. where Natives sell their own products, the products of their own home industries like clay pots and baskets—they usually travel by ox-wagon and stop along the road—will they in terms of the letter of the law have to turn out until they are outside the road area and will they have to pace off the distance where there is no fence to indicate the border of the road? This is only a small example, but it may cause trouble in practice. If we have clarity about it, much of the difficulty will be eliminated. The question is whether in terms of this Bill the trading across the fence will also be totally prohibited or not.

I just wanted to bring these few aspects of Clause 9 to the notice of the Minister. If these few doubts are cleared up it will facilitate the whole-hearted acceptance of the Bill as a whole and of Clause 9 in particular also outside the House.

This piece of legislation has come none too soon, but in speaking on this Bill I think it is appropriate to acknowledge our indebtedness to the Cape Divisional Council system which has now operated for over 100 years. These divisional councils, Mr. Speaker, have been the pioneers in road development in this country and they still lead in the most economic construction of roads, and they set an example to check extravagance in general which we often see and which is often very evident in respect of road work. We have, and I must bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister, great expenditure on deviations within a couple of years after the construction of a national road, not minor deviations, but deviations running over miles, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will pay due regard to the correct allocation of national roads and the checking of extravagance which has been so often evident where these roads shortly after their construction, long before they had in any way deteriorated, are deviated.

Mr. Speaker, on account of the financial contributions of property-owners in the Cape, I claim that divisional councils have been responsible for bringing about the position that in the Cape Province there is a greater length of constructed roads than in the other three provinces put together. Sir, these divisional councils have been run generally, I should say in 90 per cent of the cases, by farmer representatives, and farmer representatives have paid due regard to the interests of farmers in general as regards the allocation of roads over farms. I want to stress this point: We in this country regard ownership of land as a sacred right, and I would ask the hon. the Minister, as others have done, to pay due regard in Clause 2 (Section 4bis) where “An Administrator shall at the request of the Board acquire by treaty or, failing that, by appropriation. any remaining extent of any piece of land which has been appropriated for the purposes of a declared road.” I think that no remaining extent of land which has been appropriated should be purchased without the consent of the owner. In fact I would prefer the provision to read that it is the owner who must apply for the remaining extent to be purchased by the Board. I would like the hon. the Minister to look into that clause in particular and when it comes to the Committee Stage of the Bill to see that it is suitably amended.

Then in Clause 6, as many hon. members have stressed in this debate, the words “in the discretion of the Board” are very far-reaching. It says “at the discretion of the Board it shall determine whether the occupier of land shall have access to the said portions of land by means of such bridges or subways”. That will be at the Board’s discretion. As an hon. member said here last night, our roads are particularly wide and these subways will have to be of large dimensions, and if one has to move large numbers of stock across the road, it is not easy to drive them through a subway. I grant that in time they will learn, but I know of many farms where one subway would never adequately permit the proper carrying on of farming operations. One cannot move stock for miles to cross a national road, and I do hope that when the Board exercises this power, it will do so with the greatest circumspection and consideration of the needs of the farmers concerned. I appeal to the hon. the Minister in this particular clause to provide for an appeal by the land-owner in question. The land-owner should have the right of appeal, but this clause obliterates any right of appeal whatsoever, and I think that is quite contrary to our general principles of administration and government in this country. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to pay due regard to these two points.

The aim of this legislation is to make our roads safer. The toll of lives taken on our roads every year is appalling. It is also a curious fact that while our daily papers make such a fuss about a few people who are caught by sharks at our beaches, little attention is paid to great number of victims claimed by road traffic every day. Many lives, valuable lives, are lost on our roads every day, and we realize therefore that this legislation, which aims at making our roads safer in the future, is one of the most important legislative measure which can be submitted to us in this House. The aim of this measure is to reserve sufficient space for future development. It is essential to plan for future expansion and for the tremendous increase of traffic on our roads. If our predecessors had adopted such a far-sighted policy, we would have been able to reap the fruits of it to-day, and it would not have been necessary to cut up expensive, valuable land. In doing so to-day, we realize that if we do not act now, the position will become more and more difficult and that the time will come when it will be very difficult to get the necessary land to make provision for it. This proposed legislation, which will create the opportunity for us to reserve land for by-pass roads and crossings, for which large tracts of land are sometimes required, particularly very near to our cities, is therefore most necessary. When one thinks what it costs to construct a throughway in a city like Johannesburg, one realizes the importance of this measure. But I nevertheless want to point out that these by-pass roads are now being constructed around our cities and that they sometimes cause a good deal of inconvenience. I want to make it clear that I believe that it is most essential that this land should be reserved, but it is not essential to construct these roads immediately. Some of our towns have such wide streets that they can still cope with that traffic quite easily. If that traffic can still pass through such a small town for another few years, it will be to the great advantage of the residents of that town. It is imperative that the by-pass road should be reserved and proclaimed, but where we have the opportunity to make use of the existing roads through such a town for some time to come, it is a great convenience to the residents of that town to do so. It is claimed that the removal of traffic from the streets will promote road safety, but I contend, as far as that aspect is concerned, that it can also be said that anybody who travels long distances without a break or without an opportunity to have a cup of tea in such a town to refresh himself, overtaxes himself to such an extent by the long distances that he has to drive that it involves an equally great danger. I think fewer accidents take place in these small towns, where the roads can still carry the present traffic, than on the long stretches on which people become overtired and then find themselves involved in an accident. I want to make it clear therefore that while we welcome this measure, we want to ask the hon. the Minister to come to our assistance and to see that these towns are not by-passed unnecessarily until it becomes absolutely essential to do so.

I also want to emphasize another aspect and that is that these roads are sometimes planned by people who shrink from the task of building the road on the old foundations because of the fact that traffic is very troublesome when the construction of such a road is in progress. They then construct a new road close to the existing road. Here I want to associate myself with previous speakers who pleaded that the existing route should be followed as far as possible. Great inconvenience is caused by constructing a new road close to an existing one. Not only is the soil of the old road destroyed, but the entire structure has to be dug up and it is practically valueless to the owner. But the travelling public who pass and see that a second hard-surface road is being constructed close to another one, while they themselves are pining to get a hard-surface road in some remote area, cannot help feeling that there is a certain amount of extravagance. Very reliable experts have told me that it is in fact possible to build a road more cheaply on the old foundations, if the old route is followed, but that there is just the inconvenience that the traffic on that road makes it difficult to build the road. I want to ask the Minister therefore to keep this in mind when it comes to planning the route of roads. We often find that a very slight bend, which would not have caused any inconvenience, is removed and that a straight route, which leads to great inconvenience, is introduced. I want to express my gratitude for the provision in terms of which it will now be possible to pay compensation for the small piece of land which now becomes useless to the man concerned. But I also want to support the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) who mentioned the fact that land can be consolidated with the land of his neighbour on the other side, and vice versa. But great problems are involved. Permission has to be obtained in respect of the small piece of land which is cut off; it has to be consolidated with the other land and the surveyor’s fees and other costs are high. We therefore ask that this be kept in mind.

I want to conclude by expressing my gratitude that we are now timeously making provision for future expansion.

Even at the risk of being regarded as a new recruit to the “we-thank-the-Minister” chorus in this House, I want to say at the outset that I, too, appreciate the introduction by the Minister of this Bill. I am happy to say that having regard to certain negotiations, of which the Minister is very well aware, he has yesterday delivered the goods, and on time—and for that many people in South Africa and particularly in the city in which my constituency lies—Johannesburg— will be grateful to the Minister. However, I think that he will, perhaps, prefer a more critical examination of this Bill than he has had this afternoon from some members on the other side of the House, because we have often been told that the Government welcomes criticism, provided it is constructive. And I make bold to say that any criticism I may make will be rather in the nature of a suggestion here and there which will improve the working of the Bill or bring nearer the attainment of the object for which this Bill has been framed, and will therefore, I hope, be regarded by the Minister, and all concerned, as constructive, and not destructive.

I think the hon. the Minister will agree that there are several persons, committees and even corporate bodies to whom credit should be given for the work that has been done in advancing the project—of which I will only deal with one example—the project of providing this country with the best possible means of road transportation by providing the best possible road system. And among those to whom great credit is due, I think we should in the first place mention the Borckenhagen Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Carl Borckenhagen, whom many of us know personally—a committee appointed by the Government, which has done a tremendous amount of work in analysing the financial aspects of this very matter we are considering to-day, and a committee which, I think, has produced what might be considered as a monumental report on the subject, and Johannesburg, certainly, having regard to its long and even long-drawn-out relations with the Borckenhagen Committee, recognizes the merits of the chairman of the committee as well as the report the committee has produced.

There is, of course, widespread recognition, of which this Bill is evidence, of the need to plan in South Africa for future road expansion. First of all, here is an issue of The Open Road, Die Oop Pad which is the official journal of the South African Road Federation, which has had a great deal to do with the planning of the roads of South Africa, and in the current issue, the January issue, there is the following statement which I think is very relevant—

In other words, there is already common cause about the fact that the need is there and that the planning has been undertaken to meet that need. There is further reference, Sir, to the need, in a reference not only of the position in South Africa, but in terms of the whole Continent with which we are in fact closely linked and will I think be more closely concerned in the future. The statement in regard to this need and the fact that there is so much room still left for growth, reads—

And I say, as an aside, that applies more particularly to the Republic of South Africa. “The three main tests of traffic growth, vehicles licensed, motor fuel and oil consumption and traffic census figures, all confirmed a very big increase in road usage in recent years.” And if I may refer to one other matter which was raised here and with which I want to deal in greater detail, I would say that the problem is naturally of special interest to South Africa which has over 1,000,000 of the 2,500,000 vehicles on this Continent, and certainly of even greater interest in this context of South Africa, to the largest city in South Africa, Johannesburg. I should at this stage indicate to the House that there the planning of expressways, throughways, call them what you will, has been in hand for many years, and this is borne out again in this particular publication which states, in regard to Johannesburg, that the first part of the expressway programme will be completed by 1966, that is, four years hence. I refer to this because I think it is time that hon. members should realize that this is much more than an academic matter, a theoretical position which is being dealt with by a Bill, the effect of which may be felt at some future time. In fact, it deals with something which has already been commenced, in respect of at least one aspect of the entire problem. The article then continues—

That gives in a very brief outline the position that has already been reached in the City of Johannesburg. In fact in this city the ratepayers are aware that for some years they have actually been in the throes of a R64,000,000 road improvement scheme, and therefore I believe it is fair to say that the impulse for this legislation, at least the major impulse, comes from the planning undertaken in the City of Johannesburg, where, Sir (and I want to make a slight correction to what the hon. member for Turffontein said yesterday), this planning was embarked upon as long ago as 1946, when the City Council of Johannesburg undertook to plan its post-war development scheme for all the aspects of urban life in a large city, and this Johannesburg Traffic Plan to which I have referred is a part of that post-war planning scheme, and in turn the Traffic Plan includes the planning of the two expressways to which reference was made by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) yesterday. It is this planning which has, through the years, resulted in the necessity for the Bill which is before the House to-day. This brochure, which I certainly do not intend to read to the House, contains in a very condensed form, the scheme for Johannesburg’s traffic development and/or its expressways. May I say at the outset, Sir, that I am not referring to this brochure because I, as Mayor of Johannesburg in 1960, had some responsibility in bringing it out, and because I had some responsibility in previous years for the planning of this expressway system. But I do bring it to the notice of hon. members because this is a blueprint for a throughway or expressway or autobahn-system for South Africa. In considering any sort of progress in our country, we have in many cases to go outside the borders of South Africa in order to find out what a particular matter is all about. But I make bold to say, Mr. Speaker, that at least in so far as a throughway is concerned, we already have in substance that experience and that know-how—partly acquired from the experience gained overseas but developed in South Africa for South African use—in respect of this particular scheme. This brochure is very amply illustrated with every kind of graph and diagram and with visual illustrations of how an expressway from one end to the other of the city, from north to south, east to west and vice versa, will alleviate traffic congestion and will make access easy, or easier and will in fact greatly benefit not only the city but the country in which it flourishes. Incidentally, Sir, I would also say that the brochure is a credit to the South African printing industry. I am quite sure that any member of this House who is interested will be able readily to obtain a copy either in English or in Afrikaans from the Town Clerk of Johannesburg. I make this offer, Sir, without any authority, but I believe it can be obtained.

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am going to do so, Sir. I merely indicated that the Bill dealt with throughways, unless I have misread the entire Bill. I do not think it is commonly known in this House that this matter is not one purely of theory and of planning in advance, but that there is in fact a portion of an expressway system already in existence in this country. I submit, Sir, that can reasonably be held to be relevant to the Bill.

We realize that all the larger cities in South Africa, if they do not already face the same problem, will in the very near future face the problem which beset Johannesburg in embarking upon its planning of an expressway system. There are over 180,000 vehicles registered in Johannesburg to-day and the number is still increasing, as is commonly known. The main consideration for Johannesburg—and for that matter for any local authority now or in the future—in regard to planning an expressway or a throughway is that of finance. As I have said before, the knowledge and the experience is available but the question of money crops up immediately—and that is one of the problems which this Bill is obviously designed to solve. I think that perhaps with some adaptation the Bill may answer that very important question: How and by whom should the money for a throughway be provided? Here, Sir, I want to draw attention again to the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between the Central Government and the Provinces and the Local Authorities. The third interim report of the Borckenhagen Committee deals with the subject of the financing of roadworks. The hon. Minister said yesterday that whereas he had taken note of the report of that committee of inquiry, he was not necessarily going to accept their recommendations. The fact appears to be that to some extent at any rate, the hon. Minister has accepted some of the recommendations of that Committee of Inquiry. Because one of the things recommended in this report is briefly that—

This, I submit, is what the City of Johannesburg has already done. The relevant recommendation appears in paragraph 178 which reads—

Hon members on the other side of the House have dealt with this aspect of the matter in regard to its impact on the farming community. But, quite clearly, from the financial point of view, that is not of any consequence whatsoever in comparison with its impact on an urban local authority when it has to acquire expensive urban land in order to provide a freeway. It is not necessary for me to develop that point. Furthermore, all these recommendations which I am sure the hon. Minister has studied, are fully relevant to the subject under consideration to-day. There is a schedule in paragraph 180 which sets out the total capital expenditure of the cities of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban and Johannesburg. It shows, opposite each one of these local authorities, the annual interest and redemption, and then shows as a percentage of the 1959-60 total net income. The report goes on to say in paragraph 181—

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister to what extent—because he apparently has certain reservations on the report of this Committee—he has been impressed with that particular recommendation.

We are not discussing the Borckenhagen Committee now; we are discussing the Bill.

Of course we are discussing this Bill, but in Clause 5 …

It makes provision that I can subsidize municipalities. That is all that Clause 5 does.

That is correct. But my question to the Minister is, to what extent does he take advantage of that right that he has to make provision? Because I maintained at the outset that this was no longer a theoretical matter, that there was a particular case already in existence …

Reported on by a Government Commission.

I would like to know why the hon Minister who up to now has been extremely patient with everybody else in this House, becomes impatient when I refer to the Borckenhagen Committee which was appointed by the Government.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, subject to your ruling, I quote this committee which goes on to say in paragraph 195—

Then it goes on to say in sub-paragraph (ii)—

The very argument may hinge around the difference between the definition by the hon. Minister of “substantial” and my definition as a ratepayer of Johannesburg. We find the following statement in paragraph 199—

I am sorry, Sir, if I must remind the hon. Minister of such recommendations, but I believe it is my duty to do so.

We can all read.

I can only hope that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) has read this report. The report goes on to say in paragraph 201—

Sir, I want to point out that I am trying to give both sides of the picture. It says very clearly that “urban communities (except in the cases of small villages) should contribute to their cost …” I do not want the hon. Minister to think, therefore, that I am building up to the argument that the Government should bear the full cost of a freeway or a throughway. That is not the point. Paragraph 203 says—

I have noted here, Sir, at least six other references to the financing of throughways made in the third interim report of this Committee, which, I think, emphasize the point that I have tried to make. But for all sorts of reasons, including the possibility that this may become irksome, I am not going to pursue this aspect further.

What I want to say, however, Sir, is this that in the case of the throughways planned and already in hand in the case of one local authority—namely Johannesburg—we must of necessity regard this example as the prototype, or the “guinea-pig” if you wish. Therefore I should like to make, with great deference, some proposals to the hon. the Minister in regard to an approach to the local authorities concerned, now or in future, with the building and the financing of throughways and expressways. I am convinced that other local authorities will subsequently benefit very considerably from our own deliberations here, and from the proposals which I wish to place before the Minister. In the first place, I believe that although the National Transport Commission seems to be reluctant to agree with the point of view that the payments of the subsidy to a local authority—in this case Johannesburg—should be made over a period of ten years—the Commission prefers a period of twelve years—it is necessary to make an appeal to the Minister that, on the evidence contained in this Borckenhagen report, at any rate, he should agree to the proposal that the payments should be spread over ten years. The main reason is this: The impact of the cost of the throughway is greater in the first four years than it is in the succeeding six years. In other words, you have to find more money during the first four years of your ten year scheme than you have to find in the subsequent six years.

Another point which is very important and relevant to this proposal is that practically 25 per cent of the total cost of a throughway is in respect of land that has to be acquired. That land, as you know Sir, cannot be acquired piece-meal as the throughway progresses mile by mile. It has to be acquired well in advance, as I and other hon. members have already pointed out, in the interests not only of the local authority concerned, but in the national interest. Therefore, because some 70 per cent of the total expenditure on a ten year plan— and we have demonstrated this in regard to one city at any rate—has to be found within the first four years, I should like to ask the Minister to give consideration not only to the question of spreading the subsidy over ten instead of twelve years, but to the question of paying out the subsidy pro rata or in proportion to the work completed, including the cost of the expropriation of land, instead of in equal annual or monthly instalments as is presently proposed. This will obviate the situation which will otherwise arise—it has already arisen in this one case—where the loans plus the interest which have to be raised by the local authority to finance its part of the cost of the scheme, become a burden on the ratepayers, because those loan charges cannot be charged to the scheme as such. In the interests of the local authority, I would urge the hon. the Minister to give regard to this particular need. If the Minister were to agree to this proposal and if payment of this subsidy were to be made according to the rate of expenditure on the scheme, that is on the construction of the throughways, I think the Minister can reasonably be asked to vary the formula by giving the particular local authority permission to use this subsidy, say during the first three years to acquire the necessary land and not to restrict it, as. appears to be the intention at the present time, to using its subsidy purely on construction purposes.

I should also like to say that in the case of the City of Johannesburg or in the case of any other local authority, it might be very necessary, let alone advisable, for the Government at an early stage, perhaps at this stage, to lay down a policy which would serve to encourage the local authorities which have vital interest in this matter, to embark on the planning of those throughways which they need. The Borckenhagen Committee has given at least three other instances of local authorities that have that in mind, local authorities that have plans or intentions, but that are hampered by the lack of finance.

In reply to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) who said yesterday, before the adjournment, that there had been certain comments from this side of the House, but no firm proposals. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider a basis of subsidy, Rand-for-Rand, as between the higher authority, that is the governmental authority, and the local authority, in regard to the entire cost of the freeway. There are such systems in operation. It is conditional in certain instances that they should be based on the £ for £ basis, or the R for R basis as it is to-day. In this way the Government, which represents the national interest, and the local authority, which represents only a section of that national interest, will indeed become partners in a scheme that can only lead to the fruition of all the plans to give South Africa a full-scale, comprehensive and serviceable road system at the minimum cost. With that, I would urge once again upon the hon. the Minister that whereas I, as a member of this House and as the representative of my constituents in Johannesburg, am grateful for this Bill, I do believe that it would be improved if he would adopt some of the suggestions that have been made by members on this side of the House, including my suggestions.

I am glad that this Bill is receiving the support of both sides of the House. It certainly makes the task of the administering authority much easier when it knows that when it applies the provisions of an Act which sometimes affects certain individuals adversely it has the general support of the public.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) queried the correctness of the term “appropriation’; he suggested that it should be replaced by “expropriatory”. I too queried that matter with my Department. The term “appropriation” has appeared in the principal Act since 1940 and the terminology has to be uniform. That is why the term “appropriation” is used in the amending Bill is well. I am advised by my legal advisers that it serves the same purpose, that “appropriation” and “expropriation” mean exactly the same. I am not prepared to argue on that point.

In some cases it may mean “misappropriation”.

Possibly if the United Party administered the Act it would.

In regard to Clause 2 the hon. member wanted more information. He also expressed his concern about the powers conferred upon the National Transport Commission to appropriate. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) also dealt with this matter and suggested that expropriation should only take place with the owner’s consent. That of course, Mr. Speaker, is not feasible. Expropriation only takes place in cases where the owner does not consent. Otherwise there would be no purpose in making provision for expropriation if at the same time you stipulated that the owner must consent to that expropriation. It nullifies the whole process. If he has to consent expropriation will not be necessary. Then there is provision that the land can be acquired by treaty or otherwise.

Don’t you appropriate something with the consent of Parliament. Perhaps you could appropriate instead of expropriate with the consent of the owner.

The only thing we can do is to leave expropriation or appropriation, if they have the same meaning, right out of the provision. But then certain difficulties will arise. It happens that as a result of expropriation of land for road purposes, small pieces of land are cut off. Very often those small pieces of land are of very little value to the owners and the National Transport Commission must provide egress from or ingress to those pieces of land. That may have to be done by way of building a bridge or constructing a subway. The value of that land may be very much less than the cost of building the bridge or constructing the subway. The owner, on the other hand, might place an exorbitant value on that land. He might demand a price that is out of all proportion to its real value. In that case the National Transport Commission should have the right to expropriate to prevent exploitation of the Commission by a landowner who places an exorbitant value on his land, a piece of land that is really useless to him. Consequently if we do not have a provision for expropriation it will simply mean that the Board will be unable to purchase that land at the price asked for by the owner and that a bridge or a subway will have to be constructed at a very high cost. That is why it is necessary to have this provision namely that the National Transport Commission can expropriate. I can also assure hon. members that the Commission will not act unreasonably. Obviously if the National Transport Commission expropriates valuable farm land, there will be an immediate outcry and as always happens they will probably approach the Minister and make complaints to him and the Minister will have to take action. I do not think there will be any abuse of this power which we are giving to the National Transport Commission to expropriate under certain circumstances.

In regard to Clause 5 the hon. member dealt with throughways, but as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) also dealt with this matter, I will deal with it when replying to him. In regard to Clause 6 the hon. member rightly stated that the National Transport Commission will be the sole judge as to the number of bridges over or subways under a road to be constructed on a declared road or as to whether the number of bridges, subways and gates to provide access is adequate. The principal Act stipulates that reasonable access must be provided, but the Act does not say who must decide what “reasonable access” is. As a result of that numerous difficulties have arisen in the past. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that there is no recourse to the courts as this provision is framed at present and that no appeal is provided for. But this is nothing unusual. We have a number of Acts where the decision of one or other body or one or other individual is final. I have in mind the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There in it is provided that the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission shall be final and there is no recourse to the courts from that decision. Even the Railways Service Act provides that in regard to appeals the decision of the Railway Board is final and that there shall be no recourse to the courts and there is no further appeal. But the difficulty in regard to providing for appeal especially to the Minister is that the Minister is always subjected to political pressure. And apart from that, if the Minister has to deal with dozens and possibly hundreds of appeals in regard to the provision of accesses or ingress or egress to and from properties adjoining a national road, another Minister would probably have to be appointed to deal with the ordinary administrative work of the Department. But I say, Sir, that if the National Transport Commission acts unreasonably complaints will immediately be made and the Minister will in any case be approached and I can give hon. members the assurance that if I find that these powers are not justified, if the National Transport Commission does act unreasonably, I am quite prepared to come back to this House and to amend the Act to provide at least for an appeal.

In regard to Clause 7 the hon. member suggested that if I found that they did not need these powers I should come back to this House and amend the Act. I can assure him that if undue hardship is caused and it is found necessary I shall certainly do so. But all members agree that it is absolutely essential that there should be effective control. There has been no effective control in the past. The very least that we can do is to give these new provisions a trial. As hon. members know there is a provision in this particular clause for compensation to be paid in certain cases.

*The hon. member for Kempton Park also dealt with the provisions of Clause 2, but I have already dealt with that in my reply to the hon. member for Wynberg. As regards Clause 5 the hon. member felt that there were not sufficient sanctions in the event of an urban authority not complying with the conditions laid down by the National Transportation Commission. I feel, however, that the sanctions already provided for, namely that if the conditions laid down by the Transportation Commission are not complied with, not only the subsidy, the money still to be paid, may be withheld, but that the money which has already been paid to the local authority may also be recovered, are sufficient. The National Transportation Commission is mainly concerned with the planning of that particular throughway through the city, of which it naturally has to approve. The most important matters are the accesses to that throughway. As far as the other matters are concerned, they are matters for the local authority. But provided the throughway is constructed in accordance with the standards laid down for a throughway, the National Transportation Commission will naturally give the necessary financial assistance to the local authority.

As regards Clauses 6 and 7 the hon. member asked that accesses, and even accesses which are refused by the Transportation Commission and which have been closed, should also be registered on the title deeds. I have no objection to that in principle, but I cannot do such a thing without consulting my colleague, for it would be improper on the part of any Minister to place a heavy burden of work on the officials of another Minister. The hon. member must bear in mind that there are literally thousands of owners whose land adjoins the national road and that there are therefore thousands and thousands of entrances to those properties from the national road which would have to be registered. This would naturally place a very great burden on the Registrar of Deeds. I doubt whether he or his Minister would agree to having this burden placed on him, because we have already had to struggle a good deal to get him to agree that the restrictive conditions contained in the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act may be registered. Then there is also the question of costs. Every owner would of course have to bear the cost of such registration and I personally am convinced that owners in general would raise considerable objection to it.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) dealt with Clause 5 and quoted the recommendations of the Borckenhagen Committee’s report in support of his arguments. We are not discussing the policy of the National Transport Commission now; we are discussing this amending Bill, and Clause 5 merely provides that the National Transport Commission can financially assist local authorities without the necessity of having a throughway proclaimed as a declared road. In regard to the general policy of the National Transport Commission, this is not the appropriate time to discuss it. The hon. member can discuss it under my Vote.

I did not do that.

No, but the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) did. He was quite off the road throughout his speech. The hon. member for Turffontein asked me to make a statement of policy in regard to the financial assistance that the National Transport Commission will give to local authorities for the construction of freeways. All I want to say in this regard is that financial assistance will be given and it has already been decided to give some financial assistance to local authorities for the construction of freeways, but I cannot agree to definite percentages being embodied in a Bill such as this. The reason for that is that the funds are limited and the available funds must be spread over a large number of projects. Those funds must be utilized for the building of national roads, special roads, for the redemption and interest on loans, administrative expenses, contributions to the National Parks Board and the Level Crossings Committee. Consequently the Transport Commission is compelled to cut its coat according to its cloth and it cannot give substantial financial assistance to urban authorities at the expense of building national roads or special roads. I want to give the hon. member some indication of what it would cost if the Transport Commission had to bear the whole of the cost of the construction of freeways. There are about 200 towns concerned along the national roads and the average length of the route through these towns that will come under consideration for the building of freeways is three miles per town. That means that approximately 600 miles of throughways will have to be constructed. at an estimated cost of Rl,200,000,000, which of course is a financial burden the Road Fund cannot carry. The Transport Commission has already decided to contribute an amount of R40,000,000 over the next ten years to the cost of construction of freeways through certain urban areas. That is all I can say in that regard.

*The hon member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) has talked about Clause 9 in connection with trading on proclaimed roads. I have great sympathy for those people who are affected by it, but the hon. member himself has mentioned all the good reasons why that prohibition should be passed by Parliament and I certainly cannot improve on them. I am sure that some farmers are uneasy. I have also received letters. There are farmers who have created an independent market, and, as the hon. member has said, this has contributed to the elimination of the middle man, who is not always such an evil as farmers suggest, because I just want to say in parenthesis that without the middle man very little distribution of farm products would take place. But what the hon. member must remember is that this little group of farmers is a privileged group. These farmers had the privilege to sell their produce on proclaimed roads because of the fact that their farms border on proclaimed roads. But other farmers producing the same product are compelled to use the ordinary marketing channels. In other words, a privilege which a certain group of farmers had is now being taken away, a privilege which the vast majority of the farmers producing the same produce did not have. As always happens when legislation of general national interest is introduced, there are individuals who are personally affected, and that is also true in this case. But I cannot see how we can say that the sale of one pocket of oranges on the road is worth the life of a human being. This happened again the other day. A Coloured youngster ran across the road with a bag of fruit in order to get to a car and was killed. Is it worth while even for ten pockets of oranges? It is really in the general interest that this prohibition should be introduced. No matter how sorry I am for those farmers or for the hon. member, because it is mainly his constituency which is affected, it is a necessary provision.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) talked about a matter which has nothing to do with this Bill. She asked that compensation be paid for ground which is taken for the building of national roads. She said, quite correctly, that compensation is paid for improved land. In this connection I just want to say that this is a matter which affects all the provinces. No compensation is paid for unimproved land used for road purposes. If therefore I were to accept the principal in this measure that compensation must be paid, it would also affect the provinces and there would be quite a lot of opposition. I am very sorry that I cannot grant this request.

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) has asked that I would see to it that the cutting up of land is not aimed too far. I entirely agree with him that where it can be obviated, it should be obviated. I have already instructed the Transportation Commission not to make deviations or to divert roads or to cut up land unnecessarily, but that where it is at all possible the existing road should be re-built rather than construct a new road to eliminate unnecessary bends, etc. As regards the planning of roads, I also think that organized agriculture can be consulted.

I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timony) on his maiden speech and I can assure him that the matters he dealt with will receive attention.

*The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) has asked whether it will be illegal to sell over the fence after this provision comes into force. My information is that it will not be illegal, but if such a case goes to court it will be for the court to decide that is to say, where a person sells his goods over the fence to people in the roads. I only hope that it will not happen, because then one will again have cars pulling up alongside the road.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) in his concluding remarks said that it disturbs one’s aesthetic feelings when one sees the beauties of nature so ruthlessly destroyed to make way for a road. I agree with him, but I think it has its compensations. How many inaccessible beauties of nature are revealed to people by the building of roads? And then I think that a road has a beauty of its own. What is more beautiful than to see a road snaking its way up a mountainside, passing through green valleys and forests and crossing deep gorges. Roads are the arteries of civilization. Where well-built roads are found, one will always find civilization. Then there is the romance of roads. Think of the Great North Road leading to new lands and peoples, and who can ever forget the Via Appia, the road leading from Rome? I think everyone who has ever seen that road will always remember it. When you stand on that road you think of the legend when Peter fled from Rome and Christ appeared before him and he asked Christ: “Quo Vadis, Domine?” and Christ replied “ back to Rome to be crucified again”. On that road you still see paving-stones laid down by the builders almost 2,000 years ago, and in your imagination you again see the legions of Caesar marching along that road to conquer the world. As I have said it has its compensations, despite the fact that sometimes the beauties of nature have to make way for them.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This is also a Bill which is not contentious. In the main, all the proposed amendments are intended to achieve a greater measure of protection for our network of national and special roads.

At the outset I wish to emphasize that the Provincial Administrations are also closely concerned with this matter, they have been fully consulted by my Department and the National Transportation Commission and I have pleasure in reporting that the Provincial Administrations fully agree with the proposed amendments.

The Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act, 1940, has now been in force for about 22 years and the experience gained over this long period has brought to light many loopholes and defects. There is real danger that our existing national and special roads are fast becoming inadequate and out of date and that they will eventually have to be written off and rebuilt unless immediate steps are taken to protect the existing assets. The greatest deterioration of proclaimed roads is undoubtedly caused by ribbon development and, in particular, by the conversion of these roads into business streets with the attendant gradual smothering process.

Clause 1 is necessary because the National Roads Board has been abolished and all its powers, functions and duties have been transferred to the National Transportation Commission. Clause 2 is designed to give greater powers to the National Transportation Commission to exercise effective control over the display of advertisements along proclaimed roads outside urban areas, with special reference to the so-called curtilage advertisements.

In the absence of a definition of “curtilage” in the principal Act, difficulties are continuously arising in the application of the particular provisions of the principal Act. The original idea was not to restrict businesses along the road unduly, but the position has got completely out of control. In most cases the main object of such curtilage advertisements is no longer that the traveller should come into the shop concerned and buy the advertised product, but to serve as a general exhortation to the general public to buy the particular product wherever it may be offered for sale.

As indicated during the last session of Parliament, there are loopholes in the existing legislation which allow the erection of advertisements which not only disfigure the landscape, but which are a real danger from the road safety point of view. It must be realized that the more effective the advertisement, the greater the danger for road safety. At the time I also indicated that amending legislation would be introduced to combat this problem and I hope that this measure will now enjoy the support promised to me last year.

Apart from the disquieting number of advertisements which are springing up alongside our roads outside urban areas to-day, there is the extremely disturbing feature of the size of some of these advertisements. Instances of advertisements being displayed measuring 42 feet by 12 feet by 17 feet have already come to the attention of the National Transportation Commission. In another instance the advertisement is actually bigger than the little building in which the advertised business is carried on.

Another aspect which is disturbing is the tendency to-day on the part of some advertisers to use reflecting material more and more in the manufacture of their advertisements. Such advertisements are visible at great distances, distract the attention of drivers from the road, and affect the safety factor adversely.

The effect of this provision will be that advertisers may in future only advertise on the building in which the advertiser carries on business or in which the advertised article is offered for sale without the approval in writing of the controlling authority. It must be emphasized, however, that the proposed amendments only relate to trade advertisements. I want to add here immediately that I have also reviewed the position of the Administration of the South African Railways in this regard. The exemption formerly enjoyed by the Railways in respect of advertisements erected within the boundaries of a railway station, siding or halt, is being withdrawn.

Paragraph (c) of Clause 2 is designed to grant to advertisers who are presently displaying advertisements which are permitted by existing legislation but which do not qualify under the new provisions, a period of grace before they will be required to remove their advertisements.

Clause 3 is in the main designed to make the provision as comprehensive as possible. Structures of whatever nature, whether above or below the surface of the ground, will now be included in the prohibition.

Paragraph (i) of Clause 3 deletes from the principal Act a provision which has never been used and has accordingly become redundant.

Clause 4, in my opinion, is self-explanatory. It deals with the prohibition on the erection of structures near the intersections of certain roads. There has been a strong tendency for a long time to erect business premises preferably at important intersections and junctions. Fly-over bridges etc. will eventually have to be constructed at all these points and the proposed provision will ensure that ground required for this purpose will remain undeveloped. This will also help in the struggle against the establishment of the many businesses which are springing up like mushrooms to-day next to declared roads. This applies particularly to cases where a declared road is diverted so as not to pass through the central business area of a town. These businesses are established only to the detriment of existing businesses in the town and it is imperative to exercise control so that existing businesses may be protected. It is the considered opinion of the National Transportation Commission that trading should as far as possible be confined to towns and cities.

The intention of Clause 5 is that Section 10 of the principal Act should no longer apply to declared roads. Comprehensive provision is made in another amending bill for the effective control over accesses to declared roads.

Clause 6 authorizes the controlling authority to impose conditions in respect of the consolidated property in certain cases where a consolidation of adjoining properties takes place. The Surveyors-General and the Chief Registrar of Deeds are in full agreement with the proposed amendment.

Clause 7 provides for the extension of the penal provision. In the absence of a penal provision for a contravention of Section 10 of the principal Act, it is extremely difficult to apply its provisions. The Provincial Administrations welcome the provision which is being made here.

Clause 8 is necessary as a result of the amendments contained in Clause 3.

I do not think this House will long delay the passing of this measure. We approve the principle of preventing unsightly and dangerous ribbon development along our National Highways. Indeed, we have asked for such legislation in the past, and of course we do not intend to oppose it but to facilitate its passage through the House. We know that the 1948 Act did not work as satisfactorily as was expected. Advantage was taken of loopholes in the law to build not only unsightly but dangerous erections and advertising hoardings and devices along our national roads. We have been anxious, for aesthetic as well as safety reasons, to see that this development was adequately controlled. The original latitude that was allowed was permitted with the intention that those who happened to adjoin a national road or had a business near one and wished genuinely to advertise their business or the wares they sold should be allowed to do so. I hope even now that, in spite of the powers which are being granted to prevent unsightly ribbon development, ready permission will be given to anyone who wants to make unobjectionable use of road-signs for legitimate purposes. I realize that sanctions must be imposed, but I hope that permission will be readily granted in a genuine case. As the Minister said, the original intention was that anyone could advertise his own wares, to show what he had for sale. But this right has been badly abused. Little shops that sell certain articles, often in very small quantities, were made use of by national advertisers to advertise their products on an enormous scale. It was known that no speeding motorist ever intended to stop and purchase those particular articles at those particular shops. In other words, advantage was taken of the definition and they were enabled to erect huge and often very unsightly signs along our national roads. We hope it will now be adequately controlled. We hope that permission will never be arbitrarily withheld but that unsightly or dangerous erections and poster sites will be curbed.

Now, of course, there is never any measure which is introduced without having some corresponding disadvantage for somebody. I believe that the Minister has had representations made to him by certain commercial men, such as the sign manufacturers, who will suffer. They declare that their livelihood will be adversely affected as the result of the new regulatory laws now to be passed. We all have sympathy for people in these circumstances. They have put up hoardings on which they get commissions. Others think that the sale of the products which they advertise may fall off. All feel that they should not be penalized for something they have done which was quite within the law. It seems that hardship might be experienced if these advertisements are suddenly removed and they are suddenly deprived of an advantage which they enjoyed legally. The expense they incurred on building these erection and advertising signs will be a loss to them. But they should have been forewarned. We on this side of the House have made representations for this kind of control for many years. People who indulge in unaesthetic or dangerous practices should have been warned. In any case I have received the assurance that the contracts which have been entered into will be allowed to run out. Even after that time, provided there is nothing that offends either safety or aesthetic values, or which will run counter to this Act, will in future be permitted. Permission must be sought and I hope that in proper cases it will not be withheld. It is always difficult to weigh an even balance between the demands of different sections of commerce and industry. When a national road side-tracks the town, the inhabitants of that town always feel that they will lose business. They also make representations to us for protection. They say that there is an inevitable attempt by other competing businesses to establish themselves on the side of the national road in the neighbourhood of the town. That is being by-passed. The townsmen feel that they are suffering a loss, and indeed, they are. Many of the measures here are calculated to protect commerce in the town itself, especially the clause dealing with crossroad buildings and advertisements. It cannot be a fair objection to this Bill to say that those who have set up new businesses on a national road have a priority over the old established shops of the by-passed town or village. Commerce just outside the town must not be allowed to create ribbon development of an unsightly or hazardous nature. Hawking and other businesses along our national roads is also being controlled. The Minister has been so eloquent about the beauty of our roads that I know he also feels, as many of us do, that beauty should not be marred. But I hope that I am correct when I assume that this measure has been introduced only after consulation with representatives of industry and commerce who may be affected by it.

There is one question I should like to ask the Minister. I will give my own answer first to the question and see whether it is correct. I refer to the clause wherein he makes allowances, on national roads that are crossed by an ordinary road leading to a town or village, that no erection shall be put up within 1,500 feet from the crossroads. Is it the intention, in taking this vast area, to keep the crossroad free so that in future either a fly-over bridge or a roundabout can be made? In other words is his demand for this vast expanse at crossroads a “look into the future” and for the purpose of keeping our roads as up to date and safe as they should be?

That is the one idea.

I presume, also, that a secondary consideration is the protection it gives to the local merchant in the neighbouring town or village. When one is racing along a national road, one might be induced to stop and buy something if it was readily available on the side of the road. But if you have to turn off, say a thousand feet, your need must be very urgent or you must be nearly out of petrol before you do so. Thus this clause has the double purpose. It removes unsightly or dangerous buildings from our crossroads and it protects the commerce of the nearby town. I think probably the Minister did what I would do; he weighed up the respective merits of the two opposite claims of commercial interests and decided to come down on that side which leaned in favour of aesthetic values and safety.

Sir, as I have said we approve of this Bill. We believe that it will have good results; we believe that it will be the means of doing away with unsightly hoardings that have screamed their messages at us as we passed by a little village distracting our attention from the wheel. We believe that improper use has often been made of roadside buildings with advertisements. Perhaps one of the main offenders has been the Railway Administration itself. I have noticed with horror the use that has been made of some Railway sites. Hoardings can be used to good effect; they can hide an unsightly goods yard or building. But in many cases the Railway Administration has allowed advertisements to be put up in a very ugly and dangerous way. The Minister himself admits that the more attractive and appealing an advertisement is, the more dangerous that poster may be to a passing motorist. I believe he may have been interested in some of the attractive, curvacious women depicted on posters—dangerous curves on dangerous curves. They tell me that once, in rounding a curve, because he did not wish to be tempted by the sex-appeal attractions of a poster, he closed his eyes to hide the sinful sight, and bumped into the kerb. Is that correct? To become serious, we are glad—and it shows the Minister’s good faith—that he has included, within the prohibitions of this Bill, the Railway Administration. We know it will mean a considerable loss of revenue. We know that pressure was brought to bear on the Minister to exclude the Railways. We are pleased that he has not yielded. We welcome this Bill and will give it an easy passage through the House.

When approaching Cape Town along the road from the north, we see that against the bridge at Bellville there is an advertisement which has been standing there since 1958 and which says: “It is time for a United Party Government”. Since last year’s election there is an advertisement “Vote for Thompson”. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister to make an exception in this case and not to prohibit this advertisement, because the United Party is cooperating so nicely with us to get these two Bills passed.

I want to thank the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) for the attitude adopted by him and I want to congratulate him on the objective manner in which he approached both this Bill and the previous one. I do not want to waste the time of the House by discussing the merits of this Bill, seeing that it has been received so favourably by both sides. But I feel that this House would be neglecting its duty to-day, seeing that we have this opportunity, if it did not express a word of thanks to the Minister of Transport for what he has done for road safety, not only by means of these two Bills but also through other legislation in the last few years. As an ex-Provincial Councillor I know the long and tiresome story of uniform legislation. We know about the mission overseas, and we know about the Joubert Report; we know about all the quarrels in regard to the licensing of tractors. It was a much more bloody battle, I think, than in regard to the naartjies that are sold along the roads. We know of the ideal we had to get uniformity and to put the Road Safety Organization on a new footing. I think I will have the support of both sides of the House and of the country outside if I say that this Minister in his time has done more than any of his predecessors in order to promote road safety, even though much still remains to be done.

One defect which I recognize immediately is that it will be of no use to combat trade and commerce on the national roads on the platteland whilst in the urban areas trade is still carried on, as in the suburban areas we drive through on the road to the north. And there are still gaps in regard to the Road Safety Organization also. I just want to mention one, and that is in respect of research. The Minister has omitted to tell us whether this measure comes before this House as the result of specific statistics and as the result of research done by the Road Safety Organizations. I am curious to know, when we deal with such legislation, whether we have that basis on which to stand, so that we know that statistics have given rise to this legislation. I shall be very glad if the Minister would give me a reply to that question.

Then I want to bring to his notice the question of whether we derive the maximum advantage from research done in other countries; whether by an exchange of information and of statistics we derive the maximum advantage from the money which is also being spent in other countries which have devoted much attention to the matter, such as Western Europe and the United States. When one considers the enforcement of road safety, i.e. the legislative side of it, one would like to know whether that is being done as the result of certain observations with regard to the reasons for road accidents. I should like to quote a Canadian medical practitioner here where he says—

Then he continues to say that it is a certain type of person who causes accidents. He says a man drives as he lives. Then he says further—

Then I want to quote Dr. Ross MacFarland, an authority in this sphere, of Harvard University. He says—

Dr. MacFarland has concluded that the high accident rates must be regarded in terms of “inexperienced, emotional and social immaturity, and temperamental qualities associated with youth”.

When I say that it is a certain type of person whose powers of observation or reactions are responsible for accidents, I also want to make this statement. I have also noticed in my short life that the man with the inferiority complex insists on buying the largest motor car, because it gives him a feeling of safety. It gives him a feeling of importance and prestige, and in passing others on the open road he experiences a strong sense of achievement. It is the urge to compensate for certain characteristics one is aware of in oneself. A frustrated person, one who suffers from a feeling of frustration because he cannot attain certain objects, gets a feeling of release from speeding. To the frustrated person it gives a feeling of freedom. I do not want to give a lecture on that now, but whilst you have allowed me, Mr. Speaker, to deviate somewhat from the provisions of the Bill, I want to ask the hon. the Minister that in future more attention should be devoted to the research on which our legislation is based.

I have listened with great appreciation to all my colleagues who pleaded here for their constituencies, and I listened with even greater appreciation to the hon. the Minister’s replies to them. As my neighbour, the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) said here, the respect we have for the soil when roads have to be widened …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member is dealing with the wrong Bill now. The hon. member’s neighbour has not yet spoken on this Bill.

I want to come back to Section 9 of the principal Act, which deals with irrigation works. The Minister may now tell me that the clause which deals with irrigation works is not under consideration here, but then I just want to bring it to his notice that whereas the controlling body in the Cape Province is the Divisional Council, there were in fact cases where irrigation works of farmers were involved, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not please give the undertaking that we will retain the safeguards we had under the old Act in those cases where the only water the farmer has falls within the building limits of the road.

I want to support my colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) in regard to this Bill but to limit myself to one aspect only. Certain representations have been made to us in regard to Clause 2 on the ground that certain manufacturing interests, businesses and advertising interests would be unjustly and adversely affected. On going into the matter closely it is extremely hard to follow the reasons for these objections, and I am afraid that they cannot be supported. One of the first objections is the question of the deletion of the words “curtilage appertaining thereto.” The Oxford Dictionary defines “curtilage” as “a small courtyard or piece of ground attached to a dwelling-house and forming one enclosure with it.” Webster’s Dictionary says, “a yard, courtyard or piece of ground included within the fence surrounding a dwelling.” Chamber’s Dictionary says, “a court attached to a dwelling-house.” Then I turned to the Afrikaans and I looked up the definition of “werf”. Bosman en van der Merwe define “werf” as “a yard or farmstead”. The new Dictionary of Terblanche and Lombard defines “werf” as “grond of terrein om ’n woning of opstal”, and then defines “opstal” as “ ’n woning en bybeho-rende gebou op ’n plaas”, so it would seem that the objections that have been brought to us are in connection with advertising signs on residences or farmhouses, and, quite frankly, I am completely on the side of the Minister in regard to that particular matter.

The other deletion that has been dealt with affects this unsightly advertising round small shops. Whether the removal of those rights will affect those small shops is problematical. In my view it will not affect them at all, and it will certainly make travelling more pleasant than it has been for some time past. Sir, I do not want to dwell on this matter. The Bill has the blessing of this side of the House and I can see no valid objection that can be brought against it.

In this Bill we are dealing with planning in the ordinary sense of the word because it is a measure dealing with control of the use of land next to our roads, with all the objects of any planning scheme we have in South Africa to-day, like the safety and the convenience and the welfare of the public and the beauties of the environs. The particular nature of this planning measure is that it really emanates exclusively from the tendencies and the needs and the dangers which motor traffic have brought about in South Africa. But even though I were to describe this measure as such, it probably would not be saying much because practically all physical planning emanates from factors caused by motor traffic. The control of motor traffic has probably become the most decisive factor and motive in regard to all planning.

I do not want to expatiate on this, but seeing that in my opinion this is the essence of this legislation, I hope you will allow me to make a few remarks. This control of motor traffic has really become the nightmare of the planners. A man like Mr. T. B. Floyd, in his book “Planning in South Africa ”, still said in despair last year that it does not help just to bow to the idol of the motor-car; they cannot sacrifice all the planning to the motor-car; they must also think of other factors, and it is clear that in this legislation the other factors were also considered, and not only the needs of the motor-car. The two things, planning and the motor-car, with which we are dealing here, are really contemporaries. They both started developing in the ’twenties, but as matters are to-day it has deteriorated into a race between the hare and the tortoise because the motor-car to-day is probably the most potent factor in changing the landscape, whereas originally it was hoped that it would be planning. To-day the planners see that the motor-car is busy changing the whole landscape in a moment, whilst planning struggles along through all the obstacles. Therefore I regard this Bill as of the utmost importance because it deals with the two real needs and phenomena of our time. This process which is in progress between the handling of motor traffic and the attempts of the planners, is changing. We can expect the number of motor vehicles still to increase appreciably, as it has increased in recent years. From 1948 until now, in this period of 14 years. the number of motor-cars and commercial vehicles, for example, increased from 500,000 to over 1,000,000. Speed is increasing, and according to an American writer we can expect the number of motor-cars in America still to increase for probably another 30 years, and if that is the case in America we can expect that to be the position in South Africa for probably another 50 years. I was greatly encouraged when I saw that the Chief Engineer of the Road Transportation Commission, Mr. de Villiers, said at the Congress of City Engineers a little while ago that we must accept the dangers resulting from highspeed travel; that it will increase and that it will always be there, but that the engineer must accept that challenge and provide roadways which will be safe. And that is how we shall have to accept the position.

I want to say a word or two about one or two of the specific provisions of this Bill. The first is the new provision introduced in regard to cross-roads—the land which is being reserved there. This provision means that 1,500 feet of land from every cross-road must be reserved. I originally thought that 1,500 feet from the middle of a road and 1,500 feet from the other cross-road gives one an area of between 20 and 25 morgen, but now I see that my arithmetic is very rusty and that it really amounts to an area of between 70 and 80 morgen which is actually being frozen in this way. I know that the principle is not recognized in our legislation that compensation should be paid in respect of land which is not expropriated for road purposes and that this land will not be expropriated immediately, but is being reserved. Seeing that it comprises such a large area and that we can accept that in the neighbourhood of cities and towns, where most of these crossings will occur, the land holdings are really not very big and that 70 to 80 morgen could be rather a large slice out of a man’s land, I do not think that we can remain impervious to the principle of paying compensation in that case. I think it is a case which because of its scope differs completely from the other type of land required for roads. We would not be adopting a completely different course if we now consider paying compensation in this case. I am not quite au fait with matters, but I know that the British Act, the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act of 1925, provides—

That is the one dealing with roads—

The British Act makes specific provision for comepnsation in this parallel case. I also have an example here which is not complete, but that is what is being done in France. I quote from a lecture by Mr. Verhoef, the city planner of the Peri-Urban Areas Health. He says that in France the position is that—

And later on he says—

It seems to me, for this reference to the French system, that we are on very similar terrain. We will probably find land where more than a quarter is taken up by this reservation. For this reason I feel that we cannot remain indifferent to the interests of such persons affected in this way. Seeing that these amendments are now being made to the Act, I had hoped that Section 11 (4) of the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act, which deals with the sub-division of land in an area where this Act applies, would also be amended. The controlling body, in terms of this section, has the power to refuse or to grant consent to the sub-division of land. But from that provision is excluded land which is sub-divided in terms of a will. It is probably self-evident that if it is necessary to insert such a provision, that the sub-division of land must be subject to the consent of the controlling body, then it must also be necessary for that land which is sub-divided in terms of a will to be subject to the approval of the controlling body, because now it really amounts to this, that because of the death of a person all considerations of planning have to be abandoned, or, to put it in another way, a man can do much more after his death than he could do whilst he was alive, and to the detriment of the public interest. I believe that there is every reason for making this amendment, even though it is not done now. At the moment, because consent is not required, the controlling body or the local authority need not even be notified that such a subdivision is taking place, and one can realize how that can obstruct any planning. I believe that if such a provision is inserted, all testators will know that it cannot be done, and the position will be remedied.

There is another matter I want to discuss, and I will accept that in this regard I will be a fairly lone voice, and that is that in this Bill also, as in all our planning measures, the right of existing use is recognized. I believe that is the cardinal weakness in all the planning measures we have in South Africa, because by recognizing the right of existing use, something which really upsets the whole of the planning is not only allowed to exist but is being strengthened and encouraged. Take the case of a business built alongside a road, within a distance of 10 or 20 yeards—much nearer than the 300 feet which is actually required. In view of the fact that the whole object of the legislation is to keep businesses at least 300 feet away from the road, that person, from the very nature of the legislation and its application, is put into a much stronger position than he would have been in if this legislation did not exist, because he is now freed from all competition, and that creates the situation that all economic considerations as far as he is concerned only operate one way, and that is to remain settled there for ever, contrary to the whole idea of the scheme and contrary to the public interest and safety. I have not the recipe to change it but I feel that we can find a formula which will make it less advantageous for the holder of such an existing right just to remain in that one spot. I do not want him to be penalized but we must find a formula which will give him an incentive to consider shifting his business further back. If that is not enough, we can consider negative measures like more onerous obligations in regard to continuing his business in that specific place; to create a situation where economic considerations will work in both directions, and I believe that when dealing with a planning measure such as this, and whereas in the original Act we did not give a permanent right of existence to existing advertisements but said that the controlling body could have them removed after six months, and where now again in the case of the previous Bill we will not tell a man: “You have been trading here for years and you have the right to continue to trade here”—I concede that he has no permanency on the spot where he is trading but he had a right there similar to the right which these people had. I cannot see any real difference between these two cases and I believe, although few people will agree with me to-day, that if we want to make our planning effective, particularly in view of the defective methods we have, where we are dealing with this rapidly increasing problem of motor traffic, we shall be compelled to adopt a completely different view as to the value that an existing right has for the holder of it.

Like other hon. members who have already spoken I am rising to voice our support in general of the measure now before us. I want to add this plea, that some of the powers which the Bill now grants, or rather clarifies (because they are powers which existed in the parent measure but have not been quite as effective as was expected at the time), powers which in some cases exercise fairly drastic rights over what has been regarded as a fairly sacred issue in the country as a whole, that is the right of private ownership of land, and the right to do certain things on such land, will be exercised with the utmost caution. I have no doubt that will be done, but any action carried out under this provision should be carried out with the least amount of damage to the individual concerned.

With regard to the Bill itself, I regard this Bill as to a very large extent complementary to the Bill we have already discussed this afternoon, both having the object of providing not only a more satisfactory system of arterial roads through the country, but a much safer system of these roads. I think that in considering some of the principles or the extension of principles provided for in this Bill, we have to accept the philosophy that the arterial road system or the national highway system is in fact another railway system through the country. But it is more dangerous than the railway system, because a railway is very clearly defined and very carefull protected and over the years has developed a technique of its own and is. not only well protected but well understood. On the public roads, however, we have vehicles with a death dealing power fully equal to any railway engine and yet not bound or restricted as a railway train is. Therefore a matter such as we are dealing with now aimed to afford necessary isolation, the isolation of our national highways from unsuitable access and egress which as such brings danger. and also isolation from the distractions which may cause dangers as a result of distracting the attention of drivers, is a matter which we have to accept as one of the developments of this new road highway system which modern science has developed through the country.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister when he says by implication that it is essential that we should not permit signs and attractions on our main arterial highways which will distract the attention of those responsible for the driving of vehicles, particularly in view of the high speed with which vehicles travel to-day. I think there is the other aspect, apart from the road safety aspect, namely the unsightliness aspect of hoardings and other what have you all along such highways, many completely unnecessary, many of them unsightly, and to a great extent also providing a dangerous distraction. But I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider, and it falls to a very large extent under Clauses 3 and 4, the clauses which deal with the control of erections, buildings, or anything really set upon or on the land adjacent to the roads, that he would also give consideration, or get the Board to give consideration, to erections which normally would not fall under the scope of hoardings and signposts. I refer to the road safety warnings and the road safely signposts and the fittings that go with them, which very often with the intention of providing the greatest safety on the national highways in themselves introduce added risks in case of an accident. It has become an accepted fact all over the world that the erection of any pole of any sort, particularly an inflexible pole, closely adjacent to the boundaries of such roads does constitute a anger in the case of an emergency as say in the case of a car being driven off the road to avoid an accident. Many of our government institutions with their telephone system the electricity system, with the poles that are being erected, help to constitute a grave risk. There is that and there is also the multiplicity of road safety signs which are beginning to permeate along our roads and which so often as between province and province are as yet not altogether uniform, and which require the attention of the driver to read when he passes them, at least if he is to derive any benefit of them. I think there is still room there for a much greater clarification of these warning signs, so that once a driver recognizes them, almost by colour or shape, they immediately give the warning they intended to give without having to read the notice. They must come to him almost automatically. These are features also that could well be considered. When it comes to the erection of anything upon the roads, I think another matter which might receive very serious consideration particularly in the development of our national road system as it is to-day, is the erection (falling within the scope of Clauses 3 and 4) of square-faced kerbing along our new national highways and speedways; they are a thing also which is rapidly disappearing; you have instead the bevel-faced kerb so that if a car has to tough them it does not capsize and roll over but has at least the chance of running up the bank. I believe that these are features which would fall within the scope of this Bill and deserve full consideration. We have to accept that these roads are here, and if they are to achieve their object, they must develop into speedways and therefore the precautions taken, as envisaged by this and the previous Bill, are sometimes beyond what we would normally agree to in respect of a road but have to accept in a case like this.

I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) in regard to road signs along our roads. Until such time as our motor vehicles, perhaps in the not too distant future, are equipped with radar, we must rely on road signs to get a picture of the road ahead, and I want to tell you. Sir, that it is at present very pleasant for a motorist to make use of these speedways around Cape Town, particularly where the road signs give us a very clear indication of what lies ahead, where the roads will turn off to certain suburbs, etc. That facilitates traffic to a large extent in Cane Town. But we ought to extend that principle to all our roads and all our main roads in the country, so that motorists generaliy will have an idea of what the road looks like half a mile or 1½ miles ahead and in order that he may, without being compelled to make hasty decisions, determine what to do when he gets to the point where the roads, for example, turn off, or where there is some obstacle in the road.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) said that our advertisements are very un-sightly, but I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister has said, that the more effective the advertisement, the more dangerous it is. I am thinking here particularly of one kind of advertisement which hon. members will agree with me is a very striking advertisement and which is the reason why I was a somewhat unwilling participant in a certain incident. These advertisements of a certain cool drink have a very scantily-clothed but most attractive girl depicted on them, and they are in fact a very dangerous advertisement in terms of the Minister’s proposition. I was a passenger in a 1934 Ford, and hon. members will remember that for some reason or other they were always painted red or brown and they were notorious for the fact that their mechanical brakes never worked very efficiently. There was a newly-built subway beneath the railway line and the driver of the car was admiring one of these advertisements along the road whilst at the same time a train was approaching the crossing, when his wife suddenly called to him to look out for the train. In his subconscious mind he thought it was a level crossing and as the train approached him and when his breakes would not work, he swerved out of the road. I think I should rather draw a curtain over what happened further in that incident. It was humorous, but I do not think you will allow me to relate the story here. As the Minister says, it only shows that the more effective an advertisement board is, the more dangerous it may be. When a car travels at 60 miles per hour it covers a distance of 780 feet in approximately ten seconds, and ten seconds is approximately the time required by the average driver with normal reaction time to look at an advertisement and to get a picture of it, but in that ten seconds his car has travelled 780 feet. Apart from the fact that it diverts his vision to an ever increasing degree to one side of the road and therefore temporarily makes him lose sight of the road immediately ahead of him, it blots out his conscious actions for approximately ten seconds. I therefore agree that these striking advertisement boards along our roads are very dangerous. Often they are unsightly as well. The hon. the Minister spoke about the Italian roads, and I suppose that during his travels in Italy he also noticed that a particular type of fuel is advertised along those roads ad nauseum, and to us as South Africans it is amusing, because expressed in Afrikaans, it is a word which is not allowed in this House. There one finds the tiresome repetition of advertisements of petrol, cool drinks, etc. and it is so bad that along certain stretches of the road one is unable to take a decent photo of the scenic beauties without getting the advertising board of some product or other into the picture. For that reason I feel that this legislation serves an excellent purpose and that it should enjoy the general approval of the House.

I cannot allow this second reading to pass without expressing my deep-rooted doubts in regard to one principle contained in the Bill, namely the principle contained in Clause 4, where we are suddenly at crossings extending from four morgen to 78 morgen the area subject to the control of the controlling authority. The old Act provided that within 300 feet of the road this control existed at a crossing: if it was the crossing of two proclaimed roads it was an area of four morgen which was affected. Now it is 78 morgen. Now I must point out in the first place that as the wording of the Bill now stands it was possibly the intention of the draughtsman to provide in Clause 3 (a) that the proviso in favour of agricultural use would also be applicable to these crossings.

That will be inserted in the Committee Stage.

Then I will not take the matter further, but it is a serious defect at this stage.

But then we come to this aspect: These crossings are not only the crossings of proclaimed roads. The two concepts are clearly included: Where a proclaimed road crosses another proclaimed road, or any road. Now one would still be able to defend fairly strongly the number of crossings of proclaimed roads as probable crossings where one day fly-over crossings will be necessary, but where it includes also crossings with other roads it means that it will affect a larger number of crossings and these restrictions affect the potential use of the land appreciably. The only development which is now exempted is constructions which are already in the process of construction, but not the further obtaining of rights. A person may be in the process of obtaining the right to trade on land where there may be some authority which has to grant such a right, but that is not covered. There may be cases where persons are laying out townships, and that is not covered either. Only constructions are covered here.

Then we must note that the crossing of proclaimed roads will in general take place in densely populated areas where the limitation on the use of an area of 78 morgen is a matter of great financial interest. I believe that only where this is absolutely necessary should it be done. I quite agree with the Minister’s policy that provision should be made for the future so that if the ground is required there will not be expensive structures on it which will have to be bought out, but I believe the people as a whole must pay for the benefit of the people as a. whole and that particular individuals should hot become the victim of it.

I feel that we should take four principles into consideration in connection with this new principle which is being introduced. In the first place there must be some form of compensation for the curtailment of rights. One suffers loss not only by losing structures but also by losing rights. In the second place, there must on the other hand be compensation for the so-called enhanced value. That is a principle which hitherto has not been considered here, but hundreds of people derive advantage from the existence of proclaimed roads and even from the existence of a road crossing. In the third place the principle should be introduced of pressure on delay. It is very easy for a road engineer to say, “No, you must not develop on that crossing because one day we will require it for a fly-over crossing”, when in fact this bridge will be built only after many years. I think a method should be evolved to restrict the lengthy postponement of the use of the reserved area to some extent. Finally, I believe that a pertinent distinction should be made between the crossings of proclaimed roads and those of proclaimed roads with other ordinary roads. In the case of proclaimed roads I have no doubt that we will have to reserve this large area for fly-over crossings, but there are hundreds of other small crossings where this reservation is not necessary. I have made these remarks about the principle of the matter merely from the point of view that I hope that the hon. the Minister, after this important new principle has been introduced, will create the departmental machinery to consider this whole matter very carefully as to how we can evolve a reasonable system which will not make road building impossible but which will compensate people whose rights are restricted as the result of our road legislation and at the same time collect payment for the enhanced values which have been created. We cannot on the one hand say that the curtailment of rights should be compensated, whilst on the other hand enhanced values will inure only to the benefit of individuals who have received privileges. And machinery must also be evolved by means of which the lengthy postponement of the use of reserved land will be restricted by ensuring that the owner gets something better or more if he has to see this land lying there unused for years and years after permission has been refused.

Before I resume my seat I just want to deal with the question of the registration of rights in terms of this Bill and the previous Bill under which I have already raised the matter. The Minister has said that the Registrar of Deeds will strenuously oppose the registration of this right, but just let me put this to him: In these modern technical times in which we live we have created new material rights, positive and negative, like those created when for example we issued claims and under the Gold Law granted surface right permits. Merely to say that such a large number of these new rights have been created and that it will be a difficult task to register them does not derogate from the necessity of registering them. I venture to say that a surface right permit registered under the Gold Law by the Registrar of Rand Townships is of precisely the same character and nature as the various prohibitive and permissive permits issued in terms of this legislation. I concede that it is a matter which cannot immediately be solved, but machinery must be established in order that these important rights can also be registered.

I am grateful to hon. members on both sides of the House for the support they have so readily given to this Bill. As has quite rightly been said, this is a Bill of national interest and, as in the case of most such bills, it also affects the interests of individuals adversely, but the greater interest is of course decisive. I think it will promote road safety quite substantially. I particularly agree with the few remarks of the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. de Villiers) in connection with road safety. I do not know if hon. members know it, but last year more than 3,000 lives were lost in road accidents, an average of nine a day, and that is apart from the 139,000 who were only injured. We should therefore do everything in our power to promote road safety and prevent accidents. I do know that I cannot enlarge on this, but I mention it only as one of the important motives for the introduction of this Bill. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland has asked whether the legislation is based on statistics. No, unfortunately not. The new road safety organization was only established last year and one of the important functions of that organization of course is to collect statistics, but it will probably take a few years before any reliable statistics can be made available. But the National Transportation Commission and the Department of Transport have, of course, taken into account what happens in other countries and in most Western countries it is felt that the erection of uncontrolled advertisements is to the detriment of road safety. The hon. members for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) and Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) dealt with the provision relating to 1,500 feet. They said that 70 to 80 morgen of land would now be frozen and reserved. That is not quite correct. Hon. members will realize that this is a permissive provision and the National Transportation Commission can give permission for the erection of any structure within that area. It naturally depends on circumstances; it depends on when large structures are going to be started in connection with road bridges or traffic switch-overs, etc., but as it has been evident over the years that no one has acted unreasonably in connection with the 300 ft. provision and in numerous cases permission has been granted for the 300 ft. provision to be contravened. It is entirely permissive, but it is an extremely important provision. Not only is control exercised over the area with an eye to the building of future bridges, but it is particularly important from the point of view of combating businesses which are established next to by-pass roads at towns. If there were no such provision, it is true that it would be possible to prohibit the establishment of businesses on the boundaries of the national road by means of the control over accesses for which provision is made in the measure which the House has just dealt with, but any business could then be erected adjacent to the cross-road, which is not a declared road, to within 300 feet of that crossing, and then you would have the same evil that we are now seeking to avoid, namely that businesses would be established adjacent to these by-pass roads to the detriment of the businesses in the town. That is one of the reasons for this 1,500 ft. provision. It is necessary to combat this evil of the establishment of businesses near to or next to the national road to the detriment of the existing businesses in the town which is by-passed by the road. We have a two-fold control. The one form will be by way of the accesses to and from the national road which are now controlled under the previous Bill, and the other form of control which is necessary is that businesses should not be established on the cross-road, the road which leads to the town, within 300 ft. of that crossing. That is one of the reasons why such a large area is taken up. Hon. members have asked that compensation should be paid, but the principal Act makes no provision for the payment of compensation, and if I were to accept the principle that compensation should be paid to people affected by the 1,500 provision, what justification would there be for refusing to pay compensation to people affected by the 300 ft. provision? There are numerous people who were affected in the past by the 300 ft. building restriction provision, people who had business rights on ground which extended up to the national road. There would be no justification for paying compensation in the one case and not in the other. That would be completely unfair and unreasonable. But I accept that cases may arise where people will suffer damage as a result of this control. I discussed this matter with the National Transportation Commission, because it is the only controlling authority as far as this provision is concerned, and the Commission confirms that where a person can prove that he had an absolute right on the date of the publication of the Bill, i.e. no 2nd February 1962, that right will be observed. In other words, if he had that right, it will be recognized. It must be remembered that this does not apply within urban areas where business rights are usually granted on plots. It only applies outside the urban areas. Where a person can prove that he had rights before the Bill was published on 2 February, his rights will be observed. I must emphasize, however, that the absence of a prohibition on trading, does not give the owner any rights in that connection. I want to emphasize again that it is a permissive provision, it is a control measure, it is not a general prohibition; it is not a question of reserving or freezing the land; it is only a permissive measure which is necessary for the reasons I have already mentioned.

The hon. member for Innesdale has suggested that the principal Act should also be amended where it provides for the exclusion of bequests in connection with the sub-division of land. The information which I have received from the Department regarding this provision, that is to say, the reason why it was originally excluded, is that the original provision was inserted in the principal Act at the request of the then (1939) Chief Registrar of Deeds. It was alleged that it could cause difficulty with regard to bequests in estates. Theoretically the hon. member is quite correct, but my information is further that in the last 20 years not a single case has come to our attention in this regard. If such cases do come to my attention, he can rest assured that they will receive my attention, and if necessary that provision in the section can be amended.

I want to assure the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) that the matters which he raised in his speech, will be brought to the attention of the National Transportation Commission.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.