Yesterday the hon. member for Umlazi moved an amendment to delete the second portion of Clause 7, that portion of it which makes this amending Bill retrospective to 7th July, 1950.

This Bill, the Committee Stage of which has practically been completed, introduces some far-reaching changes to the Population Registration Act, some of which will have a very serious prejudicial effect upon the persons concerned, and for those reasons we think that it is quite unfair and unjust for this House to make the provisions of this Bill retrospective to the date on which the principal Act came into operation. It is perhaps unnecessary, since we have just been dealing with this Bill clause by clause, to refer the Committee once again to the provisions we have in mind when we say that they will seriously prejudice the persons concerned. But I would mention briefly, first of all, that in terms of clause 1 a number of additional tests are to be applied in determining who is and who is not a white person. These tests are severe tests and they remain severe despite the fact that certain amendments moved by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Prinshof have been accepted. I would point out also that under clause 4 the provision relating to third-party objections is to be done away with and that the hon. the Minister has refused to accept an amendment to preserve the right of those third-party applications which have already been submitted to the Secretary in legal form and placed before the board. We think that this is a particularly harsh provision because those persons acted entirely within the rights which the Act as it stands at present gives to them, and in our submission it is unfair that these persons should be prejudiced for actions which they were perfectly entitled to take at the time they took them. I would point out furthermore that in many cases these persons have been involved in considerable expense in submitting these applications and that they will not be compensated for those expenses. It seems to us that it is quite wrong for this Parliament to pass a law which will have that effect. I would point out furthermore that in the same clause, clause 4, the powers of the appeal court are being very considerably curtailed, and this is being done despite the fact that one of the strong arguments which the hon. members for Prinshof and Odendaalsrus urged upon the Committee in dealing with some of the harsher provisions of this measure, was that any aggrieved person had the full right of recourse to the appeal court, in such a way that the appeal court had the power to deal with the matter virtally afresh without being hampered by the normal restrictions which are placed upon an appeal to a superior court. This is now being done away with and the normal restrictions which apply to an appeal will apply to the person concerned, which means that the appeal court will no longer have the power to deal with the matter completely afresh and to make its own decision unhampered by the finding or decision of the court below. This seems to us to be an entirely unnecessary and particularly harsh provision. Finally I would refer the Committee to the fact that in clause 6 an important presumption which exists in the Act at present is to be removed. We have had a most unsatisfactory explanation from the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite as to why this is being done. The existing presumption to which I refer is the one which says that a person who in appearance obviously is white shall, for the purposes of this Act, be presumed to be a white person until the contrary is proved. This is now being done away with so that even a person who is in appearance obviously White is no longer to be presumed White, whereas in terms of the following subsection a person who in appearance is obviously a member of an aboriginal race is presumed to be a member of that race. It does not seem to us to be logical to do away with one presumption and to keep the other. In any event, we think it is quite wrong that a person who in appearance obviously is a white person is no longer to be presumed by this Government to be White.

Sir, I have referred to some of the harsher provisions of this Bill, the ones to which we have the greatest objection, and I would point out to this Committee that in terms of clause 7 as it now reads all these provisions are to be deemed to have come into operation on 7th July, 1950, which is the date upon which the original Act came into operation. We have had no satisfactory reason given to this Committee for making these provisions retrospective. It is one thing to want to amend the Act and to introduce the provisions which this Government now wishes to introduce—we think they are unjust and unnecessary—but the injustice and prejudice is aggravated considerably if the provisions are made retrospective and are deemed to have come into operation on the date on which the original Act came into operation. We trust, Sir, that we will have a satisfactory explanation as to why this is being done, and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation we will certainly oppose this clause and vote against it.

Order! Before I call upon the next speaker, I want to point out that nothing can be said on this clause which has not been said on the six previous clauses. In essence therefore it would merely be repetition to continue the debate on this clause. I have allowed two speakers so far to address the Committee; I will allow one more speaker before the hon. the Minister replies and then I think the clause should be put to the vote.

The hon. the Minister gave the assurance to the Committee, one which we appreciate, that although he was not prepared to concede that pending cases should continue their normal course for the purpose of determination, he would regard them as being cases for consideration by the Secretary under his new powers of reclassification. I think I understood the hon. the Minister correctly. He nods to indicate that that is so. In terms of the clause under consideration, the whole basis of testing is to be retrospective; in other words, although the Minister has conceded under clause 5, that these cases can and will be reconsidered, they will have to be reconsidered, if this clause is passed, under the tests which apply in terms of this particular measure. I think I am correct in saying that. I want to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister without going into a number of pending cases. If that is done some serious family disruptions can result. I want to give him one instance. There is a case pending on which appeal was noted on the 23rd September, 1965, and which has not been heard yet. In this particular family the mother has a white indentity card. There are five minor children who all have white birth certificates. The issue at the moment is the classification of the father. Under the present law as it applies at present, if this retrospective effect is not adopted, those five children and their mother who are all White, even though the father may be found to be of Coloured blood, will be entitled to retain their white identity cards and can grow up and live their lives as white people. But if this retrospective provision is adopted and if that father is found to be Coloured after investigation and there is a mixture of blood, then those five children who are now white children attending a white school and each of them in possession of a white birth certificate, must of necessity be reclassified as Coloured and be transferred to Coloured schools.

I do not think that it is the hon. Minister’s intention that that type of thing should happen. If he allows this clause to be passed as it is now, namely with retrospective effect, then his hands will be tied, and the hands of the Secretary and the courts will be tied and those five children must of necessity be brought up as Coloured children, although they have lived their lives up to this stage as white children. For that reason I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Umlazi. After all, the amendment has the effect that although these people cannot go on with their appeals, although they cannot go on with third-party appeals, when the Secretary is charged with this terribly difficult task, which will be his, of personally reviewing these pending cases, he will at least be able to deal with them within the latitude which exists under the present Act. I believe that the Minister has justification for specially legislating in regard to the ethnic groups. He has made a case and the Committee has accepted that the proclamation in regard to ethnic groups of the Coloureds should be retrospective. But I have a list of fifteen cases here and I have given him one instance. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept the amendments in order that there may not be an injustice done to these children who are after all white and not Coloured children. We are making them Coloured by means of this Bill. They are as white as I am. It is only because of this legislation that they will become Coloured because their father may be found to have Coloured blood. For those reasons I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Umlazi.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi concerns, as the hon. member for Musgrave quite rightly said, the final part of clause 7, in other words, it deals with the principle of retrospectivity. I can understand the Opposition’s objection to this principle. They have a right to have objections just as I have the right to hold different views to theirs. This question of principle, namely whether or not the legislation is to be of retrospective effect, was raised and dealt with by various speakers during the second-reading debate when we discussed the principles of this Bill and was accepted on a division. Since then the hon. members, knowing that this Bill contains clause 7 which provides that all clauses of this Bill will be of retrospective effect if this clause is passed, have, as the Chairman quite rightly pointed out, discussed and argued this aspect of retrospectivity in regard to virtually every clause—and there was not one of which they were in favour and I do not hold that against them—in the objection raised by them to the passing of the various clauses. Consequently I do not want to go into their arguments now. I just want to say that the Opposition does not see this matter as we do. We want this provision, to advance one argument, because we do not wish, inter alia, there to be two kinds of legislation in terms of which people would then be classified, two kinds of legislation which differed from each other and in terms of which reclassifications might perhaps be heard. It is not necessarily the case that one will just have applications for classification or objections under this Bill, but there are also those which were lodged in the past; consequently we want this Bill to be made of retrospective effect. That is essential. There are also other reasons but I do not want to go into them. In other words, what we are concerned with here is a difference of opinion in regard to this principle. I believe that the retention of the principle of retrospectivity will be the cornerstone which in the future will prove this Bill to be more effective than the Act we are now amending.

I should like to give a reply in regard to the border-line cases and the difficult case mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point. That is a pathetic case. It is not one which one can simply discuss with a shrug, nor one which one will be able to deal with without judiciousness, without humaneness, without fairness and without having regard to the fate of the children and the parents. According to the particulars which the hon. member himself supplied to this House, it does not follow that under this legislation the Secretary will classify those children who, as the hon. member said, are classified as Whites according to their birth certificates, as non-Whites on account of the fact that this legislation provides that the children of mixed parents cannot be Whites or on account of the fact that the father is a non-White according to his classification. Will they or will they not be classified as Whites? That is not necessarily the case.

That must be the case.

No, a child is classified when his birth registration certificate is filled in. I now want to give the hon. member the assurance that when those children were entered in the register at birth as White, that was done on the particulars which the Secretary had before him and that those children are classified as White. The hon. member said that an appeal had been lodged against the classification of the father. There is no appeal against the classification of the children. That is what I told the hon. member and other hon. members opposite we would not do, namely to initiate a witch-hunt and to go out of our way so as to see, without having regard to the real aspects one ought to take into account out of humane considerations, to what extent we still have loopholes for effecting reclassifications and for creating cruelty, grief and unhappiness. I repeat that those children were registered and classified at birth according to the particulars before the Secretary. They would have been classified as Whites. We will not review the classification of those children if no objection is raised to their classification. No objection has been raised to their classification. In other words, they are people who have been classified without objection. Their cases have been settled. It is not the intention of the legislation to re-open the entire question of reclassification. I made that so clear in my second-reading speech. I want to repeat that now. We will, of course, find a few cases where it comes to our notice that it has obviously been a mistake to make a certain classification. I do not think, however, that this case is one where an obviously wrong classification has been made. In terms of this Bill the Secretary will be able to take that case into review. It is in respect of a few cases that hon. members opposite try to create a certain impression. Perhaps that is what they believe. Perhaps they are not doing so on purpose. I am even prepared to grant them that much. [Interjections.] No, I know that to be correct. We can do so in terms of this legislation but in terms of the 1962 Amendment Act we could do equally foolish and inhuman things and they were not done. Let us speak again in three or four years’ time. We can do so next year. Then hon. members can still come to this House with accusations against the Secretary. Then they can prove whether inhuman steps have been taken or whether there has been any abuse of powers conferred by an Act. Consequently I cannot ignore and abandon this principle of retrospectivity and cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi.

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening very carefully to the hon. the Minister’s arguments in reply to the hon. member for Green Point. It is not a question of doubting his bona fides. He has now advanced the case of the family with five children who have birth certificates showing that they are White. The mother is classified as White, and the father’s classification is in doubt. He may in fact be classified as Coloured. Surely, because of this Bill we are passing to-day, and this particular clause, which makes its application retrospective, the Secretary is bound to keep a correct register. Just suppose that the father’s classification is finally decided to be Coloured. The new Section 5 (5) (b) states:

That is the mother in this case,

That is the amendment. If this father is in fact now classified as a Coloured person, I do not see that the Secretary is going to have any option in terms of the law, because clause 2 lays an obligation on the Secretary to keep a correct register.

In other words your argument is that the Secretary is now bound to review all classifications?

Yes.

Your argument is wrong.

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me in terms of law where I am wrong.

I said that he might legally have the right. I admit that, but that right will not be exercised in that way.

I am sorry, but it is not a right. It is an obligation. That is the point.

It must be brought to his attention. You have not referred to that.

It says that the Secretary “shall” classify.

It says: “He may”.

It says that he shall classify according to descent or the criteria which have been laid down in the new section 5, which lays down this series of definite requirements. This is the law and the Minister himself says that this is legally so.

The Act says that he “may” do certain things.

No, he must do it. It is an obligation. The very fact that Clause 7, which we are now discussing, makes this all retrospective, I submit, brings every single classification into doubt, except where both parents have been classified as White. There must now be reclassification in terms of the new criteria, the new definition, the new ethnic grouping and all these new provisions which are being laid down. What is more, the Secretary has vast powers in terms of this Bill. He can now lodge appeals which previously not even the Secretary could lodge. The fact that the third-party objections have been removed is to the detriment of the person concerned and not to his advantage, because up to now the third-party has been used in some cases perhaps spitefully, but in other cases to the advantage of the person concerned because he has used a third person to make an appeal. That now falls away.

There is not even one example of a third party being used in that way.

I am glad to hear that, but there is always the opportunity.

It just shows you that you are arguing theoretically. It does not work out that way.

I am arguing in terms of the law. I am not doubting the bona fides of the hon. the Minister. I do not think he is going to start a witch hunt, but the fact remains that there is retrospective application, which I think should be unconstitutional in respect of every law we pass in this House. The principle of retrospectivity is, as far as I am concerned, quite wrong. But here it is in this Bill again. The fact that it is here means that all of us …

Order! Apart from the fact that the hon. member is now arguing against the principle already accepted at the Second Reading, she is repeating.

I am not, if I may say so.

The hon. member is repeating what has already been said.

I am replying to the hon. the Minister. I am advancing arguments against what the hon. the Minister said. Since this whole clause embodies retrospectivity …

I am afraid that the hon. member is simply repeating arguments which have been used over and over again.

I am replying to the hon. the Minister.

Yes, but he was also repeating.

With respect, Sir, you did not stop the hon. the Minister.

I gave my ruling before the Minister spoke. I said that I would allow him to reply to hon. members who had spoken on this clause, and that afterwards the Committee would vote. He was the only member who spoke in favour of the clause as printed and four members have already spoken against it.

Very well, Sir, but with respect I may say that as far as I am concerned the hon. the Minister’s interpretation of this is not correct in terms of the legal provisions of this Bill. His interpretation is in terms of what he wishes to see applied, but in fact need not necessarily be so, because the provisions give powers far wider than those the hon. the Minister mentions.

The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the debate on this clause, has shown us the provisions of this Bill in all their viciousness, because he has admitted in fact that a mother and her five children can be classified and separated from their father. This is what he said.

That has been the case in the past as well.

Do two wrongs make a right?

It is not always wrong.

Let us deal with the facts as the hon. member for Green Point presented them. What were the facts he presented to the hon. the Minister? He said that a man and his wife had five children and they were all White. This is the basic fact which he presented to the hon. the Minister. There was a man and his wife and five children who were all White. Somehow the question of the father’s colour has arisen.

The man was a Coloured from the beginning.

The hon. the Minister must not play the fool, Sir. This is a very serious business.

The hon. member is merely repeating what the hon. member for Green Point said.

With all respect, Sir, I am not repeating. I am dealing with the hon. the Minister’s reply, which has not yet been replied to, because he spoke after the hon. member for Green Point. Let us get the facts right, if the Minister will allow me, because I think this is very important. This concerns a family of a father and a mother and five children who are all White at the moment, under the law as we know it at the moment. The question of the father’s colour is under review for some reason or other which I do not know about. It is under review. Now. let us face the facts. The hon. member for Green Point on clause 2 …

You cannot state facts, you state them wrongly.

I am dealing with facts.

Order!

The Minister can have his turn; let me have mine.

Order! I am giving the hon. member an extra turn to speak, as it is.

On clause 2 of this Bill the hon. member for Green Point moved an amendment which the Minister rejected, and that amendment would have removed the threat and the danger of exactly what the Minister is accepting has happened now. In other words, if one parent is classified as non-White the children will be Coloured. This is fact. The hon. member for Green Point gave the Minister an opportunity of getting out of this situation, but he would not take it. So now those children must automatically be classified as Coloured and any argument that the Minister can put up is, of course, nullified by the facts of the Bill. The Secretary for the Interior, the Minister says …

Because you are not a legal man I will not argue legal points with you.

The Minister says they will leave those five children as White at their various schools and so on. But the Minister cannot do that because he is not the law—he is just the Minister. This is going to be the law—this Bill. What actuates the Secretary? The fact that the father has been reclassified— that is what has got to actuate the Secretary and make him do something about it. As soon as the father is reclassified as Coloured he falls under the conditions provided for in clause 2, in respect of which the Minister rejected an amendment. If the father is classified as Coloured—and here the Minister can argue himself blue in the face—the law says that those children must become Coloured. I believe that the Secretary has to take cognizance of the fact of the reclassification of the father. The Minister can deny that as long as he likes, but that is fact. That has happened. That is what the law says. The father is now Coloured and the Secretary has to do something about that reclassification. What can he do in terms of this Bill about those facts? The only action he can take is to reclassify the children of that union as Coloured. If he does that, what in fact does he achieve? The father will now be Coloured, the five children will now be Coloured, and the mother will be White. So where are we going?

Now the mother is White and the children are White and the father is Coloured.

No, that is not the position today.

Yes.

He is not Coloured because he has not been reclassified yet. [Interjections]. I venture to say … [Interjections].

You cannot investigate …

No, Sir, can this go on? Who is talking now? [Interjections]. What is the position at the moment? The position is quite clear. The mother is White, the five children are White and the father is White at the moment. These are the facts—and I deal only in facts.

But the father is not White.

How can you say that? Are you a court of law?

I know the case.

Has the hon. member now set himself up as a court of law? [Interjections].

Order!

The position is simple. Carried to its end point under this Bill, if the father is declared Coloured the five children will be Coloured and the mother will remain White. If the Minister doubts what I say now, will he tell me how he is going to reclassify the mother as Coloured to bring her in line with the rest of the family? He cannot do it— In terms of the legislation he cannot do it. So what is the end point? The only end point at which he can arrive by his own legislation is that the father and the five children should be Coloured and the mother will be White. Is the hon. the Minister happy about that? Is the hon. member for Parow happy about that?

I know the case.

Is the hon. member for Prinshof happy about that?

Order! The hon. member is trying to be dramatic now on a principle which has been accepted.

I am not, Sir, I am dealing with this Bill now. There is nothing in the Rules which says that I can be dramatic or not dramatic. I am making the points on the facts of this Bill. If I make them dramatically, that is by the way. I make them with feeling, because I feel about this. If this Minister is happy because he can divide a family in the way that I have said, am I not entitled to be dramatic? Am I not entitled to be dramatic, Sir?

Order! The hon. member is repeating.

I do not think that I am being dramatic enough.

The hon. member is repeating what has been said about this point.

I do not believe that I am being dramatic enough. Because if we, in a parliament constituted as we are, purportedly by the will of the people, are prepared to spend our time considering legislation which as its end point—I am referring to clause 7, the last clause of the Bill—has this result, if this is the utmost it can achieve, then God help South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the hon. the Minister to get clarification on the legal interpretation which the Minister has placed on the word “may.” I think that we ought to have it on record that “may” after the words “is incorrect he” in new section 5 (4) inserted by clause 2 of the Bill does not give the Secretary any discretion in regard to reclassification. This word “may” gives the Secretary the discretion to do two things only—he may ether alter the classification himself or he may refer the case to the board. That is the meaning of “may” in this subsection. The point which the hon. member for Houghton made and which I support, a matter on which we want clarification from the Minister, is this. At the beginning of the clause we find the words, “Every person whose name is included in the register shall be classified by the Secretary …”. It is peremptory, it is an instruction to the Secretary: “Every person … shall be classified …

I do not agree with your interpretation.

We are trying to obtain legal clarification.

The Secretary may even decide not to take any account of it.

No. With respect, the law says—I quote from the new section 5 (1)— “Every person … shall be classified by the Secretary …” under certain groups and then they are divided into ethnic groups. That is peremptory. Now the Minister is making this law retrospective. The new section 5 (4) reads as follows—“If at any time it appears to the Secretary that the classification of a person in terms of subsection (1) is incorrect …”, he may then do two things. The Secretary may alter it himself …

He may do it or he may not do it.

No. He may do it himself or he may send the case to the board. He has got to do one of the two.

I can follow your reasoning.

I only want to say, as I said before, that I am not bringing politics into this matter—I want clarification. As I say, the Secretary may do two things, in other words, he must do one of two things: He must do the classification himself or he must send the case to the board. But he must reclassify if it is wrong, because it says at the beginning of the clause …

Yes, but he can decide whether it is wrong or not. The decision lies with him. On a point of order …

This is not a point of order.

On a point of explanation …

Let the hon. member first finish his speech.

This is the legal aspect, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to this matter. I just want the point clarified. I am not going to argue: I will accept any explanation the Minister gives if it is legally right. Section 5 (5) which is inserted by clause 2 of the Bill starts off as follows—“In the application of this section a person shall be classified as a white person if his natural parents have both been classified as white persons …” He is told what he has to do. It “shall” be done, and the “may” that the Minister referred to in my opinion merely gives an alternative to the Secretary, either to do it himself or to refer it to the board. But if there is a mistake in the classification, the person must be reclassified.

Read subsection (4).

In my opinion, the word “may” in line 42 merely gives the Secretary an alternative between two things, but the person must be reclassified. Therefore, if the Minister had it in mind all the time we have been discussing this Bill that there will not be a reclassification of people even though it is found that there was a mistake and the Secretary feels that he does not want to re-open the case, then I think the Minister was under a false impression because my reading of the Bill is that there is no alternative given to the Secretary; he must reclassify. I will not speak again, but will wait to hear from the Minister.

I did not intend getting up again, but because the hon. member for Boland as well as the hon. member for Houghton mentioned this very interesting legal point and very clearly gave their interpretation in that regard, and because it would appear that there are other people who are as confused as they are about this legal point, I, as a novice without any legal knowledge, want to tell them this. They are quite right in saying that in cases where there are no classifications—she referred to the register—the Secretary has to make a classification and has no option. He has to classify so as to keep the register in order. But that is in the case of people who have never been classified. That is the point. Once he has classified he has done his work, and where the hon. members go wrong is in connecting that “shall”, that obligation under which the Secretary is placed in terms of this legislation to perform the task of classification with the task of reclassifying those cases in respect of which objections are made to the classifications, or in respect of which it comes to his knowledge that a classification may possibly be incorrect. The legislation does not state anywhere that he has to make a reclassification. That is where hon. members go wrong. The legislation states that he may, if he feels that the classification is incorrect, decide to make a reclassification and he may, if he has any doubt, refer that to the board. But he may also decide that he has no doubts and then not make a reclassification. That is the whole point. The whole bottom of the argument falls away, because that is what the Act contains and that is how it will be interpreted and applied.

If I followed the Minister correctly, and I think I did, he indicated that as far as the case which I mentioned to him was concerned, the children would be left alone and there would not be any question of reclassification if they had white birth certificates and appeared as such on the register. But my difficulty is this, and it is obviously a matter which will have to be considered, perhaps in the Other Place. When they apply for their identity cards, will not the Secretary then be bound by the provisions of the new section 5 (5) (b)? That is, when he issues the certificate he will find that the one parent was classified as Coloured and at that stage, when the children are 16, he will be obliged in terms of section 5 (5) (b) to issue a certificate. The Minister shakes his head. I am not going to ask him to answer that legal problem now, but it was that problem which motivated my amendment, to leave to the Secretary the latitude of acceptance even though one parent might be Coloured. I want to ask the Minister—I do not expect him to answer me now—this. I think he will find that although those children are left alone up to the age of 16 to live their lives as white children, as soon as they apply for their identity cards the Secretary is bound to issue that card as Coloured, and their lives from that moment onward …

No, he is bound to issue the identity card according to their classification. The application for an identity card is not an application for the review of classification. Then classification would mean nothing and we might just as well leave it.

I probably have not made my point clear to the Minister, and there is no point in getting angry about this, because we are apparently both trying to achieve the same end, although I do not think we are achieving it. In the application of section 5 (5) (b)—this is the section dealing with classification—a person shall be classified as a Coloured person if one of his natural parents has been classified as a Coloured person. He must be. It is merely that closing of the door that I was trying to avoid in moving my amendment. But at this stage I leave it to the Minister. I accept that the Minister meant what he has said to us, but I am sure that after investigating this he will accept my amendment in the Other Place.

The legal advisers agree with me.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: B. J. van der Walt and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst, A. Hopewell.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half hour. Before dealing with the Vote as a whole, I think it is necessary that we establish just what we are dealing with this year. I noticed a Press report yesterday in which it is reported that the Chief Minister of the Transkei has made a statement. Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful if I could get the attention of the Minister or the Deputy Minister. I was saying that there has been a statement to the effect that the control of transport in the Transkei is “soon” to be handed over to the Transkeian Government and that the Transkeian Government would “soon” be managing and controlling the aspects of transport which at present fall under this Department. We should like to know whether that report is correct and whether in fact negotiations have taken place and it is true that transport is soon to be handed over to the control of the Transkeian Government. Secondly, we should like to know from the Minister or the Deputy Minister in the event of the control of transport being handed to the Transkei what arrangements are being made in regard to the facilities at present controlled and administered by this Parliament under the Vote which we are now considering. There is before the Committee at the moment a subsidy for national roads in the Transkei and provision is made for other services which the Department provides. We are entitled to ask whether we are being asked to vote money for services which, possibly even during the course of this Budget debate, if the word “soon” has any meaning, are to be removed from the control of this Parliament. I will leave the matter there and look forward to hearing the reply of the hon. the Minister as to whether this report is true and, if so, what arrangements have been made.

Looking at the Vote which is before us, we find a Department whose main responsibility is the co-ordination, control and servicing of all the various transportation services in South Africa. To put the picture into perspective I have listed the eight, or, if you count road safety as a separate one, the nine divisions into which this Vote which we are considering now falls. I want to take them in a different order to that in which they are grouped under the control of the Department of Transport and the National Transport Commission in the official departmental administration because we really have four distinct groupings. We have Civil Aviation and the Marine Division which are serviced by the Weather Bureau. The Weather Bureau, of course, services other Departments and provides other information as well but is primarily designed for marine and civil aviation needs as their service division. Then we have the Motor Transport division dealing with the provision of transport to the Government and Road Transportation division, dealing with the control of private enterprise and its use of the roads, issuing of carrier certificates and everything to do with the control of vehicular transport for commercial purposes. We have the division dealing with inspections. We have the third party division, and road safety and level crossings—together all forming a group concerned with road transportation, and finally we have the provision of roads themselves. This indicates how intricate is the inter-dependence of each of these divisions one upon the other. There is in many cases an overlapping of functions. There is to a large extent the question of competition between various types of transport services. Coastal sea traffic is in competition with the Railways. The Airways are in competition as regards passenger traffic with the Railways and with bus services. So we find not only an overlapping, but we find this competitive aspect between the different types of transport. We have maintained for a long time that there is a need for better co-ordination between these various aspects of transport.

Before one can take this matter any further, one must refer to the Marais Commission and I should like to ask the Deputy Minister whether that Commission has reported. Has he received the report, because until we receive that report, it is really impossible to do justice to a constructive discussion in this House on the co-ordination and overlapping of the various fields of transport. There is a long history to this problem. We first raised it many years ago. At first it was shrugged off and ultimately we were promised a commission. A year later the commission was appointed and now another year has passed and that report is not yet before us for consideration.

I do not know whether the Minister has the report as yet, but evidence was finished last August, some six months ago. Yet we still find ourselves here in a position that we cannot debate it and we cannot really give proper consideration to the overlap because of the need for the vital information which only their expert investigation can provide. For another year the same position is going to obtain as obtains at the moment, where quite clearly something is wrong. One only need look at the annual report of the Department, or read in the Press the various statements and the various complaints to know that something must be wrong. The problem is how you deal with it. Obviously you cannot have free road transport. It would be ridiculous to remove all private haulier restrictions. Our roads could not stand it in the first place and the Railways would go broke in the second place. Therefore the answer does not lie simply in a complete abolition of all restrictions on road transportation. I noticed another complaint in The Argus last night, from the South African wholesale Textile Association, dealing in this case with delays in harbour transportation. I do not accept and neither do I quote that as an example of a major problem, but it is part of the pattern. That is a Railway matter and we cannot discuss it because the Railways are handling that cartage. It does, however, touch on the question of the replacement of Railway transportation by private enterprise. The cartage from Durban harbour is done to-day by private enterprise, and it is done very successfully. The question which arises in other centres, if this system were to be extended, is an economic one, namely whether it would be economic and whether commerce would be as pleased to see it carried out by private enterprise if private enterprise were not competitive, pricewise, with the Railways. All these questions are tied up with the investigation at present taking place. There is the question of pirate taxis. Reference to last year’s report indicates that once again the granting of licences was very restricted:

Yet one of the major complaints submitted to the Marais Commission, particularly in Durban, was the extent of the growth of pirate taxis. We had a Bill in this House, dealing solely with measures to try to stop illegal taxi and haulier services. It was a Bill which was introduced because the Government felt that this problem had reached such serious proportions that it could no longer leave the matter as it was. Again a reference to the figures shows that there were 348 less certificates issued up to the end of 1966, for which we have the statistics. 4,000 less exemptions were granted up to March, 1966. In other words, the policy appears to be more restrictive, and yet the evidence is that there must be such a powerful demand for private haulage that people are even prepared to break the law in order to satisfy that demand. The demand would not be there and people would not risk bringing the force of law down upon them unless the demand was of such magnitude as to justify those risks. Therefore I hope that this year-by-year delay in being able to get down to seeking a solution to this problem is not going to continue very much longer.

I should now like to turn to some of the more detailed aspects of the Department. I shall deal with them in relation to each particular service. The first question I should like to ask is information on how the sum of R10,800,000 for a subsidy for the Bantu passenger services from Bantu townships is made up. We have had a debate, when the Additional Estimates were discussed, on an additional R2.4 million which was asked for those services. Now we are being asked for a further R2 million in the estimates for the coming year. Yet I have seen no analysis to date, no picture, of how that figure is made up. I should like to ask the Minister, now that we are again dealing with this matter, to give us a full explanation and full details of that vote.

Turning to civil aviation, it seems that this is a field in which from all accounts, there has been an improvement over the last year. We on this side of the House have pleaded for the separation of the control of civil aviation from the Department of Transport. I am not going to repeat the reasons which have been given in the past. I think it stands to reason that when we are dealing with aviation we are dealing with something peculiar to the modern age, which is not easily administered in the spirit in which one approaches the slower forms of traffic such as rail and road. We do not yet have that separation but I understand that an official has now been appointed to take charge of the marine and civil aviation aspects of the Department and that that appointment has made a tremendous difference to the morale and to the smooth working as between private civil aviation and the Department. Certainly the information that I have received is that where there was friction before, there now seems to be an improvement. If it is correct and if the reason is that it has been controlled by a separate official not concerned with other aspects of transport, then it is a step in the right direction. This aspect of civil aviation is one which I believe, and I think most people who are interested agree, requires a great deal more encouragement than it has received in the past. If we look at the position—again judging by the latest report which we have, namely up to March last year—we find that in respect of new and renewed licences, only six scheduled and 29 non-scheduled were granted in the 1965-’66 year. There is some growth. There is an increase in the number of pilots registered. There is an increase in the number of trainees, but it is not keeping pace with what one would expect in a country with such vast distances and covering such sparsely populated areas as South Africa. I believe that a great deal more can be done to encourage and to expand civil aviation through proper co-ordination and encouragement to private enterprise. I have raised various specific aspects of this matter before, which I do not intend to repeat to-day, but I would like the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister to tell us something about what steps their Department is taking to achieve this co-ordination.

It is not only in the field of private aviation, but in control of airports that the division of civil aviation comes into the picture. Here I want to raise a matter which concerns me. In April, 1962, I raised the question of navigational aids in this House and other hon. members also spoke on that. The Minister of Transport later dealt with navigational aids and reminded the House that account must be taken of certain things. I quote from column 4269 of Hansard of 19th April, 1962—

Then the Minister went on to deal with other airports and the type of navigational aids which were available at those airports. He told the House clearly, specifically and unequivocally that Louis Botha was equipped with an instrument landing system. That is a specific type of system—the ILS—and, in fact, in the report of the Department for 1966 there is a specific sub-paragraph dealing with “ILS— Louis Botha airport”. This report states the following—

Now, what is the fact? Was the Minister right when he said in 1962 that an ILS was installed at Louis Botha airport, Durban, or is this report correct when it says that that equipment was ordered in 1965? Which is correct? But let us look at a third version. I have here a report dated the 11th April, 1967—last week—stating—

That is a year later. In 1962 the Minister says there is an ILS system; in 1966 in the annual report we are told that it was ordered in 1965 and would be delivered in April, 1966; in April, 1967, we find that it is going to be installed and that Durban will be the third airport in South Africa to have an ILS system. Now, Sir, what is happening? Is this trifling with the House, trifling with the country? What are the facts? Which of these various reports is incorrect? The Minister’s in 1962 the National Transport Commission’s report last year, or the report that that system is not yet working in April, 1967?

I do not want to deal with further detail other than to refer to radar. The subject of radar has been raised over and over again in this House, and so has the absolute vital need to have positive radar control for more than a little area round the various airports. I know that the installation of radar is on the programme, I know that radar is being ordered. But we are dealing here with human lives; we are gambling with human lives if we do not have not just the minimum essential but the very best navigational aids which we can obtain. I think that everybody will agree that the programme for navigational aids, the long-term programme, is a good one. It is a good programme. But it is being implemented so slowly that by the time we get some of these aids at some of the smaller airports they will be completely out of date. We are dealing now with modern jet craft. Our own internal aeroplanes are flying at over 600 miles per hour. They approach at over 1,200, 1,300 miles per hour when two aircraft approach each other. Yet we only have radar at two of our major airports. I plead that the question of navigational aids, and the safety of the flying public through the assistance given to an aeroplane from the ground, be treated as a matter of urgent priority.

I have another point which I wish to raise and which I feel is something not to the credit of the Department. Before doing so—I am dealing now with the question of the marine division—I should like to refer to the number of fishing boat disasters which have taken place off our coast over the last year or two. I want to ask the Minister whether there are sufficient regulations dealing with the over-loading of fishing craft; whether there are sufficient inspectors to deal with them; whether inspection is regular and how regular, and how many inspectors there are. In other words, I want the hon. the Minister to give us a picture of the control of fishing craft round our shores. Because, Sir, it seems that there must be something wrong. One suggestion that I have heard —and I am not an expert on this and therefore I repeat it for what it is worth—is that there should be a load-line beyond which fishing boats may not be loaded. I understand that very many of them do not have such a line indicating the maximum load which they may carry.

Another matter which has been raised in connection with this matter, is insurance or some form of compensation for fishermen fishing independently on boats on which they are not employed and do not own. Normal insurance covers the owner or the crew, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act comes into the picture, but the fisherman who fishes on a part-share basis is not covered. We have raised the question over and over again, namely to ask if some provision cannot be made so that when there is a tragedy, when families are bereaved and women and children are left without a breadwinner, there can be some compensation for those who fish for their own profit on other people’s boats.

Under the same division there is the question of Safety of Life at Sea which is dealt with by the S.O.L.A.S. (1960) agreement. If one studies the report of the Secretary up to June last year then one sees that South Africa had not yet adopted the 1960 S.O.L.A.S. standards. Yet the other countries contributing thereto have been operating on the new basis since May, 1965. It is now almost two years later. We find that as a result South Africa was having to send its own inspectors overseas to inspect boats according to our outdated regulations while we fluttered about drawing up our own regulations under the new agreement. We sent them over, for instance, to Osaka, to Hamburg, to Vienna, to Amsterdam—four trips were made overseas, taking away vitally needed inspectors—the same report says how short we are of inspectors—simply because we had been unable to draw up the necessary regulations to implement an agreement to which we are a party. I should like the Minister to tell us whether that situation has eased, whether he has sufficient inspectors, and whether we are now operating together with the other countries of the world under the new agreement. Other aspects of the vote will be dealt with by other hon. members on this side. I would refer only to the tremendous increase in some departments in road transportation. I note that there has been a 30 per cent increase in the transport mileage of the Department of Information, from 700,000 to an anticipated 1 million miles. Why should Information, which we have always understood was designed to sell South Africa to the world, now show the greatest single increase in mileage of any Department?

Order! I think that point should be raised on the Information Vote.

No, we are being asked to vote it under this Vote. Last year there was a total increase of 7 million miles. This year we are being asked to vote a further 2.1 million miles. Although the overall increase is only 2.1million miles, we find that one department alone, the S.A. Bantu Trust Fund, accounts for 2.4 million additional miles. That means that the Bantu Trust plus the Information Department account for 2.7 million additional miles more than they were doing last year, the actual mileages performed during the year being 12.6 million in the one case and 1 million in the other. These do not appear to be the departments which one would have expected to show a major increase. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services serves the farmers of South Africa and it shows an increase of less than 1 million miles, and yet that is the Department one would have expected, with the drought and all the trouble we have had, to have been overworked when it came to travelling, and yet it has a minor increase whilst Information has a 30 per cent increase and the Bantu Trust more than a 20 per cent increase in mileage.

Now, to end on a more pleasing note, this side of the House would like to record its appreciation to the “R.S.A.”, working in cooperation with the Defence Force, for having done something which has not been done for 228 years, by being the first expedition to land a man on top of Bouvet. This is an outstanding tribute to South Africa’s men, their resourcefulness and their courage, and I think it is as well that it should go on record that we admire this first ever in the history of the world. That same department is also doing excellent work in a wide variety of fields. I would like to ask whether the Minister now has the report on the impact of climate on human productivity, for instance. That, too, is a matter which I feel will be of great interest and value to the country.

Finally I repeat that this is a widely scattered department which we feel can be better co-ordinated and I hope that whilst this debate will necessarily have to deal with detail, because we lack the Marais Commission Report, we will-shortly see an end to this state of affairs.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members at the outset that the Appendix on page 29 of the Estimates, as far as I can see, is only for information. There are 48 departments mentioned here, and it gives the mileage travelled by each one as compared with the previous year. I think the question of mileages should be raised under those particular departments. That is the way it has been done in the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

On a point of order, in regard to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, that deals with the year following after the accounts have been dealt with by the Auditor-General. In this case there may be an explanation due by the Department of Transport. For example, where a department has its own transport it may only come to the Department of Transport for additional services. On the other hand, they may have no transport of their own and get all their transport from the Department of Transport. For that reason, Sir, I would suggest that you allow a certain amount of latitude when questions are raised specifically under this heading, because I submit that the whole object of publishing this Schedule under the Estimates is to give information to the Committee so that the Committee can ask questions based on the information submitted to them.

I want to point out to the hon. member that the Department of Transport cannot say yes or no to another department. They are purely the agents. If a department asks for transport, it gets it automatically, and that particular department is responsible. In this Appendix you do not have any expenditure at all. You have an income for the department. The recoveries are what other departments pay to the Department of Transport for the use of their vehicles. I cannot stop hon. members completely from discussing this, but if we want to start discussing the transport used by 48 departments here, and the way they use Government transport, we will spend a full 100 hours on this Vote alone.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised quite a few matters which come under the Department of Transport. Many of these matters will also be raised by speakers on this side, but I want to start where the hon. member for Durban (Point) left off by making a few observations on the Head Marine Division, which falls under this Department. In this regard I want to point out how tremendously the activities of this particular division of the Department have expanded as a result of the phenomenal growth and prosperity experienced in the field of commercial shipping in South Africa during recent years.

During the past 12 years South Africa’s commercial fleet has quadrupled. In this regard we have to do with a young but dynamic industry, and I think it is time we devoted some attention to it. I want to mention that the upsurge in our commercial shipping has a strong bearing on the fact that in recent years South Africa has developed so tremendously in the field of industry and that we have become an export country to an increasing extent. International trade is of so much importance to us that we should do everything in our ability to keep the sea communications free for South Africa. For this reason I want to plead that our commercial shipping industry should be positively encouraged and promoted. There are fantastic possibilities in this regard. If we merely consider the activity in our harbours at present, we shall see that last year 16 million harbour tons of goods were discharged in our harbours, and 14 million tons of goods were shipped, an increase of 8 per cent on the previous year. I am just mentioning this in passing to illustrate the activity of our harbours, because I know it comes under the Harbours Vote. I also want to mention that in one year large ships visited our harbours 7,980 times, and coasting vessels 2,060 times. We have made a great deal of progress in the marine section of the Department during the past years, particularly if we consider the number of ships which appear on the South African register. That gives one an idea of the expansion in the activities of the Marine Division. I just want to point out that immediately after the war 12 foreign-going ships were registered on the South African register; in 1961 the number was 27, and in 1966 it was 35. Immediately after the war there were 13 coasting vessels, in 1961, 24, and in 1966, 49. There were 109 fishing vessels, in 1961 there were 153 and in 1966, 653. Over the past five years, up to 31st March, 1966, the number of ships on our register has therefore increased from 313, with a gross tonnage of 262,000 tons, to 864, with a gross tonnage of 411,000 tons. It is pleasing to be able to say that 94 per cent of the freight between our harbours is at present handled and shipped by our coasting vessels, but when we come to international freight the position is somewhat different, because only 10 per cent of the international freight is handled by our own ships. In view of the improvement that has taken place in recent times in respect of the freight capacity of our own ships, I think one may rightly appeal to our own consignors and to the Government to support our own ships and to give preference to them as far as possible. The more we transport in our own ships, the less freightage we have to pay to foreign lines. One cannot discuss this question of commercial shipping and the work of the Marine Division of the Department of Transport without paying tribute to the only large South African-controlled line, Safmarine. Sir, South Africa and the South African Government, which through the Industrial Development Corporation is the moving force behind this line, may be justly proud of the activities of this line. At present Safmarine controls more than 80 per cent of the South African commercial fleet, and in the field of international shipping it has given us a breakthrough. In 1963 the line carried 860,000 tons of freight, and this increased to 1,287,000 tons last year.

I now want to come to the point I actually want to make, and that is that our commercial shipping also has its problems nowadays. South Africa has a rugged and perilous coastline and it is therefore essential that our navigational aids should keep abreast of demands, and in addition we should also do everything in our ability to ensure the safety of our seamen as far as possible. If we consider the last few sea disasters that occurred, I have to draw the Committee’s attention to the important part helicopters may play in saving people who get into difficulties at sea, and for that reason I want to put it to the hon. the Minister for his consideration that where the helicopters of the South African Defence Force are not close at hand—I am thinking of the extensive stretches of our coastline and of the desolate regions—the Department of Transport should station its own helicopters at strategic points in such regions in order that, on the one hand, they may come to the assistance of ships and seamen who are in danger, and on the other hand that we may also use them to patrol the South African territorial waters and to drive away foreign fishing vessels that operate in our territorial waters. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Parow will not think me discourteous if I do not react to what he has said. I want to get back to the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point), and that is the question of navigational and landing aids for aircraft using our main airports. The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred specifically to the Durban airport. I would like to confine my remarks mainly to the two Eastern Cape airports, at Port Elizabeth and East London. The question arises whether the navigational and landing aids available there are adequate for modern high-speed aircraft flying at speeds in the vicinity of 600 miles per hour, especially during bad weather and more especially when there is bad weather at night. This is a matter of very real concern at the moment, and it is a matter of even greater concern in the Eastern Cape because the last three serious aircraft crashes which have taken place, took place in that area. Sir, I do not wish to discuss those tragedies; I would merely remind the Committee that there was the Dakota which crashed at Kokstad in 1951 with the loss of 13 passengers and four crew; another Dakota which flew into Katberg near Fort Beaufort in 1962 with the loss of two crew, and lastly, this last disastrous crash of a Viscount on 13th March of this year when more than 20 people were killed. I am not suggesting that the reasons for all those crashes were identical. All I want to say is that there was one common factor at the time of each of those crashes and that was bad weather conditions. Sir, at more or less fully equipped airports, such as we have at D.F. Malan, there are two navigational or landing facilities which are not available at ether of the Eastern Cape airports, Port Elizabeth and East London. I am referring to radar and the instrument landing system which was mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point). With radar you have a precision-approach radar in conjunction with it the surveillance radar or scanner which, I am told, can pick up an aircraft at distances of up to about 150 miles and immediately position it in relation to the airport. If a pilot using the instrument landing system concentrates on the instrument in his cock-pit he can tell immediately whether he is to the left or to the right, to port or starboard, of the centre-line of the runway as he comes in to land and also whether his approach is too high or too low. This is a system of tremendous value to pilots and, in fact, they can be brought down very close to the ground, so close to the ground (at least when they are practising), that the second pilot can tell the first pilot that he can level out and land. Sir, the need for these bad weather facilities depends not only on the traffic density but also on another factor. I will admit at once that as far as East London is concerned, if you look at traffic density it does not rate very high on the list. If, for example, you look at page 36 of the latest report of the Department of Transport we find that East London only rates 5th on the list as far as the number of passengers handled is concerned, but during the year covered by this report there were nevertheless, excluding transit passengers, no fewer than 51,449 passengers handled at that airport. The second factor, when we are dealing with airports near the coast is the elevation of that airport above sea level. The higher an airport near the coast is above sea level the dirtier the weather conditions are at that airport. An airport like D.F. Malan is only 151 ft. above sea level. As you go east you get to Port Elizabeth which is 225 ft. above sea level and which has correspondingly worse weather conditions usually, and finally you get East London which is 425 ft. above sea level, and it is not for nothing that that airport is known amongst our major airports along the coast as the airport where the dirtiest weather conditions are encountered. Sir, the Department of Transport has realized the need for instrument-landing facilities at Port Elizabeth and East London, and in fact on page 38 of their report we see the following—

Sir, when I put a question to the hon. the Minister earlier this session, about three weeks ago, as to when we could expect this instrument-landing system to be installed at East London he gave me the following information: Tenders were called for last year and the return date for the tenders was August, the 15th of last year, but no tenders were accepted and the completion of the installation at East London could not be expected before 1969. The hon. the Minister gave no further information. He did not tell us why there had been this delay and I feel that he owes it to this Committee to give us the reason as to why there is going to be this further long delay and why East London airport is not going to be equipped with an instrument landing system before 1969?

The hon. the Minister owes this reply not only to the Committee, but also to those 51,500 passengers who use East London airport every year and all their relatives and friends who go out to the airport to see an aircraft off or to meet an aircraft and in many cases have to go away again because the particular airliner has to overfly the airport. Then there are also the thousands of transit passengers who pass through that airport every year and the pilots and the crews. Lastly, I also think of the people of the Border areas because the modern airport is the gateway to the world for the area concerned and the Collondale airport at East London is the Border’s gateway to the world. There is a saying that trade follows the flag. I think that a more modern saying would perhaps be that trade follows the airways’ flag because to-day our businessmen fly by jet aircraft and they want to be sure that they can book a passage on a scheduled flight, knowing that they are going to take off and land in safety. Here we have an area served by the East London airport, the Border area, which has lagged behind the rest of the country economically in many respects and an area which the Government has recognized needs some special economic stimulus. Businessmen must be able to reserve their seats for departures from and arrivals at that airport knowing that they will be able to make a safe landing there and not be faced with this prospect of overflying and diversion. I am not going to suggest that these are the only navigational or landing aids available at East London or Port Elizabeth airport. I do want to put the question of whether the landing aids that are available there are in all circumstances, or at least before the Viscount crash were being, used according to the regulations laid down for the control area of the East London airport and whether they were being used in all circumstances according to those regulations. One has quite a variety of navigational aids there. There is first of all the very high frequency direction finding equipment by means of which the ground controller can take a bearing on an aircraft and give the pilot the course to steer for that aerodrome. Secondly there is the system that was out of action on the night that the Viscount crashed, namely the very high frequency omni-directional range equipment, which is also a device by which the pilot can steer towards an aerodrome. There is also the distance measuring equipment which can tell him the distance his aircraft is away from the airport. Lastly, there is the standard blind flying approach system in respect of which a separate pattern is laid down for each main airport. The one at East London is a relatively simple system and I should like to deal with it in some detail because it has a bearing on what I want to say later. Basically the equipment consists of two beacons, one a locator beacon about half a mile from the threshold of the main runway and in line with it and secondly a beacon down at Hoodpoint near the harbour. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I first want to refer to certain observations made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) in respect of the instrument landing system at Durban. Here I have the report of the Division of Civil Aviation of 10th January, 1962, in respect of instrument landing systems in service at that time. With reference to Durban it says: “The ILS localizer ex Jan Smuts is being overhauled and temporarily installed for evaluation.” The hon. the Minister was therefore quite right when he said, according to the Hansard quotation, that an instrument landing system was being installed at Durban. A system was taken from Jan Smuts Airport in Johannesburg. It was overhauled and transferred to Durban. For various technical reasons that system proved to be unsatisfactory and was then removed. It is quite correct that there is no such system there at the moment, but the hon. member tried to give the impression that the hon. the Minister had given misleading information to the House. I just want to make it quite clear that at that stage, when that information was given to the House, the facts furnished by the Minister were in fact correct.

Which ILS installation was that?

The Jan Smuts ILS was transferred to Durban in 1962 and was tested there for a period, and proved to be unsatisfactory.

It did not work there?

No, it did not work satisfactorily, and other provision is how being made, to which I shall refer in the course of my speech. Mr. Chairman, I say it is quite clear that it did not work satisfactorily and for that reason it was not put into permanent service. I want to refer to the hon. member’s comments on radar at the other airports. Four of our airports in the Republic are in fact equipped with some form of radar for aeronautical purposes. There is in fact radar at Durban. There is the so-called P.P.I. system, which is used in Durban. Time will not allow me to explain its technical operation, but it is one of the systems. I want to recommend to the hon. member that he pay a visit to the control tower and talk to the officials. There is therefore radar in Durban.

I said there was.

There are also other airports in the Republic where radar is used. At Bloemfontein S.R.E. radar is used; at Jan Smuts an S.R.E. system is used and here at the D. F. Malan Airport a P.A.R. and S.R.E. radar system is used. In view of the specific weather conditions and the topography, D. F. Malan has among the best radar systems obtainable in the country. It is therefore not correct to say that radar is lacking at the airports that justify it. Radar is certainly used there.

I want to refer to the observations made by the hon. member for Albany and I want to come back to his comments on the East London Airport. At this stage I do not want to go into the question of whether or not all the instruments were in operation at the time of the accident. I think we accept it as a matter which is sub judice, because an inquiry is in progress. I think the facts in that connection will be fully revealed by that intensive inquiry. For that reason I do not want to go into the possible causes of the accident in any way whatsoever at this stage. I do not think it would be fair. I do want to say that there is extensive instrumentation in East London and the hon. member for Albany has admitted that himself. Apart from what he mentioned, there are also auxiliary systems. There are also the visual approach system aids. There are slope indicator aids. There is night lighting. There is a ½ Calvert system on one runway which serves as a night landing aid. Then it is perhaps also of interest to mention a new system of navigation which is now to be taken into service in South Africa, the so-called Tacan system. Tacan is a new navigation system which is extensively used in the United States of America. This system is now also being introduced at our airports in South Africa. It is a system which is to be installed at all our airports in South Africa. It is a system which also has a military function, as utilized in the U.S.A. Tacan stands for “tactical air navigation systems”. Amongst other things it is a combination of two present systems which are used by us.

At the moment we use the very high frequency omni-directional range system, the so-called V.O.R., which plots a course for aircraft. In conjunction with it we use D.M.E., i.e. distance measuring equipment. It is an instrument which indicates the distance from a fixed point. In other words, by means of this system the pilot finds his course and his distance from his destination. The new system which is now to be introduced is a combination of these two systems, but with considerable technical improvements which include the best of both systems. It also has other additional advantages apart from civil aviation purposes and can also, with additional instrumentation, be used in aircraft by the South African Air Force. I understand it is the intention to commence the installation of this system even during the next financial year, something on which the hon. the Minister will perhaps give us more information. But once this system is in use, I foresee a system of navigational aids throughout South Africa, but in particular at our airports, which will cover the entire country more effectively than is done at present with the existing limited aids of which the range is restricted by certain physical features, for example mountains.

But there is a further system which is of great importance to navigation at sea, a system which will also be an additional aid to air navigation. I am referring to the Decca navigation system which was mentioned in this House on a previous occasion by the Minister of Defence. South Africa will be the first country south of the Equator to introduce this system. Our coastline from Moçambique to Angola will be the first coast-line to be covered by this system to a distance of 240 miles out to sea. It is a system which can be accurate to a few yards. Moreover, it is completely faultless. As such it will be absolutely unsurpassable as a navigational aid in South Africa. At the moment there are only some 20 of these installations in the world—most of them in the U.S.A.; then there are also some of them in Europe, in Britain and in the Persian Gulf. It is of interest, however, to note that South Africa will be the first country south of the Equator to use this system. Having regard to all these things, I must say that we are making a tremendous breakthrough. This should eliminate the problems which still exist—and one would accept that there are in fact problems. This Decca system, which will cost approximately R6 million, consists of five interlinking units. Over and above navigational purposes it can also have various other uses—for example as an aid in our search for oil along our coastline; for seismic research; for hydrographic surveys and charting; for our air-sea rescue and search system, it will be very valuable and also for laying undersea cables. Finally it will be very useful to our fishing industry. [Time expired.]

I think the hon. member for Middelburg misunderstood me. When I referred to the fact that the V.O.R. was out of action at East Lonodn during the night of March the 13 th, the night the Viscount crashed, I was not suggesting that that was necessarily the cause of the crash. As far as this crash is concerned, I do not want to speculate about the probable causes of it at all. I was dealing with the approach procedure at East London. Before I go into the detail of the standard blind flying approach procedure at East London airport, I should like to quote from chapter 15, section 6, of the Air Navigation Regulations, laid down by the Director of Civil Aviation, who is an official of the Department of Transport. The section of that paragraph I should like to read is as follows:

the area around East London aerodrome is such an area—

The air traffic controller is, of course, also an official of the department. I described the blind approach being used at East London. It consists basically of the use of two beacons: One the locator beacon, which is situated a little bit off the threshold of the main runway that is used and the second one in direct line with that and in a direct line with the centre of the runway down at a place called Hood Point near the harbour. The approach procedure to be observed is that the pilot when flying under instrument flight conditions shall approach the first beacon—the one next to the runway—at a height of 4,500 feet above sea level from a distance of 25 nautical miles away; he shall then fly straight over the other beacon at Hood Point, the non-directional beacon, losing height the whole time and continue on for eight nautical miles out to sea; then he will turn and come back on the opposite of that course, the reciprocal coming in over the non-directional beacon at Hood Point at the stipulated height of 1,500 feet. This is important—when he comes back over the non-directional beacon near the harbour he must fly at 1,500 feet. A level is laid down, not by regulations but by each operating company, known as the “minimum approved level” or the “break-away level”, the break-off level. If a pilot by the time he reaches that level during a blind approach cannot see the runway or, to be more technically correct, if he is not flying visual, as they call it, he must not attempt to land but go away and land at another aerodrome—ether Bloemfontein, or Durban, or Port Elizabeth, whatever the case may be.

We have an eyewitness account of an aircraft under bad weather conditions making a very different approach from this. This was on the morning when the Viscount crashed. Conditions were bad. There was a cloud base of about 200 feet, a visibility of only 800 yards, and it was raining. That eyewitness happens to be a member of this House, the hon. member for King William’s Town. He himself is an ex-permanent force officer of field rank and a S.A. Airforce pilot of very great experience. On this particular morning he was in the East London Club. At 12.30, just before lunch, he had gone up to his room. Now, this is only a two-storeyed building, the hon. members’ bedroom being on the first floor. His own words were that as he looked out of his bedroom window—the first floor is not very high—he saw a Boeing coming in level with the window, as he put it. The aircraft was flying just under the cloud. There were patches of low cloud drifting in. The aircraft flew in and out of that cloud every now and again.

The very last people I would criticize are my fellow pilots—many of them ex-colleagues of mine, brother officers of mine at one time. However, by no stretch of imagination could that sort of approach at that height be called an entirely safe approach. I know modern aircraft are reliable, they are equipped with reliable multi-engines, but none the less this aircraft which was in the vicinity of the non-directional beacon and which should have been at about 1,500 feet, if he was making the standard blind flying approach applicable to that aerodrome, was very much lower than that. What is more, he was over a very heavily built-up area. I leave it to the imagination of hon. members to visualize what would happen if an aircraft under those circumstances crashed into the heavily built-up area underneath it.

This machine made a perfectly safe landing, but the question arises as to who authorized an approach of that nature? Did the ground controller authorize it, and, if not, why are pilots making this type of approach? I am not suggesting that this type of thing is entirely general. I would, however, remind the Committee that on the night the Viscount crashed, just before it crashed it was seen by eye-witness observers flying over the sea just off the coast. One observer said that it was more or less level with the sand-dunes whilst the other one said that the aircraft appeared to be flying level with the tops of the trees. This was some 18 to 20 miles away from the aerodrome. At that stage the pilot could not have had any intention of climbing back to 4,500 feet, 25 nautical miles away from East London, in order to make the standard type of blind-flying approach which I have outlined. I have said that I do not wish to criticize pilots because I feel that there is a reason why they are in some instances attempting to make these creeping approaches under cloud. I think the reason is very largely what is known as “passenger pressure”. If an aeroplane has to overfly an airport as happens in bad weather because the navigational aids and landing facilities are not of the most modem type, then the pilot is unconsciously subjected to this so-called passenger pressure. What is it? It consists of the feeling that you, as the pilot, have on board many people who expect to be landed at a certain point but, instead of putting them off at say East London, they have to be put down at perhaps Port Elizabeth or Durban or Bloemfontein. They have to spend the night there and the next morning they have to fly back to their actual destination. In some cases—as happened recently—they even have to be brought back by bus. There is also the fact that relatives and friends of the passengers are waiting at the airport and they are also going to be disgruntled because of the over-flying. Passenger pressure is a very real thing in the minds of pilots and that is why these strict safety regulations have been laid down. There is only one solution to this. Ether aircraft will have to over-fly those air ports, as they have to do at the moment, or else the department will have to provide these modern aids, the ILS and the radar, at a very much earlier date than they seem to intend doing.

In the short time left to me I want to get on to another item dealing with civil aviation, a matter purely concerning private flying. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to one aspect of the argument of the hon. member for Albany, and that is to make it clear that irrespective of any instrumentation the Department of Transport should install at any airport—and at East London, for argument’s sake, since we are discussing East London—the aircraft trying to land there will not be allowed to land under certain circumstances. East London is well-known for its bad weather and for the low lying fog which frequently occurs in the vicinity of the runway. It is the desire of the Department to install as much instrumentation there as possible in order that the airport may be as safe as possible. But the public outside should not be misled into thinking that any problems existing at our airports are due to lack of instrumentation. I am not suggesting that the hon. member is doing that. It should be appreciated that a certain fixed rule is laid down by operators, a rule to which the hon. member also referred. The S.A.A. also adheres to this rule. The rule is that if the clouds are lower than a certain level the aircraft may not land, irrespective of the instrumentation on the runway or the type of instrument landing systems that may be in use at the airports. It is the responsibility of the captain of the aircraft to determine whether or not it is safe to land. Regardless of the quantity of instrumentation installed on the runway, landings may simply not be made on the runway under certain minimum weather conditions, no matter how unfortunate it may be for the passengers, and how unfortunate it may be for the captain and his crew, or anybody else, who may be tired and who have to fly to some other airport. Those are the rules. It should not be thought that lack of instrumentation on an airport may be responsible for the fact that certain flights have to overfly. That should be quite clearly understood. I think this aspect should be emphasized, and I shall be grateful if the public outside get it into their minds that no quantity of instrumentation provides a solution for bad weather and fog on runways.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to follow the trend of the previous speakers, except to say that regarding the tragedy of the Rietbok I should like to say how sorry we all are in South Africa that the wonderful record of our air services should have been marred by this one accident. Nevertheless, it does not reflect upon the wonderful service that we have been rendered by the airmen in South Africa.

I should like to deal with traffic control on land. While we are extremely thankful for the work which is being done by the Road Transportation Board in attempting to curb the number of accidents on our roads, the number of accidents is nonetheless still very alarming. As far as the control of traffic on our national and other roads is concerned that is, of course, in the hands of the provincial traffic officers. I have greater knowledge of traffic control within the cities, control which is, in my opinion, so difficult at the moment that I feel the Government should now step in and take over all traffic control of whatever nature throughout the country and coordinate traffic control. We must, I submit, centralize. We have to-day several bodies all dealing with the same thing, namely traffic control. We have the Road Transportation Board, we have the provincial roads people, we have the city roads people, and sometimes the police are called in. I say that it is wrong and quite frankly I think that traffic control as far as the cities are concerned has outgrown the capability of any city to pay for traffic control. I do not think that the ratepayers of any city should be taxed for a service which, I think, is a national one and not a civic one. I do not want to go into the history of this matter. At one time it was in the hands of the police and thereafter it was handed over to the cities. As I say, it has assumed such enormous dimensions that it has become quite impossible. I think that in any big city the present number of traffic officers should be trebled in order to co-ordinate road safety with the work of the Road Transportation Board. I think that it is high time this was done. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to the taking over of traffic control. I ask him to give us a national traffic control force rather than have traffic control duties divided amongst various bodies, municipal, provincial and other. Unless we have such a system of co-ordination under one central control, we will find that we will not achieve the object which we pursue, namely to curb the number of accidents in South Africa.

It is not pleasant reading to see in the latest police report the number of prosecutions under traffic laws. For instance, I notice that in 1963-’64 there were some 51,000 cases involving defective vehicles in this country. In 1964-’65 the number was reduced by a couple of thousand to 49,000. Nevertheless, that high number of defective vehicles on our roads constituted a great hazard to road safety, I think it is a tremendous figure. It is all due to the fact that a sufficient number of people is not employed in traffic control on our roads to be able to do something about it. Then I see that the number of people who drove without licences increased by over 3,000, and this also does not redound to our credit. But, Sir, can you imagine that road traffic offences amount in 1964-’65 to 263,316 cases leading to prosecution? I do not think that means merely parking. Those are matters which the police have taken up because it is given in the police report, but it tends to show that because we do not have enough traffic officers and because this question is beyond the capability of local authorities or even of the provincial authorities to give proper attention to it, therefore we have this state of affairs.

Now I come to what I believe is my duty in this House, and that is to plead for the Coloured people. I know the Minister has nothing to do with this but I want him to use his influence. The Government, for some reason which I have never been able to fathom, has reserved traffic control for Whites and we have a potential of thousands of Coloureds who are willing and capable of being traffic officers in the cities or in the Coloured areas. I believe that people are being killed on the roads through lack of control and therefore we must not allow colour prejudice to stand in the way. It is high time that the Minister should make representations to the Cabinet to alter that. He will find a response which will enable him to get the number of people necessary to control traffic. I do not want to take the matter any further, but I think it is high time that the Coloured people should have he opportunity to do this work. [Interjection.] They do join the police, and I have dealt with this matter. All I say is that one of these days we will need hundreds of Coloured people to direct traffic in the Coloured areas. But as long as they are prevented from joining, for so long it will be impossible to make use of a reservoir of labour for this purpose. I hope that the Minister will give me a favourable reply on the points I have raised.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to the estimated losses suffered by the Railways in respect of Bantu passenger services to and from Bantu residential areas. The Opposition made quite a fuss about this matter when the Estimates of Additional Expenditure were discussed here. One would have said that the hon. member and others do not know about the existence of an agreement between the Railways and the Treasury concerning the transport of Bantu. As a matter of fact, the hon. member is also a member of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, and this matter is being discussed there every year. When this matter was discussed earlier this year, the Minister and the Deputy Minister furnished full particulars, and for that reason I shall not go into that matter again.

I should like to refer to the work of the S.A. Road Safety Council. One is grateful for the establishment of such a body. We all know that it is a statutory body capable of suing and being sued. I do not want to go into the aims of that body, because they are known to all of us. This Council is being financed by the Central Government to an amount of R250,000, and in addition to that it receives revenue from the Provincial Administrations and it also obtains funds from other sources. The functions of the Council are very important, particularly in regard to dealing with road

safety and it was essential for such a body to be instituted by the Government to undertake this work. We know that this Council specializes particularly in research, education and guidance with a view to promoting road safety. I am aware of, inter alia, the attempts made by this Council at educating children from the infant stage up to the high school stage, but the greatest task is that of educating adults.

It has often been asked, in view of the fact that the Central Government votes this amount for road safety every year, whether this is justified. As I see the matter, my reply to that is a straightforward yes. The success of this Council cannot always be measured statistically and mathematically because there is really no basis on which this Council can work, since the number of vehicles increases every year. But now we ask ourselves: How much bigger would the accident rate on our roads have been if that Council did not exist? That is why one wants to express one’s appreciation when one mentions the excellent work this Council is doing for all sections of the population in this country. In this regard, without mentioning any names, I should like to refer to the members of the Action Committee. I want to refer to the good work that was done by the former chairman, the Secretary for Transport, Mr. Joubert, during the years immediately subsequent to the establishment of this Council. At the moment the chairman of the Action Committee is, of course, the Administrator of the Transvaal. But in particular I want to refer to the work of the general manager, Mr. Matt Maree, who is always putting road safety first and foremost by means of his radio talks, the Press as well as interviews.

I also want to refer to a function this Action Committee carried out recently when it made a recommendation regarding traffic legislation to the Provincial Advisory Council. It was to the effect that legal provision had to be made to authorize drivers of vehicles involved in collisions, to remove their vehicles, provided that nobody has been injured or killed and that the accident was to be reported at a police station without delay. We know that this is a very sensible recommendation, and it has also been accepted, because such an accident causes traffic congestion as well as further accidents. This Council also initiated the idea of the 70 m.p.h. maximum speed on our roads, and at present it is being applied generally by the provinces. There has not yet been sufficient time to see what the actual results are, but if we consider how many accidents occurred during the past Easter weekend in comparison with previous years, we have to admit that it was a very sensible decision.

I should like to say that the entire country is pleased about the fact that the provinces have introduced reasonably uniform road transportation regulations, but there is still one aspect in respect of which one would like to see more uniformity, and I want to plead for that to-day. It is in connection with uniformity in our municipal traffic by-laws. It is essential that there should be more uniformity. Approximately half of the accidents occur in urban areas, and a high percentage of them occur among pedestrians. This high percentage of accidents amongst pedestrians was mentioned in this House last year. Let us compare a few of our cities. We know that in Johannesburg pedestrians may only cross the road at pedestrian crossings. That, used to be the case in Pretoria, too, namely that they could only cross the road at street corners and pedestrian crossings. I should not like to refer to Cape Town in this regard, and I think the Chairman will call me to order if I express my opinion on what is going on here. In this way one notices the great difference in traffic regulations amongst the large cities. I really hope that the Road Safety Council will also pay attention to this matter as soon as possible, and that it will come forward with some recommendation or other.

In conclusion I want to bring to the notice of the Minister the idea of a central bureau or register of licensed drivers. If a driver’s offence in one province is such that his licence is taken away from him, he can simply go to another province and there he can obtain a licence once again. As things are at present, there is no control over this matter and it is essential that we should have better control in this regard. I hope that the Provincial Administrations will lend their co-operation in this regard as well.

As was said by the hon. member for Durban (Point), this is a Vote of many parts. We are asked to vote some R30 million odd from Revenue and R19 million as capital expenditure. The hon. member for Koedoespoort takes a great interest in road safety and the problems attached to it. I think we are all concerned with the very high accident rate. There is no doubt about it that everything possible is being done by way of controls and by improved methods of road construction to reduce the death rate on our roads. It was noticeable over Easter that there was a lowering of the death rate. Sir, the hon. member for Boland appealed for uniform traffic control. That appeal has been made before in this House; it has been suggested here before that traffic control should be returned to the Police, but I think here we come up against the difficulty that we have a shortage of staff. When we look at the report of the Department of Transport which has just been presented to us, we find the following statement—

We continually come up against the difficulty that we simply have not got the manpower.

Sir, I would like to appeal to the Minister to give his careful attention to this question of manpower and to find out why we cannot retain the technical staff of our various road departments. I know that the one cause is a question of salary. We have to compete with the private sector for technical staff and the salaries we offer our technical staff should be high enough to induce them to remain in the Service.

Sir, when one reads this report one is disappointed to see what slow progress has been made in the construction of our national and special roads. There is a table on page 26 which shows the “mileage constructed to formation standard at 31st March, 1966”. As far as national roads are concerned I find that during 1965-’66 95 miles were constructed in the Cape, nil in the Transvaal, two in the Orange Free State, nil in Natal, making a total of 97 miles. I wonder whether the Department, in setting out which roads are going to be constructed, should not indicate the estimated cost of construction and at the same time give us a priority list. As far as our national roads are concerned, I feel that a priority list should be drawn up and set out in this report. We had a system in the Provincial Council and we could see year by year what progress was being made with the construction of roads. Sir, the motorist in this country pays quite a lot of money in taxation. This year the Department is going to take R52 million out of the pockets of the motorists for roads. Every time the motorist puts petrol in his tank or every time the commercial user uses dieseline he pays a certain amount of indirect taxation. It appears from an answer to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister that in 1965 the motorists paid R69½ million in excise and customs duty on petrol; in 1966 they paid R78,380,000. A portion of this money paid by the motorist goes to the Road Fund. I have asked the hon. the Minister before whether a greater proportion of the money paid by motorists could not be used for the construction of roads in this country. The hon. the Minister referred me to the Minister of Finance, I wonder whether the Minister could not twist the arm of the Minister of Finance a little bit more to persuade him to allow a greater portion of this money to be used for the building of roads. Sir, I pointed out a moment ago that we were not making sufficient progress in the construction of national and special roads. We have a terrific national road construction scheme ahead of us and in spite of that we find that an amount of R5,743,000 has not been spent. Surely better planning is required as far as the construction of national roads is concerned to ensure that all the money voted for the construction of roads is in fact used I think a priority list should be drawn up and we should be given the estimated cost of the various roads in the Department’s report. I notice from the report that an experimental concrete road is going to be built just outside Cape Town, to extend the freeway between Cape Town and D. F. Malan airport towards Gordon’s Bay. It looks as though the Cape Province is going to be the guineapig for the construction of roads with concrete base. But, Sir, we have been conducting experiments for many years in this country with concrete roads. I think one of the first concrete roads to be constructed was the one from the bottom of Bains Kloof up the French Hoek pass. That road still exists and it has been in existence for a very long time. There are also other stretches of national and provincial roads constructed with concrete base. This seems to be the practice overseas. I should like once again to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to get a move on with the construction of national and special roads because we seem to be making very slow progress, judging by this report.

Then I want to turn to another subject. We have heard speeches here this afternoon on the safety of our airports. I would like to deal with another item and that is the question of safety at sea. The hon. member for Parow has drawn the Committee’s attention to the importance of our marine division, and the hon. member for Durban (Point) has also dealt with this matter. Sir, we have such a large number of small boats to-day that I feel that there should be some measure of control over the loading of these boats. According to the report of the National Transport Commission there are 653 registered fishing boats, but what I cannot understand is that the report says that there are only 37 registered pleasure boats. I assume that these are boats for which there is compulsory registration. I feel that all craft using our harbours should be registered. Every boat using our harbours, every boat which is sea-going and which carries passengers should be registered and there should be some measure of control to ensure that they are seaworthy. We find that numbers of boats which are admittedly well built are not seaworthy. They can be used on lakes but they are certainly not seaworthy. [Time expired.]

The previous speaker on this side, the hon. member for Koedoespoort, referred to the Road Safety Council and the grant made to that Council under the Transport Vote for the promotion of road safety. Before I say a few things about one of the latest measures taken in connection with safety on our roads in an attempt to reduce the number of accidents, I want to respond to the hon. member for Boland’s plea that the local traffic inspectors of our towns and cities should also be brought under centralized control. Unfortunately I cannot associate myself with that plea. I believe that our towns and cities have so far been very successful in regulating their traffic by means of their own traffic forces, and unless proof can be furnished that the present system does not work effectively and that a system of centralized control will be an improvement. I cannot associate myself with the hon. member’s statement.

I am really rising to talk about the latest measure taken on a national basis to promote road safety, namely the speed limit of 70 miles per hour on our national roads. I want to state here that statistics have proved that the accident rate is reasonably high when accidents occur at a high speed, but this accident rate is not higher than the accident rate in respect of accidents occurring in our cities and towns. To prove that speed is not the only factor responsible for a large number of accidents, I should like to submit to the Committee a few figures taken from the 1966 annual report. In 1956 there were 68,368 accidents in the urban areas as against 11,935 in the rural areas. In 1960 this figure was much higher; there were 96,208 in the urban areas as against 20,000 in the rural areas. In 1965 we find the alarmingly high figure of 121,444 accidents in the urban areas as against 23,000 in the rural areas. In looking at these statistics, one can only arrive at one conclusion and that is that the accident rate is much higher in the urban areas than in the rural areas. The accident rate in the urban areas is positively alarming. Then I just want to mention in how many cases these accidents proved to be fatal: In 1956, 1960 and 1965, respectively, there were 875, 1,387 and 2,505 fatal accidents in the urban areas as against 846, 1,368 and 2,213 in the rural areas. The percentage of serious accidents, apart from fatal accidents, was also considerably higher in the urban complex than in the rural areas. I just want to mention the latest figures here, the figures for 1965: There were 6,527 serious accidents in the urban areas as against 2,665 in the rural areas. If speed had been one of the main causes for the increase in road accidents, then these statistics would have been quite different. The picture would then have been the exact opposite. It is being accepted that motorists drive at much higher speeds in the rural areas than they do in the urban areas, where the speed limit is between 30 and 35 m.p.h. One would therefore expect the accident rate to be much lower in urban complexes than in rural areas, and that is not really the case. Speed is therefore not one of the principal causes of the high accident rate. I want to suggest here that the fool behind the steering-wheel, the tired motorist and the reckless motorist are the factors contributing to the increase in the number of accidents. Take the example of a reasonably big car, with 100 horse-power or more, which has to drive at the snail’s pace of a 70 m.p.h. maximum behind the smaller American, Italian and British cars—the Volkswagen, the Mini Minors, the Renaults and others; it cannot be anything but soul-deadening to the driver of the big car who has to drive behind those smaller cars at that snail’s pace. It is boring and reduces his alertness. If one is not watchful when driving on our public roads at a speed of 70 m.p.h., one is a greater danger than when driving a big, powerful car at 80 or 90 m.p.h. The maximum speed of these smaller cars is only about 70 m.p.h. at peak performance. They are a greater danger than the bigger, powerful cars at 80 to 90 m.p.h. In general we are greatly concerned at the loss of man-hours, but if we are going to have a speed limit of 70 m.p.h. in addition, we shall be losing more thousands of man-hours every year. I think that I have now proved statistically that the accident rate in the rural areas— where one may assume that speeds are highest, at any rate, much higher than in urban areas —is lower than that of the urban areas. Therefore this is an absurd regulation to my mind. I would not have called it “absurd” if I had been convinced that it would reduce the accident rate. All of us agree that the accident rate in South Africa is fantastically high. All of us want to see it reduced. But since there is no drop in this rate, I cannot agree that this regulation is a good one.

I want to mention in passing that the construction of our national roads leaves much to be desired. The highway between Durban and Johannesburg, via Harrismith and Villiers, was only put into service a few years ago. During holiday periods and week-ends this highway carries tremendously heavy traffic. I say that the condition of this road makes it dangerous to drive on it. For more than a year already this road is being patched—and this is a road which was only completed recently. Let us consider the Harrismith-Bloemfontein road, an old road. It has also become a danger. I therefore maintain that the speed at which a motorist drives is not the only factor in accidents, but also the condition of the road he is using. This is an aspect to which attention should be paid. A light vehicle, at a speed of 60 m.p.h. on a road full of holes and cracks, is a dangerous instrument of murder in spite of the most skilful driver. At that speed such a vehicle can hardly be kept on a road that is in such a condition. I give credit to those people who are trying to maintain our roads in the best condition possible. But in this respect, too, I would suggest that a heavy vehicle at a high speed is less dangerous than a light vehicle at a lower speed. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Parow spoke about the importance of our sea routes. This afternoon I want to emphasize the importance of our roads. We here in the Cape have only one route with a permanent surface which extends from the west to the east. Apart from the road which extends from Cape Town to Mossel Bay and from there in an eastward direction, we have no other road which is really a through road from the national road between Touws River and Bloemfontein to the east. For that reason I should like to refer the Deputy Minister to National Route 19. That is the road from Dordrecht via Matatiele to Kokstad. As the Deputy Minister himself knows, the road between Matatiele and Kokstad is being tarred at the moment, but money has not yet been voted for the road which extends from the junction between Queenstown and Jamestown via Dordrecht to Elliot, Maclear and Matatiele, in view of the fact that the funds which will be provided for the construction of this road, will be provided by the Treasury. Last year the sum of R60,000 was voted for the demarcation of the road from Dordrecht to Maclear. The road from Maclear to Matatiele has not yet been demarcated. I should like to urge the Deputy Minister not to have the road from Maclear pass through Mount Fletcher, as was originally proclaimed by the National Transport Commission, but through the white area of Maclear and through a small area of the Transkei, and then to have it link up with the white area of Matatiele so that the smallest possible part of that road may pass through the black area. To us this is a very important matter, and it is a very important road. The nearest through road to Natal and the east is the one via Van Reenen’s Pass. Here in the south there are no through roads. When this road has been constructed, it will put a stop to the over-loading of those roads leading to the east and it will contribute to the traffic from the north-western Karoo, the central Karoo and the southern Free State passing through to Natal along this road. This is a very important matter and I hope that the Deputy Minister will see to it that this road will be built as soon as possible. We are aware of the credit restrictions. We know that it implies problems for us, but we also know that if this road is built, it will assist greatly in the development of the Transkei.

I must say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Harrismith when he criticizes the application of the 70 mile per hour speed limit. I think that it has had a very efficacious effect on keeping down the accident rate. I think it is still perhaps a little too soon to judge, but certainly after the Easter week-end experience it seems to me that the 70 mile per hour speed limit is working well. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not listen to the speed merchant from Harrismith and remove that speed limit. I think that the comparisons he draws between the reduction of the accident rate in the country districts and the cities are not relevant at all because quite obviously one expects a higher accident rate in the cities. There is a greater density of population. There are more cars on the road and there are pedestrians to cope with. I think the majority of these accidents involve pedestrians. I hope that we will continue with the experiment of the 70 miles per hour limit in an effort to keep down the rate of accidents in South Africa.

I want to come to another matter. I want to discuss item L—Loss on Operation of Railway Bantu Passenger Services to and from Bantu townships. This is a large amount, but of course it is essential that we have it on the Estimates. It is part of the price we have to pay for locating townships very far out of town. When we realize that in South Africa, unlike other countries, the commuting public is the poor public and not the rich, I think we all realize the need for subsidizing these transport services. In other countries it is the middle class and the rich who live out of the cities. They move to the suburbs and the country districts and they commute in and out of the cities every day, sometimes spending as much as an hour each way, in order to reap the benefits of living in the country and bringing up their children in more peaceful surroundings than the large cities. In South Africa, however, the situation is different. Here it is the poor people who are the commuters, largely the non-Whites, because their townships are generally located very far out of the cities where they work, so that in Johannesburg, for instance, there is the vast complex of Soweto with something like half a million inhabitants, living anything from seven to 12 miles out of town. Added to that, there is the Indian community, which lives from 17 to 21 miles out of town, and the Coloured community, which lives six to seven miles out of town. So, all in all, we have a vast population using the transport services from that area lying to the southwest of Johannesburg into the city areas, because more and more Africans and non-Whites are being employed in the central area of Johannesburg as they take employment in the commercial and financial undertakings in the city, together with those employed in the industrial areas on the perimeter of Johannesburg.

Now, when we realize that something like 6 per cent of the budget of Africans in Soweto is spent on transport, then, of course, we realize how necessary this item of subsidization is. The point I am going to raise, is that we are likely to see an increase in this amount and not a decrease in the subsidy as the years roll on. This is due to the fact that the population in those areas is increasing all the time. The estimate of one expert is that by the year 1980, something like 250,000 people will be using the transport services between Soweto and the centre of Johannesburg. The more people you have using these services, the greater the subsidy is going to have to be, strangely enough, because of the fact that it is very difficult to control the intake of fares and the number of passengers who use those train services. I have raised this question on several occasions with the hon. the Minister, and I know that services have been improved. But they never keep up with the increase in the population, and though there may be a train every two or three minutes, transport is still not adequate to serve the population, which is increasing all the time. It is going to be very much less possible to serve the population by the year 1980 or 1985. I think it is now that the hon. the Deputy Minister has to start planning for the provision of transport services. They do not have to be only railways, although this, I think, is the most effective way of moving masses of population. Possibly mono-rail services and national road services with properly run bus services to augment the existing rail services to these townships could be planned. More important, however, is the necessity to plan for a spread of townships to accommodate the future population, because I think the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Minister are both practical men and they both realize that however many efforts are made by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, we are not going to have a reduction in the population around the huge cities like Johannesburg. Therefore we have to plan now to accommodate this increasing number of passengers from the townships into the industrial and commercial areas.

What worries me, is that the townships are always planned in one area only. To all intents and purposes, as far as Johannesburg is concerned, we have a vast commuting public, moving from point A to point B at peak hours, which is from 4.30 in the morning until about 8 o’clock and that same huge population moving from point B back to point A in the peak hour in the late afternoon and the early evening. This, I think, makes for inefficiency in service. I think it is dangerous. It means all those passengers and trains are running on the same lines and some diversification is essential, ether different types of transport such as mono-rails or road services—or, even better, the siting of future townships in other areas. I think it is quite crazy to put these huge populations all in this one specific area and to have as I said, this vast commuting public going from point A to point B and back again every single day. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will consult with his colleagues, the Ministers of Planning, Community Development and Bantu Administration, when townships are planned, or with an eye to the provision of proper transport services for the workers of Johannesburg. I cannot speak for the other cities, because I do not know enough about them. But I would say in Cape Town the situation must be much the same, because most of those townships are all located now, be they Coloured or African, between Cape Town proper and the airport. They are all out in the same direction. The planning, I think, has been lacking in the past, because there have been attempts simply to enlarge the existing area further and further in ever widening circles, instead of locating those townships elsewhere, so that the provision of transport can be made more easy. As I said, this question of peak traffic will then perhaps be less aggravated by population increases than is the case at the present stage.

At the outset of his speech the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke about the co-ordination of transport and pointed out the need for better co-ordination. It is of course not a need which has only recently arisen. It is a need which has existed for many years. As far back as 1929 a commission of inquiry investigated the need for the co-ordination of all forms of transport in South Africa and from time to time, as the hon. member himself knows, this matter has been discussed and argued quite frequently. But the hon. member was quite right in pointing out that a commission of inquiry, i.e. the Marais Commission, is at present investigating the entire matter. I want to tell him that it has now finished hearing verbatim representations and the evidence of the Commission. The Commission is at present meeting in Pretoria in order to confer on its findings and recommendations. Good progress is being made with the final stage of the Commission’s activities, i.e. the drafting of its report. Parts of the draft report have already been drawn up and according to the progress which is being made the Commission should report before the end of this year (1967).

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also asked me to explain to him how the estimates of the subsidy for the Bantu passenger services of R10.8 million were drawn up. To return briefly—I shall try to explain the matter to the hon. member as well as I can—to the R2.4 million in the Additional Estimates, in regard to which he has stated that there was no clarity in this House when the matter was discussed. In the Additional Estimates this amount is in respect of the actual loss as set off against the estimate for the financial years 1964-’65 and 1965-’66, and a revision of the estimated loss for 1966-’67. In 1965-’66 the loss was underestimated to an amount of R867,000. According to the revised estimate the original estimated loss for 1966 had been underestimated by R1,728,000. But the loss for 1964-’65 was overestimated by an amount of R156,000. To arrive at the amount of R2.4 million therefore, one does a bit of simple adding and subtracting. One adds together the losses which were under-estimated in 1965-’66 and in 1966-’67 and then one subtracts from that the loss which was overestimated for 1964-’65. That gives one an amount of R2,439,000. The Railways rounded off the underestimation to R2.4 million and mentioned that they would include the R39,000 in the following year, that is to say, in 1967-’68. The actual provision for 1966-’67 was R8.8 million therefore, as in the original estimates, plus R1.7 million, which had been underestimated and for which provision had been made in the Additional Estimates. In other words, the total amount for which provision was being made for 1966-’67 was R10.5 million.

In these estimates provision is being made for R10.8 million which is approximately R300.000 more than the total provision for 1966-’67. The reason for the expected increase is the expectation that more Bantu passengers will have to be conveyed. The fact that more Bantu passengers are being conveyed will have an effect on the salaries and wages of the Railway staff employed in those services, the interest and value depreciation on rolling stock and railway lines and the maintenance of buildings. This takes place principally as a result of the increase in the number of Bantu passengers. By now it ought to be clear to the hon. member too that it is impossible to state or specify in advance what the amount is which could be attributed to each one of these reasons for the increase, for the simple reason that the losses are calculated on the basis of a calculated cost and the actual loss can only be calculated after the financial year has elapsed, after the time has expired. I hope that is clear to the hon. member.

Will it be correct this year?

It is a calculation—and calculations are sometimes correct, sometimes incorrect. Surely the hon. member knows that the United Party’s calculations have been wrong for the past 20 years.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also said that we cannot play with human lives. He was speaking about the safety of our airports. I should like to give him the assurance, and I should also like to give the country the assurance, that our large national airports are as safe as they could possibly be. If we were now to ask how safe these airports are in respect of the landing and taking-off of our aircraft, of the various types of aircraft, then we would have to ask ourselves what requirements are laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organization at those airports which have to be used by international air conveyancers. The National airport in South Africa, i.e. Jan Smuts and Louis Botha which are used for regular international aviation traffic, and the J.B.M. Hertzog Airport, which has been nominated as an alternative international airport, must comply with these requirements. The International Civil Aviation Organization lays down certain requirements in respect of the physical properties, aviation traffic guidance services, communications, navigational aids, meteorological services, and search and rescue services. I do not want to go into details at this stage except to give the Committee the assurance that in respect of all these matters which I have mentioned the South African national airports have complied with the requirements laid down by the aforementioned body.

Is the programme not going to be intensified a little?

Of course From time to time there have to be supplementations as developments take place. It is obvious that there will always have to be improvements. The Department of Transport often goes much further than merely to comply with the requirements laid down. For example, if the manual of a certain type of aircraft requires a runway with a minimum length of 6,000 feet, the Department will construct a runway of, say, 6,500, or even 7,000 feet there. In the provision of all these aids there is always the closest liaison with the South African Air Force and the South African Airways. It would be misleading, however, to maintain now that our airports are 100 per cent safe. There is always the human element which must of course be taken into account. Officials of the Department may make errors. The judgment or skill of the pilot or the maintenance engineer in question may prove inadequate, but I should like to give the hon. member and this Committee the assurance that the Department of Transport is doing everything in its power to maintain sound standards and procedures throughout. I should like to give them the further assurance that the Minister’s policy has always been that, as far as the safety of our airports as well as of our air services are concerned, money may not and cannot play any part. Safety must be promoted as far as possible, regardless of the costs. I should like to give the assurance that that is also my attitude in regard to this matter.

Then the hon. member for Durban (Point) has asked for information in regard to the increase in the mileages of the Department of Information. I want to tell the hon. member that the Department itself is responsible for calculating the mileages which it covers. They base their calculations on the services which they have to render, taking into consideration any expansion or diminution of activities envisaged for the coming year. The only reason for the increase of 300,000 miles in its activities as indicated by the Department Information was the expanding of the activities of the Department. The hon. member can take this matter further when the Vote “Information” comes up for discussion.

The training of aircraft pilots by private bodies is not being restricted, it is in fact being encouraged. As the hon. member is probably well aware, the Government contributes R40.000 per year in the form of a subsidy to civil aviation.

As far as radar control is concerned: Tenders have been called for the J.B.M. Hertzog Airport. and at Louis Botha, Jan Smuts and D.F. Malan Airports, radar control has already been put into operation.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also said that there is such a demand for transport that use is being made of illegal transport. However, use is not being made of illegal transport because there is such a demand for transport but because there are people who are willing to run the risk of undertaking illegal transport at lower prices than those or the authorized conveyancers.

The hon. member also spoke about the transfer of transport services in the Transkei. I think the hon. member is labouring under a misapprehension. This matter is actually concerned with Railway Road Motor Services and the hon. member will therefore realize that it has nothing at all to do with the Vote which is now under discussion.

No, Chief Matanzima said the Department of Transport.

I give the hon. member the assurance that the Department of Transport is not concerned in this matter at all—that matter has nothing to do with any services which are controlled by this Department.

Then that is not the case—there is going to be no transference of transport services?

Yes, the Transkei Government does of course have its own Government Garage. The hon. member also stated that he had heard that a person had recently been appointed who was in control of the sub-divisions of Civil Aviation and the Marine Division. I do not know to what person the hon. member was referring. I know of no such appointment. Surely the hon. member is aware that since 1959 or 1960, somewhere thereabouts, a Deputy Secretary has been in control of these two sub-divisions of the Department. Perhaps that is the person to whom the hon. member referred.

Were there no changes in the C.A.A.C., etc.?

No, the hon. member also asked for an assurance for fishermen. Well, there is a Government scheme in this connection. As far as the loading or over-loading of fishing boats is concerned, there are no regulations anywhere in the world. There is an informal agreement with factories that they will not receive fish from boats which have been over-loaded. Inspections take place annually.

In respect of the Solas Agreement, there are various countries, such as Italy and Ireland, which are not members. We shall obtain membership when all the regulations have been published in June this year. The hon. member also asked whether adequate regulations and regular inspections existed in respect of our ships. The Department has increased the number of surveyors from six to 14 as a result of the appointment of seven surveyors, especially for fishing vessels. The surveyors make regular inspections and there are adequate statutory provisions and regulations to make that possible.

In regard to the allegation made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) in regard to what the Minister had said in 1962, the hon. member for Middelburg has already replied to that. It is correct that there was ILS. in Durban in 1962, but it did not work satisfactorily because it was obsolete, and ILS. has already been installed there and will be tested one of these days by this airport. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Parow had something to say about Safmarine ships. They are as well-equipped with safety equipment as any other ships in the world. They have all the modern navigational aids such as radar, radio-direction finders and echo-sounders, etc. They also have two safety certificates and the South African certificate to comply with the South African provision, and a 1960 Solas certificate to comply with the requirements of the countries at which they call.

The hon. member for Albany referred to navigational aids at Port Elizabeth and East London, and he asked whether they were adequate to cope with air traffic. I think so. East London is a safe airport as far as the landing and taking off of aircraft is concerned. It is safe under normal weather conditions and it is also safe when use has to be made of instruments in order to land, provided the procedures prescribed by the Department are strictly adhered to. The navigational aids which are available at East London are runway lights; approach lights on runway 28; VASI, a Visual Approach Slope Indicator on runways 10, 24 and 28; and the NDB, a Non-Directional Beacon which consists of a bead with a high capacity and a localizer with a low capacity; VOR; DME; a VDF homing device; and RT airfield control, low frequency. I shall reply to the hon. member in a moment in regard to the installation of ILS at East London and Port Elizabeth, but I want to state it in absolutely clear language, so that there may be no doubt in the public’s mind on this matter. I am not saying that the words of the hon. member will cast doubts on this matter, but I do think it is necessary, while these instruments at the East London Airport are being discussed, that the matter must be stated clearly and unequivocally. Even if ILS had been installed it would not have helped in the case of the Rietbok. The Rietbok had not yet reached the airport so that it could make use of ILS. It did not yet need ILS to be able to make its approach. It would only have needed it when it began making its approach in order to determine its angle of descent. The fact that the VOR was not in working order, could not have been a detrimental factor either. The pilot of the Rietbok was never lost. He knew precisely where he was all the time. He never had any doubts about his position. In any case, the NDB would have been sufficient to enable him to make a landing, because the signals are picked up by the aircraft’s instruments.

In regard to the installation of the instrument landing system at Port Elizabeth and East London, I want to say that this was requested during February, 1966. Tenders were closed on 15th August, 1966. In the meantime, however, it had been established that the Standard Telephones equipment had been made available, which complied with the latest requirements of the International Committee for Civil Aviation in regard to stability and reliability. On 7th December, 1966, the Department of Transport consequently recommended to the Tender Board that quotations be obtained from the Standard Telephones, one of the original tenderers, for the provision of the latest equipment, and that the tenders be held open. On 30th December, 1966, the Tender Board gave instructions for the former tenders to be cancelled and for new tenders for the equipment to be called for. New specifications for an instrumental landing system at Port Elizabeth and East London have now been completed and are being sent this month to the State Buyer. Quotations will then be asked for from the four firms which had previously submitted tenders. Tenders of this nature would include supply, installation and guaranteed operation and are held open for three months, subsequent to which the tenders are considered by the Department and a recommendation is made to the State Buyer. As a result of this it is unlikely that it will be possible to place an order before October, 1967. Calculated on the basis of the first tenders which are received, delivery of the completed installation will take place after 12 to 16 months. This period includes manufacture, shipping, installation test and training. It is highly unlikely therefore that the introduction of the instrumental landing system at the East London and Port Elizabeth airports will take place before 1969.

I thought you did not need them and that it was quite safe without them.

But I have told hon. members that from time to time improvements are made and I readily concede that an instrumental landing system will be an improvement at the airports.

The hon. member for Albany also spoke later on about the East London Airport. We are going to install TACAN at East London. It is a practical aviation navigational system, a piece of apparatus which supplies equipped military aircraft with both course and distance. The course element is quite different from the civilian VOR, while the distance element can also be used by civilian aircraft. It will be installed in 1968-’69.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked for uniformity here in regard to the municipal traffic laws, and also broached the matter of a central register for licensed drivers. I agree with him on both scores. Very good progress is being made with the introduction of a central register and I hope that it will be possible for us to install it by the beginning of next year. In respect of uniform municipal traffic control, I want to tell both him and the hon. member for Boland, who also discussed this matter, that it is a matter which I am also giving some attention to. I am still negotiating with the Provincial Administration in regard to the matter. Perhaps there are occasions when we do not see eye to eye on the matter but I am still busy trying to convince them that it is essential for a proper inquiry in this field to be instituted.

In respect of the idea, expressed by the hon. member for Boland, that the Government should take over traffic control from the Provincial Administrations throughout the country, I do not think that we should at this stage proceed to such a course. For a long time the present Minister of Transport has been struggling with the Provincial Administrations to persuade them to establish uniform legislation. The Minister has ultimately succeeded in doing so and last year the Provincial Administrations all placed uniform ordinances on their Statute Books. Tremendous progress has therefore been made in respect of this matter, and I think it is only fair to the Provincial Administrations to afford them an opportunity of showing to what extent they can succeed in making our road traffic as safe as possible. Apart from the uniform traffic ordinances which they have placed on their Statute Books, they have intensified their control over road traffic considerably. We now have a central body to promote uniformity and efficiency of control over road traffic. The Inter-provincial Advisory Council has been established which consists of an administrator as chairman and five members of the various Provincial Executive Committees, as well as the Secretary for Transport. I think that for the time being we should leave the matter at that in the hope that they will in fact make progress.

The hon. member for Harrismith had some sharp comments to make on the 70 mile per hour speed limit. I cannot agree with the hon. member. I am one of the people who had misgivings about the introduction of the 70 mile per hour speed limit, but I felt, in view of the fact that the Provinces reached this decision unanimously, that it would be worth the trouble of making this experiment. If the Provinces succeed with this 70 mile per hour speed limit in saving a number of lives, then it is worth the trouble of giving this 70 mile per hour speed limit a chance. Of course I am in full agreement with what the hon. member said in regard to our urban accident rate which is exceptionally high. I am in full agreement with him that it is essential that some attention be given to our urban traffic problems. Last year at the opening of the congress of the South African Road Safety Council I expressed the same idea which the hon. member expressed here to-day across the floor of the House. It is a matter, as I have already said in reply to the hon. members for Boland and Koedoespoort, which is receiving attention from me and in regard to which I am still busy negotiating with the Provinces.

The hon. member also expressed criticism in regard to the construction of national roads, particularly the national road by-passing Harrismith. It is of course an existing national road. It is because we experienced difficulty in regard to our old national road system that the National Transport Commission decided to develop a full-fledged through-road system for our country, a through-road system which had restricted entrances, which did not have the same faults as our old national road system and which would also be a permanent asset for our country in future.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort has expressed his appreciation to the Secretary of Transport and the general manager of the Road Safety Council for the part they have played in promoting road safety in the country. I want to thank him for that because they are unable to do so themselves. I think that they are deserving of thanks, particularly the Secretary for Transport, who has over many years played a very important role in this matter. Although he is no longer chairman of the Road Safety Council, I think that his interest, his heart and his love is still with the promotion of road safety.

The hon. member for Aliwal referred to the road between Matatiele and Kokstad. I just want to tell the hon. member that the road has not yet been finally planned. I shall submit his representations in regard to this matter to the National Transport Commission.

The hon. member for Salt River asked for more money to be made available from the National Road Fund for national roads. It is a matter in regard to which the hon. member for Salt River also had something to say last year. Apparently he did not listen to my reply, because I gave him the assurance that the money which is being paid into the National Road Fund by means of the levy paid on fuel is not the only money out of the Road Fund which is used for the building of roads. The hon. member, who was previously a member of the Cape Provincial Council, ought to know that a large portion of the revenue of the Road Fund is given to the Provincial Councils in the form of subsidies for road building.

In addition the hon. member for Salt River spoke about the shortage of technical staff in the national roads division. This matter has received attention, and the position as far as the national roads division is concerned has already improved considerably, although it is not yet as one would wish to have it. The hon. member also asked for a priority list to be drawn up in regard to the building of national roads. There is a priority list of course. The Transport Commission plans ten years in advance. The list and planning is considered each year by the advisory committee. This committee consists of the Secretary for Transport as chairman and four members of the Executive Committee. This Committee makes regular recommendations to the National Transport Commission. The large amount which the National Roads Fund still has in hand has already been allocated to the various cities in respect of urban through road schemes for which R50 million has been allocated.

Then the hon. member for Salt River also referred to the question of safety at sea. I should like to assure him that the Department supervises the building of larger ships and that smaller ships are inspected immediately after they have been constructed. Before a licence is issued for fishing or for any other trade, a certificate of safety must be obtained from the Department. The Department’s surveyors cover the entire coast and the harbour masters, the customs officials and the managers of fisheries co-operate very closely to ensure that the ships are seaworthy and are equipped with life-saving aids and equipment.

To the hon. member for Houghton who asked for improved Bantu passenger services I just want to say that it is of course a matter which receives attention from the Department from time to time, and in order to satisfy her I shall once more refer the matter to the interdepartmental committee on the transport of urban Bantu.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of clarity I just want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this one question. In his reply he created the impression that I had asked a question which had allegedly implied that I had doubts about the safety of the Safmarine ships. I said absolutely nothing of the kind and I do not know why the hon. the Minister gave that reply, but that is the impression it left. I would like him to rectify the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once that I am sorry the hon. member misunderstood me. That is honestly what I understood him to say, but as you know we are sitting far away from one another and it is not always possible to hear clearly what an hon. member says while there are people walking back and forth in front of you.

Mr. Chairman, the atmosphere in this debate has been so pleasant all afternoon that one does not want to spoil it, and for that reason I feel myself at liberty to speak about atmosphere and perhaps say a few things about the Weather Bureau. I am doing so because South Africa has a very proud record in regard to its meteorological observations and research, particularly in the Antarctic area. As laymen we often wonder why so much specialized manpower is utilized and why there is such a large amount on the Estimates again this year in respect of the Weather Bureau, and in particular for our Antarctic research. Our reply is that South Africa as a scientifically-developed country is thoroughly aware of its membership and responsibility to the international scientific community. I feel that it is our moral duty towards the international scientific community to make our contribution there since South Africa is, figuratively speaking, one of the five countries which borders on the Antarctic. Our Antarctic research attempts are also part of a deliberate international attempt to gain more knowledge in regard to this barren continent, but more particularly because it exercises a tremendous meteorological influence on the Southern Hemisphere. Because that is so, and because the Antarctic and the sub-Antarctic conditions exercise such a tremendous influence on our weather conditions, it is almost the obvious thing to-day that it should be meteorologists in particular who take the lead in the development of our scientific interests in these regions.

I do not want to elaborate on the manifold functions of the Weather Bureau in the short time which I have at my disposal. Everything in regard to that matter has been set down in the report of the Department of Transport which was laid upon the Table here. Nor do I want to elaborate on the importance of the various functions of the Weather Bureau, except that one can perhaps say that as far as weather predictions are concerned they are no longer based on pure guess-work, as is commonly believed to-day. In a country like South Africa which is to a large extent subject to fluctuating climatic conditions, it is from the nature of the case vitally important to have at one’s disposal sufficient meteorological data, which is often collected over the course of many years, in order to be able to undertake proper planning. These meteorological details are of decisive importance in the determining of many matters. I am thinking for example of the determining of the potential and the scope of water schemes. It is necessary to determine whether certain areas are suitable for the cultivation of agricultural crops and even for the location of industries. To be able to accumulate this data and to apply it as reliably as possible it is essential that we should have at our disposal a network of sources from which this data may be obtained and that that network should be extended as far as possible. In this connection I should like to ask that we give very serious consideration to Bouvet Island as a meteorological station. Meteorological observations from Bouvet Island will greatly facilitate the meteorological predictions in South Africa. The entire meteorological world has been interested for many years in such a project. The position of our present weather stations on Gough Island and on Marion Island lie more or less within a funnel shape in relation to the southernmost point of South Africa. The position of Marion Island is on a longitude 37.45 degrees east, whereas that of Gough on the other hand is on a longitude of 9.55 degrees west. Between these two points lies Bouvet on a longitude of 3.24 degrees east, which is roughly, if one were to look at its position on a map, in the middle of that funnel. That fact that it is in the middle, gives us an indication of the importance of the position of that island as a meteorological station. It indicates that there may apparently be a deficiency in our network which may in this way be met. According to the report of the Department of Transport which has been laid upon the Table, a South African expedition has already explored this island. It has been found that there is a very suitable area for the erection of a manned weather station. That is why I want to insist strongly to-day that we should now examine the possibility of placing a manned station on Bouvet as well. If there are considerable practical problems in this connection which can at this stage impede the establishment of a manned station on this island I think we should in the meantime consider whether we cannot place an unmanned station on that island.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on his careful study of geography and agree with him that if possible we should place an unmanned station on Bouvet Island. With the advances in electronics and automation I think this should be possible. After all, if the Americans can scrape a bit of earth off the moon, the South Africans ought to be able to establish an unmanned station on Bouvet Island.

I want to leave the skies and come back to earth. I refer to road safety. In the first place I want to draw attention to the fact that all traffic uniforms are designed to hide the policeman as much as possible. The uniforms that they use vary between the English khaki, which was believed to be difficult to see against a background of earth or trees, the German field grey and the French horizon blue. In other words everybody wants to hide the policeman. The sight of a traffic policeman has a psychological effect on traffic. Few accidents will take place where you can see a policeman. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he instruct the Road Safety Council that they carefully consider giving the traffic policemen an outstanding uniform. I suggest the colour of the uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is a bright scarlet. It was of course designed to be seen on snow, but it is also a colour which is easily seen elsewhere and I am sure that while it might not be popular with the wearers, it would nevertheless be seen from a distance.

I know it may be said that red is a sign of danger but nevertheless women wear red dresses and even men may wear red suits if they like. There is, therefore, no bar to red being used and I am sure that psychologically the effect of these uniforms on accidents would be beneficial. I also know that it has been suggested, and suggested in official circles, that plain clothes policemen should be used to trap traffic offenders. I speak strongly against this, very strongly. To use plain clothes policemen to trap traffic offenders is a shocking thought and can be so easily abused. I do not think that, on my way home at night if I were stopped by a plain clothes policeman I would stop at all. Many people feel the same, I am sure. The law should be seen—it should have a psychological effect as well as the effect of putting manacles on people. Therefore I hope the State will take strong action against any effort to use plain clothes policemen for this purpose.

Another matter which has dangers is the absence of bumpers on the rear of lorries. The absence of bumpers on the rear of lorries has been the cause of many accidents. Ford in England recently carried out certain experiments in this regard using driverless cars. He used an Anglia travelling at 30 m.p.h. and brought it into collision with the rear of a stationary lorry. He found that when the lorry had a bumper the Anglia could be stopped at about the level of the middle of the front wheel, whereas if the lorry had no bumper the Anglia could be stopped only at the level of the front glass screen—in other words, in this instance the danger to people was magnified enormously. I know the Government require lorries to display stripes at the back but what they have not done is to require these lorries to have good lights. Lights of lorries at present are shocking and nine times out of ten the small reflector is covered with mud as is the small light at the back. As a matter of fact, the whole question of the damage which can be caused through collisions with the rear of lorries should be considered. When we see these marvellous lights of passenger cars we want to know why lorries cannot have the same? Furthermore, why cannot a lorry have a rear bumper? It is no use saying that these stripes are effective—they are effective but not effective enough nor are they always left uncovered when tarpaulins, for instance, are used.

Another source of danger is the habit of road gangs not to take away their notices after they have finished with their work. This is a matter which should be attended to immediately. For instance, road gangs put up a notice indicating that the road is narrowing. However, they have since gone away and one finds that the road does not narrow. Similarly, they will put up a notice “obstruction ahead” but when one gets there one finds no obstruction. What is the effect of all this? The effect is that when one sees such a notice one takes no notice of it. That is the effect. This is happening day after day. The Minister should instruct the Road Safety Council to see that it be a strict instruction that where work has been completed all notices should be removed at once—not to-morrow or a week later, but at once. These may be small things but they have cost lives.

Lastly I should like to consider the contribution of chronic ill-health to accidents. Recently a conference was held in Germany where it was stated by people who investigated the matter that .3 per cent of accidents were caused by ill-health of the drivers, ill-health of which the licenser took no cognizance. The facts have not yet been fully processed but the feeling is that something ought to be done. In this respect I think firstly of the diabetic. I am not for one moment suggesting that all diabetics should be refused licences—far from it. However, I do suggest that any diabetic of whom it is known— something which can easily be found out— that he cannot stabilize his blood sugar level —and any doctor can tell this—should not be given a licence. This type of person is liable to blackouts and attacks of semi-consciousness. [Time expired.]

In the short time I have at my disposal I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention the urgent necessity for a regional airport for the Southern Cape. At the moment there are two airports in the Southern Cape, one at Oudtshoorn and the other at George. Both these airports are being used by Dakotas of the S.A. Airways. Now we know that the S.A. Airways, wherever it operates, renders excellent service, service of which the Department and staff may be justly proud, and which is appreciated by the public. The Administration also goes out of its way to ascertain the requirements of the air-travelling public and to supply those requirements as far as possible. If one pays a visit to our larger airports and one sees what is being done there to make things more comfortable for the air-travelling public, then we see an example of the practical application of this policy. But unfortunately I cannot say the same, not even to a lesser extent, of the two airports which are at the moment serving the Southern Cape. The buildings at these airports are in a sad state and the waiting rooms leave much to be desired. We also find that passengers sometimes have to be transported in all haste from the one airport to the other by taxi. I think it is fair to say that where we have top-class service at other places, at other terminals, we have shabby service at these two airports. If we take a close look at these two airports we will soon find that neither of them is suitable for further extensions. In the first place both of them are situated close to mountains. That in itself is dangerous.

In addition it is doubtful whether the runways could be lengthened to a sufficient extent in order to accommodate modern aircraft there. The Department of Transport will therefore be compelled to look for another place where a modern regional airport can be laid out for the Southern Cape. If I, as a layman, were to suggest the area half way between Mossel Bay and George for that purpose then I think it would bear closer examination because that area will be able to serve the whole wide territory of the Southern Cape to better effect. If one looks at the demands which are made of an airport then one comes to the conclusion that those requirements could be met very well if one bears that place in mind. In the first place, it is, as far as the Southern Cape is concerned, very centrally situated. It is almost in the heart of that area. If one were to draw a wide circle, beginning at Knysna in the east through Oudtshoorn, Ladismith, and Riversdale in the west, and if one considers the area bounded by that circle, then one must say that the area between George and Mossel Bay is precisely in the middle of that complex. In that area there is also enough space for the longest runway which we need at present or which we may also need in future. If we bear in mind that the new Boeing 737 needs a runway of more than 6,000 feet, then a runway of that length can easily be provided in that area. In general, weather conditions there are very favourable. It is also close to the national road and the main railway line and is therefore very easily reached. I also think that electricity and local services, which are so essential for an airport, can be supplied there very easily.

If one considers the transport services of the Southern Cape then one must admit that they are relatively poor and that those poor transport services are impeding the development of that area. If we were able to get a national airport there, it would be an undisguised blessing for the inhabitants of that area and it would help a great deal to accelerate and invigorate the reluctant and slow development of that area.

We are thinking in particular of the advantages such an airport would have for that region. In the first place business and professional men who want to go there, can make use of those facilities and will reach that area sooner. If we think of tourist traffic then we also realize the value of such an airport. For the Southern Cape tourist traffic is a very important source of revenue, and it is one of the items which we can develop considerably in this way. There are the Cango Caves at Oudtshoorn, which are a particular attraction for overseas and domestic visitors; there is the incomparable beauty of the Wilderness and Tzitsikama; there are also fine beaches in that area. We know that the beaches about our cities are so crowded to-day that people are treading on one another’s toes, if not trampling one another underfoot. However, on the beaches in the Southern Cape there is still a great deal of room. If we had the transport services to those places, then it would be possible for all to utilize them so much more advantageously.

We are on the point of an expansion of the fishing industry to Mossel Bay. In the past few years we have had cases where fishing boats have often foundered in stormy seas. At Stilbaai alone approximately 17 fishermen were drowned one night. If those boats had been equipped with a radio set—as we expect the new boats will be—and they were to find themselves in stormy seas, then the radio service from the airport could be of great help to them in finding their direction and in that way reaching the harbour safely.

We must also realize that that area is situated approximately half-way between the two main airports, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. That area has a natural claim to an airport therefore. If we consider now that anybody living between Mossel Bay and George has to cover 300 miles by motor-car to get to an airport, then one realizes how necessary such an airport is.

We know that the expansion of such a modern airport would probably cost a great deal of money: According to calculations it could not be established for less than R1 million. We also know that it is Government policy to cut down on Government expenditure. We have no fault to find with that. In fact, the State must set an example to private initiative. But I nevertheless want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister when the monetary position of the State allows, to surprise us by putting this airport on the Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him because I want to deal with a matter which has not been raised here so far this afternoon. I am referring to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. There are certain matters connected with motor vehicle insurance which I should like to bring to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention.

The first matter concerns the token that goes on the windscreen of a vehicle. It has long been felt by insurance people that these tokens should bear the name of the registered owner of the vehicle on the token itself. The reason for this is that it would make it so much easier at the time of an accident for an injured party to know who the registered owner of the vehicle was. It would also greatly assist the police in the investigation of accidents. At present when a policeman looks at a token on a windscreen he has no idea whether that token is a false one, whether it has been picked up or removed from another vehicle and altered. When a vehicle is stopped at the scene of an accident and the token gave the name of the registered owner as, say, Smith, whilst the name of the driver was, say, Jones, the police would immediately know there is some reason for the driver being someone else than the registered owner. This point has been mentioned to me by members of the insurance fraternity. Another question about which they feel something should be done is the question of publicity. The Act was amended recently to make compulsory the reporting of an accident within 14 days thereof, but it is felt that members of the public are not aware of this, and people investigating claims on behalf of companies so often find that people involved in accidents are unaware of their duties regarding the reporting of those accidents to the insurance company.

Another point I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention is that of third-party insurance agents. I also mentioned this matter last year. At the present time the consortuim companies can appoint any Tom, Dick or Harry to act as agent for third party insurance. It has long been felt that the only people who should handle third-party insurance are in fact insurance agents, those people who are registered agents of some company or other. In this case they would obviously be registered agents of the consortium companies. I think that it is entirely wrong that a barber, for instance, or a fruitshop or a greengrocer can be an agent for third-party insurance. Of course, I have nothing against these people, but this is a highly specialized type of business and, therefore, it is only right that only people specialized in the handling of insurance should in fact be insurance agents. I should like the Deputy Minister to consider this aspect most seriously because it has caused a great deal of discontent. It also could serve another purpose. At the moment all agents handling tokens on behalf of the consortium companies are subject to inspection by inspectors from the department. Their job would be so much easier if agents like greengrocers, barber-shops and so forth were removed from their lists of agents. Therefore I think that this is a matter which could very well be given very serious consideration by the hon. the Minister.

Another matter I should like to refer to—a matter which, perhaps concerns only those people who are involved in accidents—is the difficulties in obtaining the name of the insurer. A person involved in an accident has to seek the name of the insurance company to whom he must direct his claim for damages. At the present time, as the Act now reads, such person has to proceed to the address of the registered owner of the vehicle and demand sight of the declaration. This obviously can lead to a great deal of trouble, and in fact does. To illustrate my point, I should like to mention the case of a fictitious Mr. Smith who has an accident in Cape Town and who is the owner of the vehicle. The injured party obtains certain information from the police, and that information is to the effect that this Mr. Smith comes from the Tzaneen district in the Northern Transvaal. Now, how does he proceed to get the declaration from there? Or Mr. Moonsamy Naidoo is given as the owner of the vehicle causing the damage. That is the name the licensing authorities have. But Mr. Moonsamy Naidoo on investigation is in fact found to be Mr. N. Moonsamy—although his friends know him as Moon, his creditors know him as Moonsamy and his debtors know him as Naidoo, in accordance with his identity card. This might all sound funny, but it is in fact the sort of thing encountered by people who are asked to investigate accidents on behalf of injured people. Now, surely a slight adjustment would put this matter right. If the injured party or his agent could in writing call upon the registered owner of the vehicle to make the declaration available to him, this sort of trouble would be obviated.

Another sort of trouble has arisen since the consortium was formed, although one must confess that it occurred before then just as frequently, namely the reluctance of insurance companies in making the relevant information available to injured people. There have in fact been cases which have gone to court because the insurance company’s identity could not be established, after the plaintiff had all the trouble in the world to get the identity of the owner of the offending vehicle.

I also want to direct the Minister’s attention to the number of companies at present in the consortium. This matter was raised last year and I do not see any reason why it should be raised again. Will the Minister consider adding to the number of companies in the consortium? There are companies who have done business and served South Africa for many years but who, for some reason or another, were not allowed to become members of the consortium.

Regarding these insurance “agents” who are not registered insurance agents in the strict sense of the word, it is said that these agents who practise all other sorts of business besides —they are, for instance, bus drivers, and so on—cannot give the required information to the injured party in respect of whom they had issued a token. When the injured person goes back to them to obtain information regarding the claim he considers lodging, either the agent who sold the token has disappeared—no longer does he live there—or, not being a qualified insurance man, he is unable to give the required information anyway. I trust that the hon. the Minister will give these matters serious consideration.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to what the hon. member for Port Natal said here in respect of companies which should be admitted to the consortium, I feel that there should at least be some selection. We recall that some three years ago there were companies which refused to undertake third-party insurance unless there was a premium increase of at least 20 per cent that year and a further increase of 20 per cent in the following year. At that stage the hon. the Minister intervened and found a small group of companies—originally there were six of them—which were prepared to undertake such insurance at the existing premium. We cannot refrain from conveying our sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the measures he took at that time. They are of very great financial benefit to the motorist. If the Minister had not acted then, an increased premium would have had to be paid, namely R20.40 per vehicle for third-party insurance that year. The additional 20 per cent demanded by the companies would have meant that the premium would have amounted to R24.08 in the following year. The Government refused to allow those increases and the consortium was then established. If we make a small calculation, we find that in respect of the past three years the total cost, if the companies had had their way, would have amounted to R68.56 compared with the R51 motorists have paid. That gives us a saving of R17.56. This was brought about by the Government despite very strong opposition by hon. members on the opposite side. I hope hon. members realize now that the Government took the correct action at the time.

The Motor Vehicle Insurance Act and the consortium of 16 companies are giving us excellent services. The total saving to date— according to page 19 of the Annual Report of the Department of Transport, is already R8 million, of which motor vehicle owners enjoy the benefits. It is a remarkable achievement. Nevertheless, I feel that in all modesty I should mention a few minor matters, matters which I still find somewhat disturbing.

One question to which I want to refer is the following. If an accident occurs, it is usually followed by a court action, and tremendously high claims are lodged. As a result of those high claims the premium cannot be decreased. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner prescribes certain amounts that may be paid out in the event of accidents. There are even insurance companies which go in for personal accident insurance. If a person is insured for R5,000, for example, and loses both hands or a foot the company pays out the full amount. If he loses a thumb, he receives 10 per cent, in other words, R500. If he loses a finger, he receives 5 per cent—R250. A thumb is supposed to be more valuable than other fingers. Therefore the principle of pegging claims already exists. If the pegging of claims is adopted under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act as well, most court actions will be eliminated. This, in turn, may result in lower premiums.

I am just mentioning these things as a suggestion which may perhaps be investigated with a view to effecting further improvements in the field of third-party insurance. As regards the intervention of the Government and the establishment of the consortium some years ago, I cannot refrain from expressing our sincere gratitude and appreciation. We are now reaping the good fruits of those measures. I hope hon. members on the opposite side realize to-day that they adopted a very wrong attitude when they objected so violently to the establishment of the consortium at the time.

Another matter I want to raise relates to our roads policy. In this regard I want to quote from a report which appeared in Die Vaderland of 27th March, 1967 (translation)—

The report concludes as follows—

I assume that the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite aware of the position. We realize that the task of the National Transport Commission is actually the financing and also the basic planning of our national roads. They also have to grant the ultimate approval for the national roads which are to be built. The function of the provincial councils is to deal with the details of the planning and also with the construction of the roads as such. As a result of the exceptionally high pressure which has been experienced in recent years, in consequence of the rapid development which has made the construction of roads so essential, it was difficult to keep abreast of developments and to provide all these roads timeously. The services of contractors were then used on a large scale. The contractors did not build cheaper roads. I recall the days when I was a member of the provincial council and we received numerous applications in connection with the construction of roads which we wanted to be carried out on contract. The tenders were all vastly more expensive than the roads could be built departmentally. But these contractors go to the departmental road camps and select the best men and offer them fantastic wages and benefits. All they do then is to add those expenses to their contract price. By these means they lure the best men, professional and technical staff, away from our road building units. As a result those units become inefficient. I know of one road building unit from which the people were simply taken away twice in succession, so that that unit virtually came to a standstill. [Time expired.]

Capt. W. J. B. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to continue with what the hon. member who has just sat down has said. We have wonderful national roads—they are probably too good, as far as traffic is concerned. At the outset I think that it is our duty to say a very big “thank-you” to the traffic officers and the members of the S.A. Police who did duty over the recent Easter holidays. I think that there is no question about it that their efforts were well rewarded with the low over-all number of accidents and deaths which were reported during the holiday period. There are many people still walking about to-day hale and hearty who could quite easily have been very seriously injured or even killed. One thing has emerged very clearly, and that is that a policeman in uniform has a deterrent effect on the careless and negligent driver and the road-hog. Is it not, therefore, a clear indication that more money could fruitfully be spent to provide larger patrolling forces for our public roads?

Order! Is the hon. member reading his speech?

Capt. W. J. B. SMITH: No, Mr. Chairman. I say, Mr. Chairman, that these amounts which we are paying in respect of road safety could quite easily be used to employ more traffic officers. I am not trying to point a finger at the road safety organization because I think that they in themselves do a very wonderful job of work. But I am wondering whether they, too, could not put uniformed men on the road in vans, something similar to the Automobile Association vehicles that patrol our roads at the present time?

What I really want to discuss is the question of level crossings. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could discuss it with or make representations to the committee that eliminates level crossings. Can something not be done to eliminate them much quicker than is being done at the present time? It is pleasing to note that new railway lines are being provided with grade separation structures. At the present time, in round figures, I think that there are approximately 3,500 level crossings still open in the Republic. But at the present rate of elimination only about one-third of these will be eliminated in 50 years’ time. Thousands of accidents will occur at these crossings within the next few decades. I base these figures on the basis of approximately 100 persons who are killed and approximately 150 injured in 350 accidents that take place at level crossings every year. The amount voted for the elimination of these crossings cannot eliminate more than approximately 25 every year, bearing in mind that the elimination of some of these crossings in urban areas are on the expensive side. Is it not time that bolder steps be taken to eliminate these crossings, for example by means of international tenders or private contractors?

Progress reported.